What if?

[blankedboy]

I don't think anything would happen. Some people would be upset, but in the end those who have a strong faith would find someway to justify it.

 

[ae86gamer]

it would be denounced by the church.

silly

I agree.

 

[Goldbling]

the true believers would still believe none the less, they will say this is gods trial to see who truly believes in him and those who aren't true believes will just turn atheist, other will become sad but then recover shortly after and people like me would be running around saying i told you so to every christian i see

Because your a dick, right?

 

[Goldbling]

Both wrong, it was not racism, White Colonials did not destroy the Indian Americans because of their race, or because of their religion. It was for political reasons, expansion of land for their "tribe". As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

Spanish Settlers killed the Mayans because of there ceremonial rituals and quickly turned them into Christians

 

[ace_of_something]

I was hoping this was going to be a about the what if comics from marvel. Instead it's 'pointless religious debate #102,149'

you should change the title to be less vague

 

[Sane Man]

Both wrong, it was not racism, White Colonials did not destroy the Indian Americans because of their race, or because of their religion. It was for political reasons, expansion of land for their "tribe". As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

Spanish Settlers killed the Mayans because of there ceremonial rituals and quickly turned them into Christians

Again, no, that is incorrect.

The Spanish despised the Indian civilizations already there for their religion (not even religion, mostly the ritual sacrifices), but that was not why they were killed. They were called Conquistadors for a reason. They were there to establish new land to mine for silver and gold. The Aztecs had gold everywhere, as they did not value it as much as their European counterparts.

Cortes' men were even treated as Gods, and they went with it, pretending while living the high life for a bit until the Aztecs discovered that Gods did not pee, drink alcohol, and have sex with their women. They certainly would not have been enjoying the Aztec's hospitality (even under false means) if their goal was to kill them because of that same religion.

Yes, the Spanish coverted people to Christianity, but they also did that to most people they met. Just because a people are religious, and they go to war, it is not (and hardly ever is) because of their religion.

 

[Goldbling]

Both wrong, it was not racism, White Colonials did not destroy the Indian Americans because of their race, or because of their religion. It was for political reasons, expansion of land for their "tribe". As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

Spanish Settlers killed the Mayans because of there ceremonial rituals and quickly turned them into Christians

Again, no, that is incorrect.

The Spanish despised the Indian civilizations already there for their religion (not even religion, mostly the ritual sacrifices), but that was not why they were killed. They were called Conquistadors for a reason. They were there to establish new land to mine for silver and gold. The Aztecs had gold everywhere, as they did not value it as much as their European counterparts.

Cortes' men were even treated as Gods, and they went with it, pretending while living the high life for a bit until the Aztecs discovered that Gods did not pee, drink alcohol, and have sex with their women. They certainly would not have been enjoying the Aztec's hospitality (even under false means) if their goal was to kill them because of that same religion.

Yes, the Spanish coverted people to Christianity, but they also did that to most people they met. Just because a people are religious, and they go to war, it is not (and hardly ever is) because of their religion.

I know this, I was just saying the rituals utterly disgusted the Conquistadors. They would have disgusted me as well, the descriptions of said rituals are vividly horrifying

 

[Sane Man]

I know this, I was just saying the rituals utterly disgusted the Conquistadors. They would have disgusted me as well, the descriptions of said rituals are vividly horrifying

Yes, they were incredibly horrifying. However, you said they killed the Mayans BECAUSE of those rituals, which isn't true. They killed them because it was a war for their land. They certainly didn't like the rituals being performed, and perhaps that gave them some more justifications in doing what they did, but that was never the reason for assaulting them.

There are so many "religion causes so many wars" threads and people that actually believe that, that I feel I must certainly make myself clear as well as to anyone reading that would assume or already has assumed that to be the case.

 

[Goldbling]

I know this, I was just saying the rituals utterly disgusted the Conquistadors. They would have disgusted me as well, the descriptions of said rituals are vividly horrifying

Yes, they were incredibly horrifying. However, you said they killed the Mayans BECAUSE of those rituals, which isn't true. They killed them because it was a war for their land. They certainly didn't like the rituals being performed, and perhaps that gave them some more justifications in doing what they did, but that was never the reason for assaulting them.

There are so many "religion causes so many wars" threads and people that actually believe that, that I feel I must certainly make myself clear as well as to anyone reading that would assume or already has assumed that to be the case.

Oh, i did say that, my bad choice of words mate, my bad

 

[Sane Man]

Oh, i did say that, my bad choice of words mate, my bad

Hey it's no problem at all. You didn't curse at me, throw insults my way, bash whatever I said with no relevance to what the topic was or generally just be a complete piece of trash. I don't know if you are using the internet correctly =)

 

[Signa]

Well, HOPEFULLY, Christians would then look at the IDEA of Jesus, and not the necessity of the person. Nothing should change then, as Jesus taught a lot of good stuff to ignorant savages. I don't know where we would be today if people were constantly killing each other because some one pissed them off. I'm not saying that we ARE where we are now because of Jesus, but living in harmony is critical for any civilization. Without it, it would all be just tribal warfare.

