Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparing Christianity to Islam
#21
(01-15-2014, 07:41 PM)John L Wrote:
(01-15-2014, 07:27 PM)mv Wrote:
(01-15-2014, 07:17 PM)Gunnen4u Wrote: I tried being optimistic, but then I realized it was merely painting a turd with rose-colored paint.

This kind of thing should be left to professionals..professional optimists.

I believe this may interest Tait a bit more. S5

It is the same shirt.

Anyhow, thread derailed. Mission accomplished. Talking about apostates got pretty tedious. Apostasy sounds like a prostate condition.
Reply
#22
[Image: s006.gif]

It could have been a nice discussion....and we still have to come back to it to save a member from time-traveling into a Turkish harem.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#23
The Russian Orthodox people to too large an extent became idolators in that era or Russia never would have suffered the 20th century as it was is my point.

I used American blacks as an example of people who should have fallen for communism but did not because they weren't willing to worship men.

Back to Stalin and your declaration, are you serious?

BTW, I said I would have been safer in Turkey under the Ottomans than living in Spain during the inquisition because I'd have been murdered in Spain. I'd be safer in Iran in 1979 than I would be in Russia in 1935, too. I don't see how you can say otherwise.
Reply
#24
You are missing the old Soviet era joke Patrick, when you compare Spain to the Ottomans. It goes like this. "In Union of Soviets Everybody can question State,...........................once!" Same thing with Spain and Ottomans. Keep your mouth shut in Spain, and don't rail against Pope, and you will be fine. Keep your mouth shut with Ottomans, and don't chastise the Sultan, and you will be fine.

Same principle in all three places. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#25
(01-16-2014, 06:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: Back to Stalin and your declaration, are you serious?

I don't know what was the declaration, but usually I'm serious and can back up everything I say.

Quote: BTW, I said I would have been safer in Turkey under the Ottomans than living in Spain during the inquisition because I'd have been murdered in Spain. I'd be safer in Iran in 1979 than I would be in Russia in 1935, too. I don't see how you can say otherwise.

Dead wrong here, and in more than one way.

1935 is a wrong year to chose, there was almost no political prosecution at that time. OTOH, 1979 was the revolution year in Iran, with lots of political opponents and random victims, so USSR of 1935 would have been overall safer. Individual safety would however depend on your behavior...for one willing perform a Muslim prayer on the street five times a day, Tehran-79 would have been possibly a better place.

Now, if you shift the date by a couple of years, then yes, there was quite a lot of political prosecution at the time. With two buts: (1) the numbers usually reported are grossly inflated, and (2) majority of prosecution was aimed at the elite (Communists), and they did fully deserve what happened to them. Just like the current US elite. S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#26
Quote:Keep your mouth shut in Spain, and don't rail against Pope, and you will be fine. Keep your mouth shut with Ottomans, and don't chastise the Sultan, and you will be fine.

Absolutely.... but it also depends on just what you said....

The most dangerous behavior in Spain would have been for a convert (former Muslim or Jew) to show the allegiance to the old religion ... but if such a convert managed to move to Turkey, following the old religion would have been just fine. It is the other things that may get you killed. S6

Reminds me of a different ex-Soviet joke.. during the 1970s Nixon-Brezhnev meeting, Nixon lectured Brezhnev on the freedom of speech: "anyone in the US can say that Nixon is an asshole". To that Brezhnev replied "well, anyone in the USSR can say that Nixon is an asshole...heck, anyone can say, "let's go whack him" ".
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#27
My impression of the era of Torquemada is it was worse than a culture of keeping your mouth shut/being reasonable and prudent, that movement pursued anyone who wouldn't swear allegiance to the pope and it was formally tasked with "uprooting heresy". It was aggressive in search of "apostates" like myself, that was it's mandate.


Ottoman rule accepted a Christian like myself, it didn't go looking to wipe out the faith. It's pretty clear in the Koran that Muslims are supposed to treat me like southerners treated black people in 1920(maybe better) and there is no evidence the Ottomans treated Christians like Torquemada did except when they were in rebellion against the crown.

They would give me an inducement to convert , but, there's no evidence it was Ottoman policy to use force for such.

The Spaniards to this day speak well of Ottoman rule compared to some others, such as Torquemada.



http://www.realclearhistory.com/2013/07/..._3009.html

Back to Stalin, so you seriously contend Joe Stalin was "quite positive" towards Christians?

Near the end of the "WWII rapproachment" article, it is clear those Christians willing to be Christian in act as opposed to pledging allegiance to the communist state as the Orthodox Metropolitan did in 1942 were still persecuted.

