Religion
Related: About this forumCan anyone think of an instance where Christianity has benefited
the indigenous culture of a non-Christian place? I cannot. Certainly not in the Americas, where Christianity obliterated the existing cultures and religions as soon as they possibly could. In North, Central, and South America, long-established cultures and civilizations were wantonly destroyed and the people already there enslaved or slaughtered.
Most of Asia successfully resisted this, and ages old cultures and religions still survive in many places, but in the West, where Europeans exerted serious colonization and exploitation efforts, there is virtually nothing left of what was there when they arrived. In California, for example, the Spanish systematically destroyed the coastal aboriginal cultures and enslaved and destroyed the people they found. Near the Pacific coast, almost nothing survives of the cultures and peoples whose territory it was.
In Central America and Mexico, millennia-old civilizations, cultures, and religions were systematically destroyed as well, in the name of Christ. In North America, death and banishment were the tools used to destroy the fragile cultures discovered when the Europeans landed and began talking over indigenous territories. Any resistance was met with genocide, by any means necessary. Again this was done in the name of Jesus. The "Savages" were destroyed so that Christians might achieve wealth and land. South America suffered a similar fate, and the destruction of indigenous peoples and the environment continues today.
I don't think there is any place where something like this did not occur or where an attempt to make it occur was not undertaken. While Christianity failed in Asia, generally, the rest of the planet was overrun by Christians, who destroyed what was there before their arrival.
So, is it any wonder that some countries, like China, do not wish to allow Christians or Muslims to replace their ancient culture and territory? Makes sense to me.
JustFiveMoreMinutes
(2,133 posts).. one or two or a few Christians were found to be 'in good taste'.
Wondering aloud....
MineralMan
(147,602 posts)I didn't mention Africa, but similar efforts were undertaken there, as well. They did not work forever, though, and many parts of Africa have rejected European influence and are attempting to re-exert their own ways. However, exploitation of raw materials for industrial nations is still a major factor in many parts of Africa. People are still being enslaved and "Christianized."
On the other hand, Islam is gaining headway in many parts of Africa, and is another foreign religion with a goal of dominating entire nations and replacing existing cultures. Christianity and Islam seem to be the most guilty of this of all foreign religions. Both are Abrahamic "religions of the book" Maybe there's something in that to stimulate the greed and conqueror attitudes.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)exclusionary views of religion. When those religions show up, the native instinct is to add the new god to their pantheon of spirits or whatever. Only later do they realize they have to drop their old religion.
But in the east, religions are additive. You could always worship whatever gods you wanted no matter where they came from.
MineralMan
(147,602 posts)ffo
(15 posts)It has benefited clergy in spreading the word, "I want you to do something to me."
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)being a money-making political scheme for those on the take. It's no wonder that many are finally smartening up and seeing it for what it is and leaving. Christianity is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated on mankind.
MineralMan
(147,602 posts)Very apt, though.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)It was a thing for a very long time.... the sun never set on the empire in a big part cause Christianity
Spain always sent priests with their explorers and military forces.
Firestorm49
(4,195 posts)MineralMan
(147,602 posts)abqtommy
(14,118 posts)performs "good works" here in the US as well as internationally. The church my parents belonged to and worked for in West Pakistan (with me and my sister along) operated a hospital in Karachi and supported disaster relief. This same church operates hospitals in the US, including one for the Navajo people, in Monument Valley. So yes, I agree that there's plenty of evidence that many Christians are definitely responsible for heinous behavior there's evidence that condemnation should't be universal.
MineralMan
(147,602 posts)I'm talking about Christianity as a whole, in a historical sense.
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)of any segment of humanity as a whole no matter how we define it. People are different even when the same ethnicity/cultures, religious beliefs/genders apply and so on. To continue to do so is a disservice to humanity AS A WHOLE.
sprinkleeninow
(20,546 posts)yes?
Sts. Cyril and Methodious brought Christianity to the Slavs.
Am I, as an Orthodox of Slavic heritage, troubling to you or anyone? ☺
MineralMan
(147,602 posts)so I can't really comment. However the Orthodox church hasn't been big on missionary work or foreign conquest, so...
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)large amount of Slavic people brought to Europe as, well, slaves. There was conquest aplenty as well as forced conversion techniques applied. Was this the fault of Christianity, not altogether, but the messianic 'Saving' of other peoples did bring a lot of misery.
That said there was also the work of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, which through influence and trade spread Christianity through more peaceful means. The question is did it really benefit it's new adherents?
Was all the misery and suffering worth it? Could the advances of European technology (some of which was other peoples) be spread without the conquest in the name of God?
I still think the world would have been better off without the 'Crusades' the official and unofficial ones.
sprinkleeninow
(20,546 posts)>>In fact, the most popular version sees Slavs as deriving from slovo, word, (meaning people who can speak our way). There are also historians who tie the etymology of Slavs to the ancient Indo-European word, slauos, which meant, people.<<
Not contending, just sayin'....
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)I meant that our European word "Slave" derives from "Slav" not the other way round. Sorry if I was not clear.
sprinkleeninow
(20,546 posts)harmed/affected by the 'Crusades'.
?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)The first targets of the Crusades were Orthodox Christians. I was also using the word crusade in it's broader sense, as well as it's tight sense of "The Crusades" all four(?) of them culminating in the invasion of Constantinople by Venice.
"Crusades" as messianic type missions to "Save" something or the other do more harm than good.