I'm sure that what would happen though, is most Christians would start acting totally INSANE. I just don't have a lot of faith in humanity.

 

[space_oddity]

Well I take this plausibility as incalculable because I hold Jesus to be a self-evident truth.
Go ahead and call me 'deluded', I call it 'devoted'.

I think i know what you are saying.
An old school teacher used to use the sheer popularity of jesus as a conversion tool. He phrased it more persuasively but he was essentially saying "Surely that many people can't be wrong!".

 

[hippo24]

People might make a thread about it...
Or this type of thing happens on a biweekly basis, so no one would actually take them seriously.

 

[space_oddity]

As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

I say Resources instead of Tribalism, but essentially i agree completely with exactly everything you are saying.

 

[Sane Man]

As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

I say Resources instead of Tribalism, but essentially i agree completely with exactly everything you are saying.

Well, that's a tough one. You could certainly make a case for one tribe needing more resources to continue the strength and cultural identity of its tribe and will get those if it can find it, if not, will war upon those tribes weaker than it to claim them.

However, if resources were to be completely kept out of my very basic definition above to include it with tribalism, than I would agree.

Or, I suppose we could say...tribalism is the main cause of war, but the subset within it of wanting/needing resources is the main reason for the "tribe" to go to war.

 

[space_oddity]

As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

I say Resources instead of Tribalism, but essentially i agree completely with exactly everything you are saying.

Well, that's a tough one. You could certainly make a case for one tribe needing more resources to continue the strength and cultural identity of its tribe and will get those if it can find it, if not, will war upon those tribes weaker than it to claim them.

However, if resources were to be completely kept out of my very basic definition above to include it with tribalism, than I would agree.

Or, I suppose we could say...tribalism is the main cause of war, but the subset within it of wanting/needing resources is the main reason for the "tribe" to go to war.

How do you define Tribalism, as a behavior? Im curious, as my impression of your impression of Tribalism is that it is essentially a mob-mentality-bigger-dick-contest with another mob. So war is an assertion of dominance by one tribe over another.
By resources i refer to almost anything valuable to a community, whether it be water, food, animals, land (which is probably the most common, as i encompasses many resource groups), people (slaves), people (to add to the tribe, make tribe stronger) etc.

 

[Sane Man]

As I've mentioned MANY and MANY times before, most wars ever caused in the history of the world have been because of tribalism.

I say Resources instead of Tribalism, but essentially i agree completely with exactly everything you are saying.

Well, that's a tough one. You could certainly make a case for one tribe needing more resources to continue the strength and cultural identity of its tribe and will get those if it can find it, if not, will war upon those tribes weaker than it to claim them.

However, if resources were to be completely kept out of my very basic definition above to include it with tribalism, than I would agree.

Or, I suppose we could say...tribalism is the main cause of war, but the subset within it of wanting/needing resources is the main reason for the "tribe" to go to war.

How do you define Tribalism, as a behavior? Im curious, as my impression of your impression of Tribalism is that it is essentially a mob-mentality-bigger-dick-contest with another mob. So war is an assertion of dominance by one tribe over another.
By resources i refer to almost anything valuable to a community, whether it be water, food, animals, land (which is probably the most common, as i encompasses many resource groups), people (slaves), people (to add to the tribe, make tribe stronger) etc.

Ah, a good question, I enjoy our small talk so far =)

I define it simply as the people of an area united and defined by their culture. Baically today what a nation would be, although nations certainly weren't around all the time. These tribes could go to war for any reason, such as cultural dominance, to having more resources (per your definition) or simply to eradicate the other culture as inferior to their own.

I see resources as part of a tribe going to war with another. Although that is simply my perspective, and as I said if we were to take that out of my definition of tribalism, or if I am completely incorrect, then I certainly agree with you on resources.

Although I have a feeling we agree on the same thing, just have come up with different terms and such to describe them.

 

[Goldbling]

Oh, i did say that, my bad choice of words mate, my bad

Hey it's no problem at all. You didn't curse at me, throw insults my way, bash whatever I said with no relevance to what the topic was or generally just be a complete piece of trash. I don't know if you are using the internet correctly =)

LOL, well is that case, I shall start blatantly judging and generalizing everyone as of now

 

[space_oddity]

I feel we should be smoking calabash pipes over this discussion in a room with a fireplace.
Good sir you have convinced me!
From now on, if this topic arises i will say Tribalism, with resource accrument as a secondary motivator.
Although this is speculatory, i might be so bold as to say that throughout history religion has been used as a tool to rationalize a war, but rarely as a direct cause of war.