It's also clear Stalin and the state had effectively crushed most Christian observance even during the war era. The "rapproachment" meant Stalin wouldn't send you to the gulag is about how positive it was. Added to this, I trust the accounts of persecuted believers over there after WWII or the eyewitnesses to their martyrdom. It was pretty severe up through the 1960s anyway.

Those believers unwilling to "be quiet" or pledge allegiance to "the state" never avoided serious persecution in Russia under Stalin or Khruschev or their predecessors. You disagree with this portrayal below?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...viet_Union
Reply
#28
Let's begin with the infamous Saddam==Hitler slogan... or Slobo==Hitler... and remember that Stalin==Hitler belongs to the same group, namely propaganda to be examined for correctness carefully. And the same goes for Torquemada==Hitler, but let me leave this one alone for now, perhaps John wants to comment on it first.

As for Stalin and Church:
Quote: You disagree with this portrayal below?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...viet_Union
and
Quote:Back to Stalin, so you seriously contend Joe Stalin was "quite positive" towards Christians?
of course I'm serious, the article you linked is quite accurate and provides sufficient evidence for it, just you are not reading it carefully.

Let me help you a bit. There is a thesis that Stalin's acceptance of the Church in 1942 was limited and caused by the war needs, the latter part first.

The article however states that the relaxation began earlier (1939, and I think more likely 1-2 years earlier, coinciding with the time when Stalin achieved full power), and lasted until 1959, coinciding with the time Khrushev achieved full power.

Quote:Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985, fewer than 7,000 churches remained active.

(was the 1942 move related to war? -- yes, sure, but this is immaterial, because it was a part of the trend that was already present and accelerate after the end of war when the war need was not a factor at all. Should one take the sentence in bold as an evidence of prosecution? -- not at all, individual cases exist in every society, cf. catholic child molesters.)

Now, the former part --- that Stalin's deal with the Church was limited and based on the Church acceptance -- is a bit harder to rebuke, because to understand this one needs to be familiar with the history and nature of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and you are not. Very briefly: the Church in Russia was always a state church to a higher degree than even in Europe, not talking about the US standard! Several changes over centuries led to it, a particularly major one occurred during the reign of Peter, which amounted to the replacement of the Patriarch by the State-run Synod. Stalin's restoration of Patriarchy effectively restored the Church to the degree of independence that did not exist for more than 200+ years... this is very far from being "limited"!

Quote:It was pretty severe up through the 1960s anyway.

"pretty severe" is quite relative, comparing to say 1920s.. but 1960s is not Stalin, but Khrushchev, and this links to Khrushchev's regime trying to resurrect pre-Stalin communism in more than one way.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#29
Nah, you're doing alright by yourself. No need for help. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#30
I am too lazy to deal with the Torquemada case... strongly suspect that he was maligned as usual, probably by a Protestant cabal, but to prove this would require looking things up.

-----

OK, just a couple more comments on the "individual members" being prosecuted.

Firstly, it is wrong to assume that every priest or church member is perfect in character. Glenn Beck's outing the other day was caused by this fine gentemen, [Image: okhlo.jpg], Ivan Okhlobystin, who is an actor, director, and also (ex-?) priest, see the left photo. Mr.Okhlobystin suggested on national TV that all gays should be burned alive, and this is really going a bit too far even for me... this kind of suggestion even during Stalin's time would have gotten him into a trouble.

Secondly, certain religious denominations under Stalin were seen as subversive, Jehovah witnesses/Adventists is one example... but this is a separate subject really.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#31
MV,

I've read a tad of Russian history not related to the communist era, I know the Russian Orthodox church there has had an official state nexus. Seems to me most any Christian outside the RO would be even today seen as subversive in a way.

The article does not even under Russian historic culture demonstrate by 1939 a "quite positive" view of even the RO church under Stalin(let alone a believer outside that denomination). That's just not reasonable.



It was more along the lines of "OK boys, we've been enemies here and I am the boss as you well know, let's make a deal , you swear allegiance to me/be my boys and never breathe a thought against my rule and I'll let you re-open many of your church buildings and the gulag/ firing squad is out for now".


"Quite positive" would accurately describe Putin's view of the Russian Orthodox church. He gives them priority/access over other Christians and outlaws some Christian worship along my lines because the RO likes that.

Even in Russian culture, the difference at the "1939 rapproachment point" and Putin is staggering. You disagree?

