TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Columbus Day controversy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Columbus Day controversy - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Logic, to me, says that the percentage of sacrificial victims that were volunteers is low.
And giving the reason of. religious ritual as a reason for human sacrifice does NOT make it right. I am sure no one meant to imply that, I just thought I would throw it in.
Now I guess an argument could be made that, what if the colonization never happened? And the Aztecs and Mayan and Incans were still doing their thing, plucking the hearts out of people. Now do the people of Mesoamerica and South America have it better or worse than if the Spanish never came.
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Logic, to me, says that the percentage of sacrificial victims that were volunteers is low.
And giving the reason of. religious ritual as a reason for human sacrifice does NOT make it right. I am sure no one meant to imply that, I just thought I would throw it in.
Now I guess an argument could be made that, what if the colonization never happened? And the Aztecs and Mayan and Incans were still doing their thing, plucking the hearts out of people. Now do the people of Mesoamerica and South America have it better or worse than if the Spanish never came.
That would be true, logic would suggest that the amount would be low. BUT as we know religion is often not about logic. We have heard of people who died for their faith, like the guy for Valentine's day and many others. To people who do not believe in religion their death would not be logical but to those who do believe, their death can be explained.

I see you seem to be conflating various standards of examination.
1) Examine based on historical circumstance
2) Judging based on the standards of today
3) Examining based on impact of their society at that point of time
4) Looking at today's society then adopting a fatalistic approach which states that todays society is only possible because of every action taken in the past.
If you look at my response I have carefully stated each time a point is made which standard I am adopting. It is important because the result of any comparison is based on the currency of the criteria used.
post #33 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Logic, to me, says that the percentage of sacrificial victims that were volunteers is low.
And giving the reason of. religious ritual as a reason for human sacrifice does NOT make it right. I am sure no one meant to imply that, I just thought I would throw it in.
Now I guess an argument could be made that, what if the colonization never happened? And the Aztecs and Mayan and Incans were still doing their thing, plucking the hearts out of people. Now do the people of Mesoamerica and South America have it better or worse than if the Spanish never came.
Logic would also say that suicide bombers would be pretty hard to come by, but there sure seems to be a limitless supply of them.

Early followers of the Jewish religion, which became Christianity, sacrificed animals on a regular if not daily basis. That practice came to an end, even amongst the Jewish faith that does not believe that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice thus voiding the need to additional animal sacrifices. You don't think the same evolution could have happened with the American civilizations?
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Logic would also say that suicide bombers would be pretty hard to come by, but there sure seems to be a limitless supply of them.

Early followers of the Jewish religion, which became Christianity, sacrificed animals on a regular if not daily basis. That practice came to an end, even amongst the Jewish faith that does not believe that Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice thus voiding the need to additional animal sacrifices. You don't think the same evolution could have happened with the American civilizations?
HOLY COW, now you are comparing animal sacrifice to plucking the heart ourt of a living breathing human being? Wow.
Totally no comparison, IMO.
As for the suicide bombers they are just terrorists that are nuts (plus they want 72 virgins, LOL) But I do see your point there.

And who knows if they would have stopped human sacrifice on their own, they had been doing it for 100's of years. No, I really don't think they would have stopped unless forced to.
post #35 of 56
Ok, take logic out of the equation. A suicide bomber, at least, most of the time, has a very quick death.
Seems to me having your heart plucked out of your chest while you watch would be a bit more intense and not something to many would volunteer for.
I believe that the % of people who volunteered was VERY low.
post #36 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
HOLY COW, now you are comparing animal sacrifice to plucking the heart ourt of a living breathing human being? Wow.
Totally no comparison, IMO.
Are you this incredulous at any comparisons to Christianity because it is in the history of your religion?

The history of Christianity isn't a bed of roses. The Crusades, burning of witches (hundreds of innocent women, men, cats and other animals were murdered so they could prove there was "evil" in the world), the Inquisition were all justified by religion. Why can you not see the parallels? Religion is religion. It is real and true to those who believe it. Thousands of men volunteered to go fight in the Holy Land for the Crusades, many of them to die horrible deaths on the battlefields. Others who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives for the Christian God are called martyrs and saints. Why wouldn't there be volunteers to die for the sake of their society and gods?

