Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Aztec Barbarism
Everything has had a bad history, with the exception of a few things like Jainism.

Britian, Germany, China, Japan, all countries have had "bad" pasts. Here is the problem: If we just look backwards and demonize and say that all these countries are evil and should be destroyed for things that happened, then we live in a sham world, where a single scandal causes a nuclear disaster. If we refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments for the sins of the past, then this forum is nothing more then a reactionary sham. I am not denying how evil and corrupt the Catholic Church was, nor am I denying how evil and barbaric the Azetec Empire was. I am just saying, stop whining about the sins of the past, and look forward. Everything has had it's reactionary sins. Am I saying the catholic church is sooo much better nowadays? No. There is a lot of corruption in the Catholic Church, pedophilia, vices, all of it.
The problem is, why do all of you atheists demonize all these things, when you do not look at Atheist sins? And, of course, of course. Atheism is "not responsible" for all of these. That is a logical fallacy. If you say Atheism is not responsible, then we can say that modern Christianity is not responbile.

I'm not saying the Spanish invasion of Mexico was justified. But what would you all have preferred? The Azetec Empire having endured? The United States having (indirectly) never been formed? Oh, wait, you all don't like the united states because, well, I don't want to mention it right now, since I feel it would be rather flamey and not related to the subject at hand.

Sins of Atheism:
Stalin's regime of the Soviet Union
Mao's regime of Occupied China.
Pol Pot's regime over Communist Cambodia
Communist Laos
North Korea
Communist Poland
Communist Romania
Communist Hungary
Communist Czechoslovia
Communist Bulgaria
Communist Cuba
Communist Albania
Communist East Germany
Communist Somali
Communist Grenada
Communist Libya
Communist Mongolia
Communist Angola
Communist South Yemen

But of course, Atheism isn't responsible! Atheists can't take responbity. Well, if this the way you take, then modern Catholicism is not responsible for our many, MANY sins of the past.

We all have had our sins. Am I saying forget it and whitewash it? No. Am I saying demonize and call for it's destruction DUE to these sins? No.

Alejandro, though. Are those juvenile insults really necessary? And what will your government do? Go and kidnap him?
President Ghost 2017
At Congress: "Aw, shut up you sick fruitcake! I'm talking here!" -President Ghost

Member of the Holy League

Baller Friday Party Host

I fully agree with you that Emperor Marcus just starts pointing fingers and calls everyone barbaric. He calls all Muslims terrorists and bad people, even though it is only those terrorist groups that do such horrible things in the Name of Islam, even though they are completely misguided and don't even fall into the category of a Muslim. Then, for the Azctecs, he is just starting to insult them that they are barbaric, etc. I mean in the old times doing such type of things weren't seen as barbaric and if there culture said to impose them, then there isn't anything wrong with it! Same goes for what Romans did in gladiatorial games, and crucifying. Then He calls Muslims bad and barbaric because Saudi Arabia has a law that if you steal, we cut off your hands. I mean just let them, if that's their laws or customs, don't start insulting it and calling them barbaric, and this goes for all people and civilizations, not just Muslims, Aztecs, and Romans!

In history, Marcus If you ever even cared to read or understand it, it was normal for people to go on and start conquering other lands, unlike it is today. You are looking at things from the this modern ages prospective and applying it to History, if you really were so smart you would look at things from the historical point of view and vision how people at their time would see it, they would see it as completely alright!
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Must I ask why you have such a limited thinking and view on so many aspects, especially on religions, cultures, civilizations, and basically everything in history! Why do you just criticize everything. You should just stop and take a break. The only thing I can see you are good at or doing is bringing problems in this world with your thoughts and view points. Especially in this micronation community.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
(11 Jun 2016, 04:06:35)Emperor Thomas I of Zenrax Wrote: Markus, it's because of people like yourself that I am not a Christian. The faith is a beautiful one in theory, but the barbarisms committed in its name have driven me away from it. Anything from the Crusades to the Spanish invasion of Mexico are clear examples of those that completely ignore the "love your neighbor" aspect of the Christian religion.

I cannot take responsibility for your religious views. If you deny the Faith, it has nothing to do with me.

Let us discuss two of the alleged barbarisms you speak of, and then perhaps you will change your opinion.

First, you speak of the Crusades, which I am well-acquainted with.

[Image: Age_of_Caliphs.png]

In the seventh century A.D., the Mohammedan religion was born, and Mohammed conquered the entire land of Arabia through violent force. Mohammed brought Christians, Jews, and pagans under his rule, and had many of them executed, enslaved, or oppressed through religious taxes (jizya), destruction of religious sites, etc. It was Mohammed who devised the Caliphate which perpetuates to this day in the form of the Islamic State.

