Is It Okay To Be White?

[shunyadragon]

No, I'm just stating facts you don't like

No facts presented.

[shunyadragon]

"Funny" as in odd or peculiar.



Claiming something does not make it so. We are currently seeing deluded folks pretending to be a different sex than they are, but in spite of some enabling if not outright encouraging it, that does not somehow change basic biology.

The same with anyone saying that the Bible supports forced conversions.

I will note that you have yet to produce a quote where someone says it's Biblical, much less anywhere in the Bible where Jesus instructs Christians that they should forcibly convert others (which stands in sharp contrast with Muhammad and the qur'an where it is mandated).

You did not respond to the fact that Christian Missionary schools openly practiced forced conversion up until the 1960's at least and common through out the world in the history of Missionary efforts. I cited the parable quoting Jesus and you have not responded. The Bible is an ambiguous compiled and edited ancient text over time, and the bottom line is the actions of the believers reflects the scriptures. Over the past two millennia Christians widely practiced forced conversion and believed they were following what Jesus intended them to do in His name.

Also Jesus did not instruct His followers not practice forced conversion.

[Gondwanaland]

No facts presented.

Assertion without evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Assertion without evidence.

No facts presented.

[shunyadragon]

"Funny" as in odd or peculiar.



Claiming something does not make it so.

This represents your problem in spades,

are currently seeing deluded folks pretending to be a different sex than they are, but in spite of some enabling if not outright encouraging it, that does not somehow change basic biology.

Not the topic here,

The same with anyone saying that the Bible supports forced conversions.

Not the same at all, because we have over two millennia of wide spread 'forced conversions' by Christians that believed they were following the intent of Jesus.

I will note that you have yet to produce a quote where someone says it's Biblical, much less anywhere in the Bible where Jesus instructs Christians that they should forcibly convert others (which stands in sharp contrast with Muhammad and the qur'an where it is mandated).

Yes I have and you failed to respond. You also have failed to respond to the actual factual evidence of two millennia of 'forced conversion' by Christians including contemporary mainline churches in Missionary efforts such as in the Native American schools.

Two millennia of 'forced conversions' does not happen out of thin air.

On your part silence.

[Psychic Missile]

If progressives care so much about truth veracity, why can't they admit that the achievements of Black Lives Matter Global Network Org. include:

By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for black imagination and innovation, and creating black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives. We affirm the lives of black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized with black liberation movements (a Marxist movement [added])

That BLM paid more to a "baby daddy" of one of the co-founders than to the Trayvon Martin Foundation and bought millions worth of properties?

There's substantial progressive criticism towards the handling of BLM funds, I don't get your point?

[Diogenes]

There's substantial progressive criticism towards the handling of BLM funds, I don't get your point?

Show it. TYT's "criticism" was that it was bad optics. If a Republican used donor funds to enrich themselves or openly admitted to be a Dominionism foundation, the criticism would be scathing.

[rogue06]

You did not respond to the fact that Christian Missionary schools openly practiced forced conversion up until the 1960's at least and common through out the world in the history of Missionary efforts. I cited the parable quoting Jesus and you have not responded. The Bible is an ambiguous compiled and edited ancient text over time, and the bottom line is the actions of the believers reflects the scriptures. Over the past two millennia Christians widely practiced forced conversion and believed they were following what Jesus intended them to do in His name.

Also Jesus did not instruct His followers not practice forced conversion.

No need to do so specifically given how I have already repeatedly acknowledged that Christians were forcibly converting -- which is in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings.

Still waiting for you to quote something where Jesus tells His followers to go out and force people to become Christians. Heck, you haven't even produced a quote where the Christians doing it are claiming to be following Christ's commands.

[rogue06]

This represents your problem in spades,



Not the topic here,



Not the same at all, because we have over two millennia of wide spread 'forced conversions' by Christians that believed they were following the intent of Jesus.



Yes I have and you failed to respond. You also have failed to respond to the actual factual evidence of two millennia of 'forced conversion' by Christians including contemporary mainline churches in Missionary efforts such as in the Native American schools.

Two millennia of 'forced conversions' does not happen out of thin air.

On your part silence.

