3 ms·

The rational take is to understand it within the context of recent expansionist rhetoric which includes the annexation of Canada, strong-arm purchase of Greenla

by tmpz22 2y ago

The rational take is to understand it within the context of recent expansionist rhetoric which includes the annexation of Canada, strong-arm purchase of Greenland, and conquest of Gaza and Panama. You don't have to go that far back in a history book to understand the dangers of expansionist rhetoric in a globalist world and how it is directly against American interests to threaten war with our neighbors and allies. Threatening war with neighbors and allies is not a Christian thing to do.

lazide 2y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it’s the most Christian thing folks have done in a long time Shoehorning conquest as uniquely Christian or even European is ahistoric. Almost every civilisation did it. And the Church was expansionist because Justinian was a literal emperor. (The exceptions to the rule being in the most recently-settled parts of the world, e.g. Australia. Mostly because they didn’t have time to get on with it.) We’re an expansionist species. That’s a curse and a blessing. Above all, it’s human.
  - lazide 2y ago
    I never said uniquely. But it was on the flag of all the entities involved in Europe, which makes it pretty European colonialist/invasiony adjacent at least eh? Hell, I didn’t even bring up the Conquistadors [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador], or the Crusades, which were also pretty explicit about the whole ‘bringing Christ to the unbelievers’. You bring up Australia, but the Church was insanely abusive to the natives. Same in Canada. Cultural annihilation and in some views genocidal. That is a type of conquering. It just didn’t make the radar of ‘war of conquest’ explicitly because they were so weak it wasn’t needed. Just ‘skirmishes’.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...] Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming these actions were ‘Christ like’. Unlike most Christians I know, I’ve read the Bible (many times). The Koran too. If someone tried to claim Islam wasn’t involved in expansion/conquering, I’d also have plenty of documentation lined up there too. And unlike Christianity, Mohammed was very explicit on the ‘go out and conquer in the name of god’ thing. And kill all the heathens (except the ‘good ones’). They’re just not relevant in the current political discussion eh? There are religions without a lot of ‘go out and conquer the heathens’ history - Judaism, Hinduism (they tend to just ‘absorb’/co-opt everything), Jainism, Daoism (maybe?). But at least European style Christianity definitely isn’t one of them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by tmpz22 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it’s the most Christian thing folks have done in a long time Shoehorning conquest as uniquely Christian or even European is ahistoric. Almost every civilisation did it. And the Church was expansionist because Justinian was a literal emperor. (The exceptions to the rule being in the most recently-settled parts of the world, e.g. Australia. Mostly because they didn’t have time to get on with it.) We’re an expansionist species. That’s a curse and a blessing. Above all, it’s human.
- lazide 2y ago
  I never said uniquely. But it was on the flag of all the entities involved in Europe, which makes it pretty European colonialist/invasiony adjacent at least eh? Hell, I didn’t even bring up the Conquistadors [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador], or the Crusades, which were also pretty explicit about the whole ‘bringing Christ to the unbelievers’. You bring up Australia, but the Church was insanely abusive to the natives. Same in Canada. Cultural annihilation and in some views genocidal. That is a type of conquering. It just didn’t make the radar of ‘war of conquest’ explicitly because they were so weak it wasn’t needed. Just ‘skirmishes’.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...] Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming these actions were ‘Christ like’. Unlike most Christians I know, I’ve read the Bible (many times). The Koran too. If someone tried to claim Islam wasn’t involved in expansion/conquering, I’d also have plenty of documentation lined up there too. And unlike Christianity, Mohammed was very explicit on the ‘go out and conquer in the name of god’ thing. And kill all the heathens (except the ‘good ones’). They’re just not relevant in the current political discussion eh? There are religions without a lot of ‘go out and conquer the heathens’ history - Judaism, Hinduism (they tend to just ‘absorb’/co-opt everything), Jainism, Daoism (maybe?). But at least European style Christianity definitely isn’t one of them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]