Mohammed's successors were not content to remain in Arabia. Following the orders given by their prophet, they first invaded the Eastern Roman Empire, taking the entire land of Israel from Christian rule. This Caliphate took Egypt from the Empire as well, and eventually all of North Africa; and it pains me to say that within a hundred years of Mohammed's death, the Caliphate had destroyed most of classical civilization and most of the Eastern Roman Empire.

By the year of our Lord seven hundred and thirty-two, the Muslim world had entered in to Spain, beginning their first encroachment into European Christendom. Mohammed's successor Caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik ordered the Muslim armies onward from Spain into France, where it was hoped all of Europe would be open to Muslim domination. However, thanks be to God, the Saracen invasion was halted in A.D. 732 at the Battle of Tours, where the great military leader Charles Martel crushed the Muslim invaders, preventing the conquest of France and saving Europe - and all of Western civilization - from destruction. I suspect that our conversation here on the forum would not be happening had the Muslims won at Tours - we would firstly be speaking Arabic, and the concept of free debate would not exist in the first place.

The Mohammedans were not satisfied, of course, even after losing in France - they continued to assault the eastern Empire, and in the late eleventh century the Emperor Comnenus appealed to Pope Urban II for aid, and it was given in the form of a vast Crusading army (which was unexpected by the Byzantine emperor) that retook all the lands of Israel, establishing independent crusading states.

Successive Mohammedan caliphs repeatedly attacked the Crusader states, and most of the time they were successful. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Crusader states had all but disappeared, and Saracen rule was restored to Christian lands.

The whole object of the Crusades was to protect Christendom - they were defensive measures which were enacted in a moment of great desperation. Had the Crusades not happened, either the Muslims would have conquered the Eastern Empire, or the Eastern Empire may have managed to hold them off on its own. I suspect Emperor Johnathan and I would have a different point of view.

I say, as do many others, that the Crusades were necessary. What unfortunate things occurred along the way, or in the Holy Land proper, were neither sanctioned by the Church nor the military leaders who ran the Crusades.

The second point being the Spanish "invasion of Mexico".

The Spanish "invasion" of Mexico was also, I suppose, a necessity. In the first part, it is a logical necessity, because the clash of those two civilizations was inevitable. Do you really think the Spanish could have lived in peace with the Aztecs? The Spanish - good, Catholic, pious men - tolerating the Aztecs, with their human sacrifices and other horrible habits?

It was a good and just thing for the Spanish, having established colonies in the New World, to encounter and subsequently destroy the Aztec Empire. The Spanish liberated the Indians from Aztec domination. Many of the peaceful Indians, I suspect, converted to Christianity after seeing the good example of the Spanish conquistadors.

What else need I say? Many of you are implicitly denying the atrocities committed by the Aztecs. You seem to think there was something evil with the Spanish taking over the Aztec Empire and putting a stop to that madness. This Aztec-defending is, to me, on the same level as Holocaust denial. It is utterly absurd!

(11 Jun 2016, 04:06:35)Emperor Thomas I of Zenrax Wrote: I have nothing against the faith you claim to practice. However, you need to get it through your head that every action has a consequence.

Indeed. If you start killing people on altars of the Sun God, expect Christian empires to put a stop to it. "Every action has a consequence."

(11 Jun 2016, 04:06:35)Emperor Thomas I of Zenrax Wrote: On the vein of this thread, I personally don't deny that the Aztecs had barbaric practices, but that was but a few aspects of their religion. I'm dead certain that Christians also have had their own dark times, like in the examples I mentioned above.

That is the only retort I have heard so far. I say, "the Aztecs committed grave evil", and then others say, "the Christians committed grave evil". Never do we hear anyone saying, "yes, the Christians committed a good deed by putting a stop to the evils of the Aztecs."

(11 Jun 2016, 11:33:21)NickOfFørvania Wrote: [...]

In other words, you went on Google and searched for "worst Bible verses", and then copied-and-pasted what you found from this page:

You can find the contexts of each verse by reading the Bible itself. Of course, some verses do not need a context, really. The verse about women not having authority over men is absolutely correct.

Other verses - i.e., about the Amalekites - require more research on your part. The Amalekites were remarkably similar to the Aztecs - they along with the other Canaanite tribes sacrificed children to their gods. The Israelites killed the Amalekites because the Amalekites were extremely perverse, morally repugnant people.
I don't say that the Spanish conquest was wrong, as I stated earlier, it was fine during that time to conquer. Same Applies to the Muslim conquests, and you are wrong about the fact that muslims enslaved and killed people who didn't follow them. They actually give them religious freedom and only imposed a minimum tax like most governments do! Also, Jews under Muslims rule Clearly stated that they were given much freedom under Muslim rule. For example, in Spain, when Muslims rules their, Christians and Jews enjoyed freedom. However, when Christians started taking over, they persecuted Jews and Muslims, killed them, and drove them out. For example, Queen Isabel of Castila was such a horrid ruler because she killed thousands of Jews who didn't convert to Christianity. I would like to end by ensuring that you guys don't think that I am saying Christianity is the cause of that or anything like that, I am just saying how under Muslim rule they were given freedom more than under other rulers, and that Muslims didn't just start killing people pointlessly or forcing them to convert to their religion, beliefs, or ideology.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
It is still acceptable to conquer, provided that it takes place within the context of a just war.
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. [Source]

(11 Jun 2016, 16:29:19)sultanbilalirfan Wrote: For example, Queen Isabel of Castila was such a horrid ruler because she killed thousands of Jews who didn't convert to Christianity.