But this whole conversation is REALLY off topic from the thread. Christopher Columbus didn't have anything to do with this area, and really nothing to do with a bunch of radicals trying to stop Columbus Day!
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb

But this whole conversation is REALLY off topic from the thread. Christopher Columbus didn't have anything to do with this area, and really nothing to do with a bunch of radicals trying to stop Columbus Day!
Yeah I know but I always enjoyed talking about history. History is the very first subject in school that I really liked and BRAGGIN TIME, BRAGGING TIME it was a subject where I got FULL marks (800) for the SAT Subject Tests / SAT II (or whatever it is now called) Although I never did pursue it in college (for practical reasons), I still enjoy reading about it and discussing it.
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Are you this incredulous at any comparisons to Christianity because it is in the history of your religion?

The history of Christianity isn't a bed of roses. The Crusades, burning of witches (hundreds of innocent women, men, cats and other animals were murdered so they could prove there was "evil" in the world), the Inquisition were all justified by religion. Why can you not see the parallels? Religion is religion. It is real and true to those who believe it. Thousands of men volunteered to go fight in the Holy Land for the Crusades, many of them to die horrible deaths on the battlefields. Others who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives for the Christian God are called martyrs and saints. Why wouldn't there be volunteers to die for the sake of their society and gods?

But this whole conversation is REALLY off topic from the thread. Christopher Columbus didn't have anything to do with this area, and really nothing to do with a bunch of radicals trying to stop Columbus Day!
We are ALL sinners.
Sorry, Christians have never done sacrifices. Jesus made that unnecessay, he was the ultimate sacrifice. He is the Lamb of God,
Oh yes, Christianity has a bloody history, no denying that.
I just find it hard to believe that people had their hearts ripped out for the sake of a religion is all.
You know, we all are entitled to our own opinion.
Not really off topic, about the conquering of a nation wheter is be North America or Mesoamerica.
But the atrocities you site happened a long long time ago and the only religious atrocities happening now (for the most part) are by the Islamic terrorists. And really to me, no matter what your religion if you do killing and commit terrible acts you are NOT living your faith no matter what it is.
post #39 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
Yeah I know but I always enjoyed talking about history. History is the very first subject in school that I really liked and BRAGGIN TIME, BRAGGING TIME it was a subject where I got FULL marks (800) for the SAT Subject Tests / SAT II (or whatever it is now called) Although I never did pursue it in college (for practical reasons), I still enjoy reading about it and discussing it.
I understand, it is a fascinating subject. My father was a history major in college, and his interest and bits of knowledge rubbed off on me. Good job on the SAT!
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
We are ALL sinners.

I just find it hard to believe that people had their hearts ripped out for the sake of a religion is all.
Well, no one is asking you to convert, just understand that religion is a very wide concept and is also quite difficult to define. And neither are we asking what a religion SHOULD be but rather what religion is.

We must be careful when analysing religion or definining it not to adopt the mindset of a particular character Thwackum in Henry Fielding's writing The History of Tom Jones:

Thwackum: "When I mention Religion, I mean the Christian Religion; and not only the Christian Religion, but the Protestant Religion; and not only the Protestant Religion, but the Church of England."
post #41 of 56
I don't know why. It just seemed to go here.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
But the atrocities you cite happened a long long time ago and the only religious atrocities happening now (for the most part) are by the Islamic terrorists.
And now to go really . I find it absolutely atrocious that some mainstream confessions condemn the use of condoms, and lobbied to link foreign aid to birth control counseling, in view of the incidence of AIDS in so many dirt poor developing countries, particularly in Africa.
To most Americans, KKK means Ku Klux Klan; to Germans, it means "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" (kids, kitchen and church); in other words, "Keep them barefoot and pregnant!" Sorry, but I don't buy the "Christian vs. heathen" argument. Far too many sins have been, and are still being, committed in the name of Christianity.
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Sorry, Christians have never done sacrifices.
I would certainly argue with this. Although we don't use the word "sacrifices" to describe martyrdom, a rose by any other name......
post #44 of 56
This is an interesting web site....it doesn't really address Columbus, but has some interesting information anyway.

http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/UShistory.html#GENOCIDE

