Gurus For Hire Enlightenment For Sale

[shel]

The point was that morals aside, it was a supremely idiotic and unsuccessful plan. But of course we know that it was never actually a plan for religious conversion, right?

Supremely idiotic if the measure of "success" was living conversions, yes.

Nonliving "conversion" is obviously not conversion at all. It's called genocide.

[shel]

Will the article convince that conversion-by-the-sword is a good strategy?

No

You're right. Truly an epic failure. I guess the consolation prize for the insanely moronic and immoral "conversion" strategy failure is all the land and resources that the Native American's once prospered in. At least it wasn't a total loss, aye?

[Virgo]

Will the article convince that conversion-by-the-sword is a good strategy?

No

You're right. Truly an epic failure. I guess the consolation prize for the insanely moronic and immoral "conversion" strategy failure is all the land and resources that the Native American's once prospered in. At least it wasn't a total loss, aye?

I don't think the Christians believed that killing them would cause them to convert.

Kevin

[shel]

I don't think the Christians believed that killing them would cause them to convert.

I think you're right again. They probably believed that by wiping them out they could take over all their land and resources. If that was their plan it was clearly a huge success. So it seems they were either religiously motivated and incredibly stupid, or they basically just took advantage regardless of the consequences to others.

[Virgo]

I don't think the Christians believed that killing them would cause them to convert.

I think you're right again. They probably believed that by wiping them out they could take over all their land and resources. If that was their plan it was clearly a huge success. So it seems they were either religiously motivated and incredibly stupid, or they basically just took advantage regardless of the consequences to others.

Like the indoctrinated sociopaths that they were, they saw the Natives as less-than-human or semi-human, and not god's people, simply savages. It's the history of the world, but I don't think it is because of 'religion' per se, but because of wrong views.

They also felt that man should till land, like it says in the Bible. So they had to get these savages off of it, so they could play the role of the humans that do what God says to do, and so on. But you see, this is samsara, this is normal.

Kevin

[shel]

I don't think the Christians believed that killing them would cause them to convert.

I think you're right again. They probably believed that by wiping them out they could take over all their land and resources. If that was their plan it was clearly a huge success. So it seems they were either religiously motivated and incredibly stupid, or they basically just took advantage regardless of the consequences to others.

Like the indoctrinated sociopaths that they were, they saw the Natives as less-than-human or semi-human, and not god's people, simply savages. It's the history of the world, but I don't think it is because of 'religion' per se, but because of wrong views.

They also felt that man should till land, like it says in the Bible. So they had to get these savages off of it, so they could play the role of the humans that do what God says to do, and so on. But you see, this is samsara, this is normal.

Jesus stood for love, compassion, humility and so on. If these Christians were not consistent with these values then how can it be said they were religiously motivated?

[Tarpa]

Oh I think it has everything to do with the religion itself, not just human nature.

Christianity is 100% androcentric, man was made in the image of god and the earth and all its resources and beings were made for man to do as he pleases with them, since they are all " lower " life forms, and the earth is nothing but a giant walmart of resources for man to use or destroy, just one of the many wonderful ideas christianity is based upon. This religion itself has no wisdom. It's adepts merely play with gods and demons and the rest just drag their bloody cross around, a symbol stolen from us and evidently used as an advertisement for what the victims of the churches imperial crusades could look forward to as their new lifestyle, if they weren't already introduced to the the fire and sword.

The church did long ago what the muslims are doing today , science is the only thing that put that rabbid dog in check, and the modern xtian cringes at the images of islamic violence on the news.
The history of Islam itself is violent, and people all the while talk of " extremists ", the eye of historical perspective does not exist in the media regarding certain " touchy " subjects, history ostriches in a putrid politically correct swamp. Neuroticism is on a hair trigger these days, everybody tip toes, walking down a dark hallway full of powderkegs, holding a candle, on the way to the crapper.
These are dishonest days, historical perspective is a political minefield. We are mesmerized by the magick of the industrial revolution, technological clap trap, lives spent, wasted, mostly at work, carrying a headful of pollution home, with a handful of straw given the ox as recompense for pulling the cart.
We are prostitutes of our time and energy, we've sold the world for a six pack that comes with a year long hangover, this thing they call life, is death in a hundred assorted flavors.
Religion is atrophy of an initial yogic experience.

[muni]

[

Jesus stood for love, compassion, humility and so on. If these Christians were not consistent with these values then how can it be said they were religiously motivated?

I think so, in history that when we people hear words of wisdom, we wrote the words down, based on 'understanding' by our own habits or habitual background. The result can differ from the actually meaning. And then we merely focus on the words. Ah! Meaning completely lost!