You obviously do not possess the cognitive ability to make simple distinctions.

[rogue06]

There's substantial progressive criticism towards the handling of BLM funds, I don't get your point?

Really? The general reaction on the left to any of this is to scream racism in an attempt to silence it.

[shunyadragon]

No need to do so specifically given how I have already repeatedly acknowledged that Christians were forcibly converting -- which is in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings.

Not according to those who commit forced conversions throughout the history of Christianity, and the parable I cited as Jesus said.

Still waiting for you to quote something where Jesus tells His followers to go out and force people to become Christians. Heck, you haven't even produced a quote where the Christians doing it are claiming to be following Christ's commands.

Provided in the parable in the words of Jesus. You are still ignoring the history as cited.

[rogue06]

Not according to those who commit forced conversions throughout the history of Christianity, and the parable I cited as Jesus said.

Still waiting for you to provide an example of someone saying that they were following Jesus' instructions and the parable has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

So you continue to strike out.

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting for you to provide an example of someone saying that they were following Jesus' instructions and the parable has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

So you continue to strike out.

So you continue to strike out.

Not according to those who commit forced conversions throughout the history of Christianity, and the parable I cited as Jesus said.

Source: https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword

When did Christians first begin to use force to convert people?

Soon after the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine, though the first use of force was not designed to convert pagans but to correct dissident Christians. Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo in North Africa in the late fourth and early fifth century, was faced with a dissident sect, the Donatists. Augustine wanted to bring them back in the orthodox fold, and he agonized about whether it was permissible to use coercion to do so.

Eventually he decided it was, and one biblical text that persuaded him was the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:16–24). A rich man gives a feast, and when no one he invites shows up, he tells his servants to go out and “Compel people to come in.”

It isn’t until the Frankish kingdom of Charlemagne in the eighth century that we see force used to coerce conversions, specifically in the campaign against the Saxons.

Why did Charlemagne move in this direction?

First, the concept of Christian kingship had developed the previous century, and the duty of expanding Christendom, if necessary by force, became part of a king’s duty. It’s partly based on an Old Testament model of kingship.

Second, an adviser at the highest levels of Charlemagne’s government pushed this particular policy. Scholars think the real hard—liner was a man named Lull, who was of Anglo-Saxon origin, had traveled with Boniface, and had succeeded Boniface as archbishop of Mainz. He’d given his life to the conversion of the Saxons, and nothing had worked. In essence he said to Charlemagne, “These stubborn people will never convert on their own. We've got to force them to submit.”

This policy of using violence to motivate conversion in Saxony was not supported by all the king’s advisers. Another Englishman at Charlemagne’s court, Alcuin, had grave doubts. In the 790s, when the Franks conquered the Avars on the eastern frontier (in modern Hungary), Alcuin wrote letters to Charlemagne, saying essentially, “Don’t make the same mistakes you made with the Saxons. You can’t force Christianity upon people.” There are some signs that Alcuin’s advice was heeded; the proposals to convert the Avars by force were slightly toned down.

But by the 1300s, no one objects anymore. The chronicles of the Viking kings, for example, laud them for using the sword to convert pagans. What happened in medieval Europe to solidify this view?

Robert Moore, author of The Rise of the Persecuting Society, argues that from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, European Christian society became much less tolerant. This is the era when we see persecution of Jews and heretics, crusades against Muslims, and the increasing acceptance of forcible conversion—especially in the only area of Europe that remained unconverted: Scandinavia and the Baltic region. I don’t agree with Moore’s argument in all respects, but more people were being persecuted in Europe in 1250 than were in the Europe of 1050. That’s a fact. One can’t get away from it.

Is this a product of Christian theology—an insistence on Jesus Christ as the truth—or of political strength—Christians finally have the military force to insist on their way?

Both. On the theological side, there is an unprecedented emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus Christ, especially upon his sufferings. Coming closely behind is a feeling of enmity toward those who were identified as his persecutors, especially the Jews, and by extension, all those who were perceived as not fully Christian. Though Christians lived peaceably with Muslims in the Holy Land for centuries, during this era, Muslims become identified as the enemies of Christ who must be booted out of the Christian holy places.