Quote:
The decimation of indigenous American Indian cultures, beginning five centuries ago, is still being whitewashed by textbooks and movies. There were many friendly and close relationships between early settlers and native peoples, but these were not the main current in our relations. U.S. history is blighted by acts of genocide against native people, exacerbated by the fatal impact of new diseases spread by contact between new settlers and native Americans. Many aggressive attempts were made to reshape the Indian peoples according to European cultural models, whether under threat of death or, later, through exile to government boarding schools.
Government policies, well-documented elsewhere {1}, guided the destruction and containment of native American cultures, culminating in the problematic status of Indian people today. Despite this historical backdrop, there has been only the most begrudging admission of any public responsibility for the damage done to native American cultures.
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
We are ALL sinners.
Sorry, Christians have never done sacrifices. Jesus made that unnecessay, he was the ultimate sacrifice. He is the Lamb of God,
Oh yes, Christianity has a bloody history, no denying that.
I just find it hard to believe that people had their hearts ripped out for the sake of a religion is all.
You know, we all are entitled to our own opinion.
Not really off topic, about the conquering of a nation wheter is be North America or Mesoamerica.
But the atrocities you site happened a long long time ago and the only religious atrocities happening now (for the most part) are by the Islamic terrorists. And really to me, no matter what your religion if you do killing and commit terrible acts you are NOT living your faith no matter what it is.
What about Jephthah's daughter? Granted Jepthah was not yet able to be a Christian, as Christ was not born yet- but Jepthah worshiped the same Lord we do. Sacrifice, particularly of infants, was pretty common practice among the twelve tribes. Not to mention celebrations of mass genocide- i.e. Book of Esther. These are all perfectly good examples of just how fallen humanity is, regardless of which religious label one uses.
post #46 of 56
I repeat, Christians do not and never have done animal sacrifices, as per instruction by Jesus.
IMO the so-called Christians that committed or commit atrocities are NOT Christians, they are agents of Satan.
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by esrgirl
What about Jephthah's daughter? Granted Jepthah was not yet able to be a Christian, as Christ was not born yet- but Jepthah worshiped the same Lord we do. Sacrifice, particularly of infants, was pretty common practice among the twelve tribes. Not to mention celebrations of mass genocide- i.e. Book of Esther. These are all perfectly good examples of just how fallen humanity is, regardless of which religious label one uses.

Well, Jephthah was born a long time before Christ. But he did not sacrifice his daughter because the Lord told him to, he did it because of an oath he swore before going to War. He swore to "sacrifice the first living thing he saw after winning the battle" expecting it to be his dog. He blew it and it
was his daughter. So he fullfilled his oath. Barbaric yes.
Now, The story of Abraham and Isaac and God STOPPING Abraham from Sacrificing his only son is more indicative of the Heavenly Father that I worship IMO.
But brush that ALL aside as that was the OLD TESTAMENT and Jesus changed ALOT of that. No more "an eye for an eye", no more animal sacrifices.
IMO, alot of what was done in the Old Testament does not apply since the Son of God has walked the earth.
post #48 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I repeat, Christians do not and never have done animal sacrifices, as per instruction by Jesus.
IMO the so-called Christians that committed or commit atrocities are NOT Christians, they are agents of Satan.
So, basically you're saying there really wasn't a Christian Church for quite a while in history, when the Church was ordering the Crusades (and yes, there were a lot of attrocities committed by Christians in the name of Christianity), or "trying" witches, or expelling "heretics" via the Inquisition?

No offense, but you seem to want to bury your head in the sand regarding anything less than good in the history of your religion. Not all Christians are or have been good. There have been a LOT of horrible things done in the name of Jesus Christ, and it can't just be explained away with "they were agents of satan". That includes going to "new" lands to convert the natives and destroy their civilizations as well as massacre any of the natives who refused to convert. All in the name of their own superiority. (Of course, that happened "a long time ago", but then again, so did the human sacrifices which are, apparently, OK to condemn while dismissing anything that Christians did in the name of their God.)

And to head it off at the pass, this is not an attack on Christianity. There is no persecution of the Christians on the whole, and hasn't been since the time of early Rome. It is simply an attempt to own up to the real history of the Christian Church, because it ain't all rosey!
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
So, basically you're saying there really wasn't a Christian Church for quite a while in history, when the Church was ordering the Crusades (and yes, there were a lot of attrocities committed by Christians in the name of Christianity), or "trying" witches, or expelling "heretics" via the Inquisition?