As then we turn off topic, off topic from the actually meaning/ wisdom.

[treehuggingoctopus]

The point was that you seem to be ignoring the more obviously compassionate side of Christianity involving Jesus and the "Doctrine of Love" etc.

The North American christianization process (as probably every other forced conversion, and certainly the vast majority of Christian ones) was predicated simultaneously on two narrations: that outlined (in)famously for instance in Exodus 34:11-15 (i.e., either convert and subjugate them all and then take their stuff or kill them all, erase their culture from the history and then take all their stuff) - and the complementary story, the one about the necessity of bringing the gift of Christianity to the stricken, light-bereft 'pagans' for their own sake. You can just as easily murder, enslave and rape in the name of 'Love' as in the name of greed or hatred. Just look at the British colonial empire and listen to its 19th c. poets laureate.

Come to think of it, it's still being done just like this in Asia, Africa and South America. Only these days the first of the two stories is rarely told explicitly.

[Dechen Norbu]

[gregkavarnos]

The point was that you seem to be ignoring the more obviously compassionate side of Christianity involving Jesus and the "Doctrine of Love" etc.

The North American christianization process (as probably every other forced conversion, and certainly the vast majority of Christian ones) was predicated simultaneously on two narrations: that outlined (in)famously for instance in Exodus 34:11-15 (i.e., either convert and subjugate them all and then take their stuff or kill them all, erase their culture from the history and then take all their stuff) - and the complementary story, the one about the necessity of bringing the gift of Christianity to the stricken, light-bereft 'pagans' for their own sake. You can just as easily murder, enslave and rape in the name of 'Love' as in the name of greed or hatred. Just look at the British colonial empire and listen to its 19th c. poets laureate.

Come to think of it, it's still being done just like this in Asia, Africa and South America. Only these days the first of the two stories is rarely told explicitly.

'ccept that all the kack and slash passages that "Christians" are fond of quoting (this includes Exodus) come from the Old Testament , which is actually Jewish. Christ himself never taught anything of the like. I think in all the Gospels there is only one or two accounts of a blood thirsty Christ, but even these are quite obviously symbolic, especially when viewed within the total context of his teachings. The whole "message to the pagans"stuff was actually more the mainstay of the church building disciples Peter (an ex-military man) and Paul (an ex-accountant).

[Dechen Norbu]

That's irrelevant, Greg. In the end, what matters is the impact it had on the world. If in the name of any religion harm is done and that same religion provides passages that support those actions, it's not without blame. Otherwise it's like saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, but guns are a big help while at it.

[ReasonAndRhyme]

Sorry, if this is off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of one of my favourite scenes from The West Wing - maybe this will lighten the discussion up a little:

[Dechen Norbu]

A really brilliant example of whipping the floor with someone who cherry picks the Bible for his own purposes - in this case criticizing homosexuality by quoting the passage that calls it an abomination - by using other atrocities recommended in the Bible that, however, are deliberately ignored by that same person and the society she lives in, even her target audience.

So, if we can and do ignore some morally wrong messages contained by the Bible, why keeping those that favor our bias while dropping those that would shame us? My take, they should have all been erased long ago.
At best, the sketch you brought us illustrates my point. The title shouldn't be bashing Bible bashers as that's nothing of what goes on in that sketch. It could be " defeat of a fundamentalist Christian with his own poison".

In "The West Wing", Martin Sheen is at his best. I used to watch it and didn't miss this particular episode. Thank you!

[Malcolm]

I don't see that we can propose "throw out all religious human activities" as part of the solution, either.

I did not suggest this. I said human beings must evolve beyond religion. Why, because the evil comitted in the name of religion outweighs its benefit.

Other people foolishly imputed the idea that I was advocating tossing out all human "religious" activity. "Religious activity" and religions are not the same thing. One can belong to a religion, for example, and not engage in any religious activity. One can engage in much so called "religious activity" without belonging to a religion.

Further, I explicitly stated that I was not advocating that we need to discard Dharma. Actually, if you examine what I said, what I said was that Dharma can help us evolve beyond religion.

Why? Because unlike the Abrahamic religious traditions, and their imperial tendency to enforce religious boundaries on others (resulting in colonial deformations called Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.), Dharma traditions (Here we can include "Hinduism", "Buddhism", "Taosim", "Confucism" and "Bon" for convenience) are essentially about self-inquiry, self-correction and self-realization through coming to know one's intrinsic nature. This is largely (though not wholly) absent in the Abrahamic traditions.

However, the overwhelming geo-political influence of the Abrahamic traditions has forced the Dharma traditions into supine postures where they de facto become identified as religions, effectively ghettoizing them. Hence we have "Hinduism", "Buddhism", "Taosim", "Confucism" and "Bon" and so on.

