Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Reconquista
Quote:Who does not see the Hand of God in the conquest of Mexico,300 Spanish warriors against millions of Aztec pagan death cult worshippers? You think THEY did that by themselves for heaven's sake?????
At least you didn't say "millions of aztec warriors". They were a small people, not millions, not even the women and children murdered by that Christian riffraff included. You see the hand God's in that genocide? A fine God you have there, keep him. And you call other people's faith "death cult"?
Know what, just imagine a single modern man with a machine gun waiting for that scum of 300 and mowing them down from the distance.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
The people whom the Aztecs ruled numbered in the millions, actually. And while the conquistadors did treat them brutally, the overwhelming majority died unintentionally from diseases.

And, believe it or not, most Mexicans today are descended from members of the Aztec civilization, since Spanish women did not immigrate to Mesoamerica.

How do 300 guys 5 thousand miles from home treat "brutally" millions? that is beyond utter nonsense. It may or may not be accurate that later on when they extended their empire to control the entire continent they were,I don't know,but 300 guys cannot brutalize millions,that is nonsense.


I suggest reading and believing the Bible concerning salvation before furthering this view. Start with John 2030 . If you have differences with that,take it up with God. Catholics may believe some goofy things,but they believe John 2030 and taught these lost millions to.

Christ makes no errors,notwithstanding your views. He dispatched those Catholic believers for His own reasons. Millions are in Heaven tonight because they were prepared to believe and you would have them in he.ll.

You don't seem to understand that Christ controls human history. In total.
Because they converted the mestizo laborers into a forced labor serf caste.

And while they could not personally treat all milions brutally, since they could not come into contact with them, they certainly did brutalize(and I'm using this to the farthest extent of the term) those they did come into contact with. A favorite tactic was chopping off hands and feet.
Don't forget also that Columbus met the gentle Tainos and set up settlements that were aimed at procuring the rare spices he though available and at first they had harmony. Until he died, he never realized the new continent he found was not Asia. However, the Caribs attacked the settlements and slaughtered them to a man. As Spain expanded into the new lands, they found no spices but began searching for gold which was there. Columbus appealed for a better quality of settler - but the aggressive natives forced an equal but opposite aggressive settler to the frontier.

There was no germ theory at the time - and no European settler had the least suspicion that he may be a source of disease that only affected the indigenes. As is norm for all of mankind's history, the only action that worked against force was force. I don't normally hold for proselytizing of native populations by more advanced settlers with higher technological "magic" to awe the natives, but in the case of South America, it could be that introducing the Christian God to replace the native barbarism was well done.

300 men 5000 miles away from home did this? I think you need some common sense. Don't take offense,I think lots of posters here need a strong dose of it.

This is before technology,300 guys with swords among millions. The millions ACCEPTED their leadership and their faith freely and eschewed their former pagan religion of human sacrifices.

Anyone who thinks different is braindead,IMO.
Actually, what evolved in Latin America was sort of a combination between Christianity and the native religions. But a major part of why the natives embraced Christianity had to do with the brutality of the Aztec religion. Also, missions were major administrators of the new communities that began springing up.

That is often true. You can find paganism within Islam in Indonesia for example. I saw a documentary recently on it.

The point I am making is these millions accepted that Jesus of Biblical fame is The Christ,period. Other false beliefs or rituals are another story,but according to Scripture,do not nullify that initial faith.

Were the Spaniards harsher colonialists than say the British? Yes,they certainly were,but this fact does not defer the greater and more significant fact that those millions were blessed by having the Word of God presented to them and believing it. That is meaningless to you,but it should not be to believers in Christ.
Unfortunately, Paladin, you're proven the point of this topic. It's about believing that it is righteous according to your faith, to wage a bloody conquest, a conquista.

If I correctly understand your bloodthirst for dead Muslim bodies based on what you've repeatedly stated in these forums, YOU ARE NO BETTER than the Muslims who want to kill you in the name of Islam, because you want to kill them (mistakenly, heretically) in the name of Jesus. Based on what you've said, it's obvious that you are a violent fanatic, not one whit better than the suicide bombers. Oh, okay, three whits better.