No offense, but you seem to want to bury your head in the sand regarding anything less than good in the history of your religion. Not all Christians are or have been good. There have been a LOT of horrible things done in the name of Jesus Christ, and it can't just be explained away with "they were agents of satan". That includes going to "new" lands to convert the natives and destroy their civilizations as well as massacre any of the natives who refused to convert. All in the name of their own superiority. (Of course, that happened "a long time ago", but then again, so did the human sacrifices which are, apparently, OK to condemn while dismissing anything that Christians did in the name of their God.)

And to head it off at the pass, this is not an attack on Christianity. There is no persecution of the Christians on the whole, and hasn't been since the time of early Rome. It is simply an attempt to own up to the real history of the Christian Church, because it ain't all rosey!
No, I am not saying that at all, I am sure there were wonderful Christians in the Early church and there were evil people in the church (who, IMO, are NOT true Christians). I think if you will look back at my post you will find I have acknowledged the past atrocities committed. No, I am not burying my head in the sand. But fact is fact,all good comes from God, all bad comes from Satan. No matter if the evil is, supposedly, done for the sake of the Christian religion, it is still evil and of Satan and NOT of Christ.
Just as the evil done by the Islamic Terrorists is not of Allah, it is of Satan, no matter what they say.
I never said it was rosey. Boy, such an attack is unnecessary.
Just boils down to one single sentance - Good = God, Bad = Satan
post #50 of 56
No persecutions of Christians since "early Rome"? What would you call the horrible persecution of the Mormons in the 1800's? They are Christians and were horribly persecuted in our own country. The founder and prophet of the LDS church was murdered, along with his brother for goodness sakes. They were chased out of every state they settled in until they made it to Utah. There were massacres of Mormons by Americans, and so-called Christians (but not Christians IMO)
If that isn't persecution, I don't know what is.
post #51 of 56
Thread Starter 
Mormons got their own state out of the deal. Many would say that they were more of a sect than a form of Christianity which is why they were run out of other areas. Tolerance has never been a strong suit of some Christians.

I'm sorry, but this whole Christian Persecution thing in the modern era is a load. Christians pretty much run the western world, and have since the Roman era.
post #52 of 56
Mormon are Christians. The name of their church is, The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
So, the fact that they settled in Utah and "got a state out of the deal" negates the fact of their persecution? I am not understanding this at all.
Some would say they are a "sect"? Excuse me but they ARE Christians, they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. They are Christians make no mistake about it.
I think I would say that tolerance has been hard for the human race as a whole and we all need to work harder on it.
Read your history on the Mormons, it is as horrific in a lot of ways as the acts committed against the Native Americans.
We are all sinners.
Christians are and have been persecuted in modern times, it is a fact and burying one's head in the sand to anything does not change it.
post #53 of 56
How did this thread turn into another Christian thing though? Columbus day is not a Christian Holiday (in fact - it's really hardly a holiday). And if hordes of Buddhists had swarmed Europe and killed thousands in the 15th century I hardly think we'd be arguing it was for the good of the people (I mean, those 15th century Christians were really repressive to women, eh? Gotta stop that...).

I understand what you are saying re: radicals Heidi, but I do feel compelled to point out that the founders of our country were a small radical group who thought they had the power to change things.

Columbus Day is a silly holiday...
post #54 of 56
I, too, think Columbus Day is a silly holiday. But I have to work anyway so what do I care.
I just cannot stand Ward Churchill.
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Ok, take logic out of the equation. A suicide bomber, at least, most of the time, has a very quick death.
Seems to me having your heart plucked out of your chest while you watch would be a bit more intense and not something to many would volunteer for.
I believe that the % of people who volunteered was VERY low.
I have to disagree, if born from birth you were told that it was an honor to die that way, that it is a certain path to the afterlife despite what you did on earth, many did volunteer themselves to be sacrificed, we are using our own views on death, alot has to do with upbringing, (I do know because I am studying american indian history and have worked with an archaeology project and at the local musum in its archaeology department) The family whose child (if it was a child) would also be honored, through their grief.
post #56 of 56
Children and babies are not old enough to know what they are volunteering for. POW's for sure would not be voluntarily sacrificed.

That said, I love Archaeology, and would love to go to Mexico and Guatamala and see the pyramids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Columbus Day controversy