Even the modern notion of "history", which we pride ourselves on in the West, has its roots in the teleogical nature of Christanity. The Dharma traditions, on the other hand, have always been somewhat ahistorical because they all lack such a teleological nature.

[shel]

That's irrelevant, Greg. In the end, what matters is the impact it had on the world. If in the name of any religion harm is done and that same religion provides passages that support those actions, it's not without blame. Otherwise it's like saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, but guns are a big help while at it.

You're suggesting that religion was a big help in, for example, the Native American genocide?

For one thing it takes effort to intentionally skew religious views to suite ones actions, if those actions seem incongruent with religious values. So in that sense religion would be a hindrance.

But the most absurd part of this is that religious or even minor ideological motivations were needed at all. The American continent was a huge resource just waiting to be taken. If those who took it had no religious or ideological motivations or justifications for taking it would they have been like, "damn, look at this place, all this land, the gold... but we can't take it because we have no religious or ideological basis for doing so. Back to the old world, boys!"

[Virgo]

Jesus stood for love, compassion, humility and so on. If these Christians were not consistent with these values then how can it be said they were religiously motivated?

The source material for their ideas was the Bible.

Kevin

[viniketa]

I did not suggest this. I said human beings must evolve beyond religion. Why, because the evil comitted in the name of religion outweighs its benefit.

Thank you, Malcolm. I appreciate this clarification. It is a much different statement from, "Religion, such as it is, is pretty evil.".

Further, I explicitly stated that I was not advocating that we need to discard Dharma. Actually, if you examine what I said, what I said was that Dharma can help us evolve beyond religion.

This part, I think, was clear.

...the overwhelming geo-political influence of the Abrahamic traditions has forced the Dharma traditions into supine postures where they de facto become identified as religions, effectively ghettoizing them. Hence we have "Hinduism", "Buddhism", "Taosim", "Confucism" and "Bon" and so on.

"-Isms" of all types are labels, whether applied in religious or non-religious contexts. As labels, they are used specifically to reduce complexity and therefore ignore the richness of experience. Labeling is a propensity of human minds, in general. Therefore, I would argue that this is not result of the influence of Abrahamic traditions. I fail to see how Buddhists labeling all Christians as evil (as some in this thread and others have implied) are any different from Christians who label all non-Christians as savage, or from Islamists who label all non-Muslims as godless. It is possible to deplore the outcomes of certain actions, which have been motivated or justified by religious thought, without overgeneralizing to condemn all those who confess to that religion or, even more generally, to condemn all religion.

Even the modern notion of "history", which we pride ourselves on in the West, has its roots in the teleogical nature of Christanity. The Dharma traditions, on the other hand, have always been somewhat ahistorical because they all lack such a teleological nature.

Yes, which is why I recanted my earlier statement about history. Most of Western history has been told from a religious viewpoint, whether explicit or not. As for Dharmic traditions, rather than being "ahistorical", they are simply not dependent on a strictly linear re-telling of events to uphold a particular teleological conclusion.

Again, thank you for the clarification.

[Malcolm]

I did not suggest this. I said human beings must evolve beyond religion. Why, because the evil comitted in the name of religion outweighs its benefit.

Thank you, Malcolm. I appreciate this clarification.

You are welcome. Some people on this board would be well advised to seek clarifications before they launch broadside salvos. I.e. many people on this board are fond of shooting first and asking questions later.

M

[treehuggingoctopus]

'ccept that all the kack and slash passages that "Christians" are fond of quoting (this includes Exodus) come from the Old Testament , which is actually Jewish. Christ himself never taught anything of the like.

We don't know what Christ really taught at all. I'd be inclined to agree that he, or other 'heretic' Jewish teachers, may have taught the stuff that survives in gnostic gospels - but it's just a hypothesis right now, and in all likelihood will always remain one.

As far as the Old Testament goes - you know, for (orthodox) Christians it is no less canonical or holy than the New Testament. Exactly as important.

You're suggesting that religion was a big help in, for example, the Native American genocide?

It was more than a big help. Christianity is behind all the colonialism and all the cultural genocide the West has perpetrated over last 2000 years. It's not 'all because of Christianity' of course, but Christianity has been very much a major agent here.

Jesus stood for love, compassion, humility and so on.

Jesus has always stood for whatever one wants him to stand; the same with every other religious icon, the Buddha included. A metaphor, a prophet, a cosmic redeemer, a gnostic teacher, a Jewish revolutionary, a humanist reformer, a vengeful deity, a poet, a flesh and blood god, a spark of primal light, a piece of useless fiction: taking your pick make sure that the Jesus you choose is the one you'll be using for years.