If this were some simple debate about the theology of transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, or how many angels can dance on a pinhead; or a political discussion over the difference between a moderate Republican and a conservative Democrat, it wouldn't matter enough to call each other heretics, or bloodthirsty fanatics. But - am I supposed to stand aside and say, "Oh God bless your heresy, mistaken brother who wants to slaughter in the name of Him Whom God's Word calls Prince of Peace?" No, I think it's my duty as a good watchman to say, "There is the slayer."

If your point of view as a conservative, Christian American is to kill all those Muslims, they (by your own rationale) have a duty to kill you. And I don't want them to kill you, but I can hardly blame the fanatic Muslims for assuming they must act in self defense against those who want to do genocide against Islam.

Sorry, brother. You have proven the point of this topic. Now, please prove you can understand another man's argument, even if he just called yours a heresy.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

You would have these millions in hel.l and that is unacceptable to God. That's 1 reason why He didn't have you around back then and ask your opinion.

It seems there was misunderstanding. Most natives did convert willingly, and the Church won them over through humanitarian efforts and the general appeal of Christianity compared to human sacrifice and torture religions. However, to say that just because the Church was humane that the Spanish settlers were also humane, is mistaken.

I thought you were talking about the Spanish settlers in general.

The settlers *did* brutalize the Indian peoples. They stole the women and made the progeny(mestizos) a serf laborer caste. BTW, the Spanish government was uninvolved in conversion - they only wanted silver and labor to get the silver.
Palladin Wrote:Thai,

You would have these millions in hel.l and that is unacceptable to God. That's 1 reason why He didn't have you around back then and ask your opinion.

You simply don't convert people to true, saving faith by threatening to kill them immediately if they don't "convert." It's false evangelism.

Back on topic, do you see why your desire to convert or kill Muslims by death threats, is no better ethically and morally than the fanatical Muslims who want to convert people to Islam in a similar way? Do you see that?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Quote:There was no germ theory at the time - and no European settler had the least suspicion that he may be a source of disease that only affected the indigenes. As is norm for all of mankind's history, the only action that worked against force was force. I don't normally hold for proselytizing of native populations by more advanced settlers with higher technological "magic" to awe the natives, but in the case of South America, it could be that introducing the Christian God to replace the native barbarism was well done.
WmLambert, right, they didn't know what caused diseases, but they knew how diseases were transmitted. They knew, that giving blankets that were used before with smallpox infected people to the natives would transmit it. They were cold blooded murderers. You should not be proud about them.
It is tragic, so many valuable cultures were destroyed in the name of the twin religions Christianity and Islam. However, don't we greatly exaggerate the importance of religions in human history? For some of you faith might be everything, for the powerful in history and presence, it's just a tool amongst many to reach their targets.
We know that spreading whatever religion was and is the veneer to hide very secular agendas. Should we not rather talk about that agendas?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
I believe religion is merely a cover for economic and social causes.

For instance, I have a theory that the conflict between Church and State throughout the Middle Ages is really just a conflict between the bureacracy and aristocracy of the Western Roman Empire(which still existed after the "fall" of the Roman Empire) and the new kingdoms that the Germanic tribes began setting.
Interesting side note. An Arab scholar in Spain found the connection between the plague and fleas. On his way to report the findings he was killed by a different sect of Arabs. End of story, the rest is history.

History is full of such ironies
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"

Oh yes,I don't contend the Spanish colonialists were angels,that's silly,you aren't one,either.

It seems rather without logic to claim those Mexicans of say 1580 or whenever converted due to payoffs,yet they were forced to convert. Those 2 ideas are ignorant.


I suggest again you read repeatedly John 2030. YES,those Aztecs that believed Jesus is the Christ are in Heaven as we speak,whether you want them there or think they don't "deserve" to be there is not of significance,they are. It's fact.

None of us deserves anything but death and hel.l,be thankful you don't receive what you deserve. I am.