I think the evidence is strong on Torquemada and that era myself. There are formal documents of the church extant calling for the elimination of heresy in Spain. The entire number of "murdered" is ~2K, so the exaggeration doesn't seem there to me. Jews fled or faked conversions, guys like me were murdered because the thing was only for Christian "heretics", it never was formally aimed at Jews.

BTW, I agree Prots have often exaggerated anti Catholic stuff.

Of course not all of anything is sound or good, no disagreement there.
Reply
#32
Check the thread, the phrase I used was "Russia in 1950 was quite tolerant toward Christianity"..., "positive" seems to be yours. I only tried to explain why being a Christian in Russia/1950 was not all that dangerous by itself. Suggesting that Stalin actually encouraged the church is going way too far, but he sure allowed it to function normally.
I have serious doubts about any loyalty oath or deal being made, more likely Stalin merely explained the usual division between Caesar's and God's domains, what else was needed?

Quote:"Quite positive" would accurately describe Putin's view of the Russian Orthodox church. He gives them priority/access over other Christians and outlaws some Christian worship along my lines because the RO likes that.
Hmm... I'm not sure this is something good going on here at all. Putin uses the church to help his PR image, Church uses Putin for some corrupt dealings... separation of Church and State is not totally wrong.

Quote:Seems to me most any Christian outside the RO would be even today seen as subversive in a way.

Yes. A long-term problem here, and Chickens and Eggs are now mixed up badly. Financing for the terrorists (aka revolutionaries) hundred years ago came from various sources, including foreign intelligence services of at least three countries, rich Jews, but also from rich non-RO Christians, specifically these guys, who in a way were the original orthodox!
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#33
I do not approve of Putin and the RO church view on state/church nexus at all( or any Christian group and any state). IMO, it's evil. But, it is preferable to how Stalin treated people is my view.
Reply
#34
Quote: But, it is preferable to how Stalin treated people is my view.

Again, this is only because you have not looked at the situation closely. Stalin was not exactly an angel, but (1) he eliminated loads of real crazies and (2) greatly improved the economy and living standards. Putin eliminated only a few crazies and slightly improved the economy... so perhaps the objective approach is to say that Putin is a small-dosed Stalin.

Do you believe in homeopathy? S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#35
(01-17-2014, 02:41 PM)Palladin Wrote: MV,

I've read a tad of Russian history not related to the communist era, I know the Russian Orthodox church there has had an official state nexus. Seems to me most any Christian outside the RO would be even today seen as subversive in a way.

Yeah, well don't expect to be able to take a course in Russian History, from UT either. They don't carry it. Only that PC Feely Good major of Russian Studies, which does not include Russian History, if you can believe that.

Oh how far has our education system fallen. S7
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#36
One of the best books I ever read was about Peter the Great. Robert Massie authored it.

A small book I read years ago, "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith was OK. It was a little "colored" by cold war stuff, but, it was a fun read.
Reply
#37
Quote:One of the best books I ever read was about Peter the Great. Robert Massie authored it.

Again, don't be so sure. Was it Peter the Great or Peter the Horrible? Remember, he is the guy who made Church into an arm of the State, and this is far from being the worst thing he did, the list is very long.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#38
I took a Russian Culture course as a perspective, and man o man, for being ~40yrs old, that professor was loin stirring. If she asked me on a Friday to make a night of it, I wouldn't have hesitated. Her parents were Russian immigrants, incidentally.

It was a survey course and I didn't gather too much detail out of it aside from general history. The RO Church seems to have always been repressive though, from what I remember of it (it was a very evenly taught and balanced course) since it's beginnings in the mid-900s. Medieval Russia apparently was not a fan of singing and dancing among other things. Then courts would be used to back Church "morality" decisions or something.
Reply
#39
That book wasn't all positive although it seemed to credit Peter with dragging Russia into modernity. It did bring out some of Peter's brutal stuff, I honestly had forgotten about how he dealt with the church.
Reply
#40
Quote:That book wasn't all positive although it seemed to credit Peter with dragging Russia into modernity.

Yeah, this is the official POV that is largely based on the fact that later Romanov's descended from Peter and needed a "Great" ancestor. But looking at the situation a bit closer reveals that the country was already on the way to modernity and the previous effective ruler, Galitzin was considerably more capable than Peter.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Issac Newton, Apocalypse 2060: The Final Battle Between Christianity And Islam WarBicycle 1 594 01-03-2013, 08:21 AM
Last Post: WarBicycle
  Comparing Radical Islam to the Beast scpg02 6 1,186 01-05-2009, 12:17 AM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)