Where is your source?
I have read books about it.

I do agree with you on your context of a just war except that like the Romans, British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese they conquered just wanting to conquer lands, so for the same reason Muslim conquests are justified.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Do you even realize that Christianity has done the same thing. You can't condemn entire civilizations for being barbaric while ignoring your own. That is Absolute Hypocrisy. For example, the Crusades is responsible for 1 to 3 Million deaths, and the Spanish Conquests were responsible for the genocide of 95% of all Native Americans mostly from disease. So to condemn entire Cultures of Civilizations is just Absolute Rubbish.

There have been tons of killings in the name of Christianity just as there have for every other religion. This is why I support Separation of Church and State. So no religion can go around starting wars or condemning others just for their nation's religious demographics. Yes, I understood the Battle of Tours prevented Islam to spread through Europe, I've studied Military History in my Sophomore Year of High School. But the only thing was that the Franks prevented the spread of Islam because they were lucky enough to have home ground advantage, and that the Muslims were fighting Hundreds even Thousands of Kilometers from home.

A thing about the Spanish Conquests is that the Spanish did mass murder entire villages and peoples and did enslave them. I believe Slavery is just an awful act that nobody should use. Slavery is an unjust and inhumane thing. I hate Slavery more than any other idea. More than Xenophobia, more than other things that I find inhumane such as Murders of Entire Villages. The reason is that Slavery is inhumane, unjust, and its against International Law. I am glad Slavery is mostly gone from the world. We need to move forward as Progressive peoples and make a Better Tomorrow for all of us. Learn the mistakes of the past and move forward for a better Tomorrow. One without Violence, one without Famine, one without war, just peace.

But you need to remember, that religious beliefs don't matter in the end. What truly matters is your ideals, and how Progressive one is. Yes, I am a hypocrite at sometimes but I am not afraid to admit it. But if we just move forward into the future we can create a better society and better security for all of us....
Yours Truly, Giovanni Tomelleri
(11 Jun 2016, 03:40:22)Tjorvi Wrote: You just don't get it, do you? You can't condemn other civilizations as barbaric while ignoring your own barbarity. Being nailed to wood and left to die? Even tied to a wooden cross of any sort and left to essentially starve to death is barbaric. How about telling people unless they give what little wealth they have to the Church in exchange for "favor" with "God," their loved one(s) will stay in purgatory or even Hell? How about killing people because they're of a different faith??

I find your complete lack of acceptance for any difference in faith (or lack there of) except those you approve of to be absolutely unacceptable. In the interests of avoiding future problems stemming from this behavior, you can either stop this, or a different approach will have to be considered, and I doubt very much you will like it.

Freedom of speech is important, stop being so offended, are you going to bloody ban him for a opinion that you might not have? Your acceptance is a disease.
[Image: 08a535bad9ac397064ce8df4c9064928.jpg] 
The Duke of Dullahan, Prime-Minister of Wyvern
(11 Jun 2016, 17:32:34)Bradley Wrote: Freedom of speech is important, stop being so offended, are you going to bloody ban him for a opinion that you might not have? Your acceptance is a disease.

Markus' micronation doesn't have freedom of speech, so by his law: yes we can.

(11 Jun 2016, 16:20:10)Emperor Markus II Wrote: I cannot take responsibility for your religious views. If you deny the Faith, it has nothing to do with me.

If it has nothing to do with us then quit dragging us all into it! Nobody wants to hear it, Markus! We just want to here things like this:

"Well, New Starland adopted an official puppy named Sparkles."

"That's nice. New Israel also adopted a puppy, but we call him Jose."

"Well, Austenasia just adopted a kitten. We're calling her Asianausten."

That's what this forum should be for. Not for one to abuse and alienate everybody around them. This forum should be about bringing us small states together, not pulling us apart.
 [Image: Flag_of_San_Dover.png]

Violette "Suzuki" Clingersmith

Co-Founder and Leader of the Drew Star Line Legacy (2005-)
Creator and Caretaker of the Sunþrawegaz Kuningadōmas (2017-)

Uskorian Knight of the Bachelorette, Novian Baroness of the Fennec Fox,
Recipient of the Sovereign Order of the Rose, Recipient of the Order of Uskor, Member of the Austenasian Order.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)