Don't be so high and mighty as to think you know better than God how to approach a given group of humans with His Gospel.
I wouldn't use the term 'payoffs'. There were a variety of reasons - for isntance, they were impressed with the power of the Christian God, since it had seemingly produced a superior civilizatoin; the humanitrian and compassionate nature of Christianity was appealing to them; and often, priests were the only ones helping them, so they converted out of gratitude or to gain benefits.
quadrat, per your post on blankets being given by those who knew they would infect the natives with smallpox - you appear to be relating the untrue history put forward by the charlatan teaching fellow from Colorado, Ward Churchill. You do know that his version of history did not happen don't you? He claimed the U.S. Army purposefully gave smallpox infected blankets to the Mandan tribe in 1837.
Ward Churchill Wrote:At Fort Clark on the upper Missouri River…the U.S. Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets as gifts among the Mandan. The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis where troops infected with the disease were quarantined. Although the medical practice of the day required the precise opposite procedure, army doctors ordered the Mandans to disperse once they exhibited symptoms of infection. The result was a pandemic among the Plains Indian nations which claimed at least 125,000 lives, and may have reached a toll several times that number.
The problem with is that Fort Clark was not an army base. At 3:00 P.M. on June 19, 1837, the American Fur Company steamboat St. Peter’s arrived at the Mandan villages after stopping at Fort Clark just downstream. Some aboard the steamer had smallpox and inadvertently spread it to the tribe, entirely by accident. All the rest is hyperbole.

Churchill's only source for this was Russell Thornton, but Thornton said: "If Churchill has sources that say otherwise, I’d like to see them. But right now I’m his source for this, and it’s wrong." Although the accidental contagion was tragic, it was (according to Thornton) only 20,400 dead from a variety of tribes, plus “many Osage”, and "three fifths of the north-central California Indians (probably an exaggeration)."
WmLambert and quadrat,,

Relying on Churchill as a qualified source is a pretty flawed strategy. He has been completely discredited and fired. Fired by the Peoples Republic of Boulder no less!! Pretty much everything the guy has ever written has been established as plagurism. He went so far as to duplicate other people's paintings in mirror image and actually sell them as his own art.

This isn't to say that he doesn't have a bright future on the lefty lecture circuit spreading his lies. But to be fired from a liberal arts program at a liberal college in the middle of a fantasy land like Boulder Colorado? If there's a liars hall of fame he's probably going to be in the first round draft along with Slick Willie.

I thought that this thread was about the reconquest of Europe by Moors. Other than the fairly high profile riots and car arson in France earlier this year, it's kind of been rendered a dirty little secret. I'm constantly beating the drum that Europe is useful only as a canary in a coal mine in this regard. I'd like to see a bit more about the demographic catastrophe and the long term results of "keeping quiet" about the wave of crap that many Euorpeans are experiencing at the hands of their new neighbors. I remember thinking that the French scarf ban was so unthinkable in terms of personal freedom. But I've changed my mind. As annoying as the French are, they are not stupid. At least they may have found a (short term) way to keep their indiginous female population from getting beaten and raped (basically punished) as sluts for not wearing a scarf or burka. ... but I still figure they're screwed in the long run.
WmLambert, seems to be a few centuries later anyway. Wink1 Strange that the Indians in North- and South America too died from imported diseases and they had obviously nothing to transmit. A healthy bunch.
Whether the story is true or not, the aborigines on both continents were victims of a several-hundred years long genocide, surely no accident. The invaders brought nothing but slavery, misery and death. The Americans of today brought the Irakis nothing but slavery, misery and death. Nothing has changed. A masterpiece of demagogy to talk about delivering 'God's word' or the modern equivalent, 'democracy'.

Watched yesterday something about Christian missionaries in Cambodia. Believe it or not, their Jesus image looks like Buddha, is sitting like Buddha, meditating like Buddha, with closed eyes. But does'nt have that pointed hat, instead a beard and long hair. Cannot stop shaking my head about this crap.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Putin's Russian Style Reconquista John L 403 149,582 08-21-2020, 06:16 AM
Last Post: Fredledingue

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)