Yet we should also emphasize the sheer power of Western Christendom, which blossoms during this time. There is an upsurge in technology, in military organization, in state power, in the ability to raise taxes and hire armies. This put Western European states at a decisive advantage over the remaining pagans in the Baltic, for example. Given the climate of intolerance, it’s irresistible to use the power at your disposal to clobber pagans and make them Christian.

Were forced conversions successful?

Yes and no. The problem is semantic. The definition of conversion has changed over the centuries.

Charlemagne or Olaf Trygvesson would have said, “I defeat my enemies, and a priest then sprinkles water over them and says some words in Latin, and they become Christians. They've been converted.”

Today, we don’t regard that as conversion—nor would some early medieval people, like the Venerable Bede (c.673–735) or Alcuin (c.740–804). They wouldn’t have thought people converted until they were taught the creeds, Christian morality, and the like—which may take two, three, or four generations.

Nonetheless, because of the initiative of coercive kings, Christianization was now possible in a way it hadn’t been possible before.

In the end, medieval pagans seemed more willing to submit to forced conversions than Christians under similar circumstances. Why is that?

The common factor in paganism all over medieval Europe was polytheism. Pagans had lots and lots of gods—gods of weather, of harvest, of the sea, of the sky, of beer making, of battle, and so on. Anthropologists who've studied conversion in polytheistic culture in Africa, for example, have found that such peoples think they can just add Christ to their existing pantheon. This is what seems to have happened in medieval Europe. The exclusive claims of a monotheistic faith didn’t sink in at first. That’s why even after “conversion,” we find a long period in which ideas about gods and goddesses, spirits and fairies, elves and goblins coexist with faith in Christ.

Another reason was that pagans were impressed with the sheer material power of Christendom. Paganism was a faith that was largely geared to gaining material prosperity. There were gods for the crops because they wanted their crops to grow. They had gods for cattle so that they would produce more milk. When these pagans looked at the wealth and power of Christian Europe, they were impressed: the Christian God was obviously one who could deliver the goods. Christians built bigger buildings, made more beautiful jewelry, possessed better ships, and so on. Many pagans were not adverse to converting to Christianity because they believed it would, in fact, give them more material prosperity than had their gods.

To appreciate this point, note how Christian missionaries fared in sixteenth-century China. Here was a non-Christian culture that was in many ways superior to the West. In that context, Christianity makes practically no headway.

In Europe, we see evidence that this wasn’t a by-product but a deliberate tactic of missionaries. When the bishop of Winchester sent his pupil Boniface to evangelize Germany, he stressed that Boniface should remind the pagans just how rich and powerful the Christians were.

Were there any cases in which forced conversion didn’t work?

Yes. With pagan polytheists, I don’t think there were any failures. But with the monotheists—Jews and Muslims—coercion had little success. They understood it wasn’t a matter of adding a new god but choosing a different one. They also come out of cultures that were sophisticated in their own right.

Though the first generations converted for less-than-pure motives, in subsequent generations, Christianity seems to “stick.” That is, as the centuries unfold, these formerly pagan societies sincerely adopt Christianity. Why is that?

One significant reason is the Christian teaching that took place after the formal acceptance of Christianity. It’s easy to point out the many abuses of the medieval church, even in what it taught. On the other hand, it did an awful good job at instilling knowledge of Christianity into people who had been pagan for centuries.

One good example of this is seen in Anglo-Saxon England. The Venerable Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, tells the story of King Edwin, who had embraced Christianity primarily because he thought he would become a great and powerful king as a result. And Bede says, in fact, he did.

But he also noted that Edwin was, and always had been, a thoughtful man who would sit by himself hour after hour pondering the deep mysteries of life. Before he had become a king, in fact, he had a vision in the middle of the night, in which a mysterious stranger said to him, “I will tell you about a God who brings salvation.” Later on, after Edwin had become king and was growing in power, he ran into a missionary who was this same mysterious stranger whom he’d had seen in his vision years earlier.

There was in Edwin a desire for salvation, and he felt that beyond the wealth and power Christianity gave him, it also helped him settle this issue in his own heart and mind. For Bede, this seems to illustrate the need for Christian teaching—to instruct especially rulers and the elite on the meaning of Christianity, of salvation, and other key theological concepts.

Today using force to convert is unthinkable. Why did this idea, that was used for centuries, pass away?

A couple disclaimers: this is an immensely complex topic, and I'm not an expert on post-medieval missionary history. That being said, my hunch is that it’s largely due to the rise of Protestant evangelical movements, especially the Great Awakening. Here we see a new stress placed upon the individual soul and upon religious experience. Conversion becomes a voluntary, individual turning to God. Once you have that understanding, the idea of forcing someone to convert becomes absurd.

© Copyright Original Source

Though not unthinkable by the major church schools exercising forced conversion of the Native Americans.

[Diogenes]

So you continue to strike out.

Not according to those who commit forced conversions throughout the history of Christianity, and the parable I cited as Jesus said.

Try actually citing the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Try actually citing the Bible.

I di and it was ignored.

You must realize Old Testament Law, such as the commandments, and Jesus instructions are dominantly based on what 'though shall not do,' and not instructions or rationalization of behavior as to what the Hebrews and Christians can do can do can do. In fact there is nothing in Hebrew scripture for justification nor rationalization based on Hebrew Law.

There is unfortunately no Law nor instructions in the Bible 'though shalt not force non-believers to convert nor as Biblical Law nor instructions wil not be in the scripture in this form. The parable I cited in the words of Jesus is clearly threats to non-believers, included threats of death for non-belief, that can and was used for justification of persecution, forced conversions, and ethnic cleansing of non-believers, and those that did not believe in the party line.

"There was a good man who was a householder, and he planted a vineyard. He set a hedge about it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower for the guards. Then he let this vineyard out to tenants while he went on a long journey into another country. And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent servants to the tenants to receive his rental. But they took counsel among themselves and refused to give these servants the fruits due their master; instead, they fell upon his servants, beating one, stoning another, and sending the others away empty-handed. And when the householder heard about all this, he sent other and more trusted servants to deal with these wicked tenants, and these they wounded and also treated shamefully. And then the householder sent his favorite servant, his steward, and him they killed. And still, in patience and with forbearance, he dispatched many other servants, but none would they receive. Some they beat, others they killed, and when the householder had been so dealt with, he decided to send his son to deal with these ungrateful tenants, saying to himself, `They may mistreat my servants, but they will surely show respect for my beloved son.' But when these unrepentant and wicked tenants saw the son, they reasoned among themselves: `This is the heir; come, let us kill him and then the inheritance will be ours.' So they laid hold on him, and after casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. When the lord of that vineyard shall hear how they have rejected and killed his son, what will he do to those ungrateful and wicked tenants?"
And when the people heard this parable and the question Jesus asked, they answered, "He will destroy those miserable men and let out his vineyard to other and honest farmers who will render to him the fruits in their season." And when some of them who heard perceived that this parable referred to the Jewish nation and its treatment of the prophets and to the impending rejection of Jesus and the gospel of the kingdom, they said in sorrow, "God forbid that we should go on doing these things."
Jesus saw a group of the Sadducees and Pharisees making their way through the crowd, and he paused for a moment until they drew near him, when he said: "You know how your fathers rejected the prophets, and you well know that you are set in your hearts to reject the Son of Man." And then, looking with searching gaze upon those priests and elders who were standing near him, Jesus said: "Did you never read in the Scripture about the stone which the builders rejected, and which, when the people had discovered it, was made into the cornerstone? And so once more do I warn you that, if you continue to reject this gospel, presently will the kingdom of God be taken away from you and be given to a people willing to receive the good news and to bring forth the fruits of the spirit And there is a mystery about this stone, seeing that whoso falls upon it, while he is thereby broken in pieces, shall be saved; but on whomsoever this stone falls, he will be ground to dust and his ashes scattered to the four winds."
When the Pharisees heard these words, they understood that Jesus referred to themselves and the other Jewish leaders. They greatly desired to lay hold on him then and there, but they feared the multitude. However, they were so angered by the Master's words that they withdrew and held further counsel among themselves as to how they might bring about his death. (173:4.2)