I wanted to post in honour and shame, however felt my concern lay out of topic. Let me first state in my ignorance of Islam please do not become offended if I am speaking of something I do not know, instead please correct me.
Christianity in the past has been responsible for innumerable acts that today would be considered under the U.N. acts against humanity. In my mind it seems it was as cruel and barbaric as Islam is portrayed to me by the media today. So what is the difference, why has one(Western European) evolved and the other(Arabic) not. At one time Islam had spread across the Mediterranean, into Spain and deep into the African Continent. It boasted the finest mathematicians, medicines and art the world knew at that time, but it was surpassed by the West. In the west the development of society had progressed into knew thinking, the hold over the people by the church was slowly assumed by the governments of the day. As the society progressed it still maintained it's faith but, it forced the church to be more tolerant and accepting. Until a better educated public, the public, demanded from their Kings, Leaders and Bishops; respect, justice and liberty. With information becoming so readily available, isn't it only a matter of time before people from all over become better educated and create more tolerant and just societies based on their histories.
thoughts from my igloo
Dave

The advent of Christianity in Europe led to some fairly catastrophic events. First, you have the fall of Rome. It wasn't due entirely to Christianity but when you start tolerating alien religions while at the same time are led by a string of inbred idiots, you have problems. The idea that Constantine was the "first Christian emperor" is also a myth. He was a member of Sol Invictus, the Cult of the Invincible Sun, and was baptized a Christian on his deathbed when he was too weak to resist. So don't blame Constantine (although he was far too tolerant to be a great Roman emperor).

Then you have the rise of The Church. It decided it needed to control pretty much every aspect of European life for centuries, nearly a millennium, and succeeded over all in that.

Women became suspect because of the "Eve" stuff, knowledge and medicine were "works of the devil" because Christianity preached that one should be simple and not fill your minds with all this newfangled "knowledge" (go look it up if you don't believe me). Because they were indeed simpletons (the masses, not the evil bastards running the Church) they turned to violence to solve these problems and "get right with God."

The Crusades were merely an imperial expansion. Sure, they got the rabble worked into a frenzy with all this talk of the Holy Land and the True Cross and all that, but it was simply an attempt to annex the Mideast when you get right down to it. Didn't work out too well, but it had an interesting side effect in that Islamic knowledge and trade goods began filtering back into Europe. We all know the story of the Renaissance and how it ended the Dark Ages because we began trading with the Arabs and Persians, so I'll skip that.

Even modern Christianity is extremely problematic in my view. It's a Middle Eastern religion and doesn't belong in Europe and the Americas. But it's not going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess all we can do is hope to limit the influence of ignorant zealots on our governments (unfortunately they're allowed to vote). And for the record, I'm not an atheist. I'm just not a fan of ignorance, hypocrisy and unnecessary violence.

But isn't early Christianity comparable with some of the extremist ideas we saw arising in Afghanistan. Where the Taliban were burning books, destroying historic works of art because it was contrary to the Qur'an and other acts of seemingly subjugation. Take a look at Iran, when the mullahs assumed control over the country, they brought in strict Islamic rule, yet today it isn't the subjugated citizens of Afghanistan. The Shaw, contrary to whatever crimes he committed, brought in schools and educational facilities. Having benefited from the knowledge the Iranians gained, even extremists can't take that away. From what I have gleaned, it is that Iranians now enjoy a fairly liberal society(even if it is only somewhat tolerated) and have a voice in the direction of their government. I can only assume from what I have read and I distrust the western media, other Arab countries who have built schools and universities from their oil profits also have a more liberal society. The extremists may call this decadence but what it really is free thought backed by knowledge.
You are right about the extremists here in our own backyard, the leaders for the New American Century for instance. The Bush Administration has been attacking the American media unmercifully and applying tactics we've all read about in 1984. To us here in Canada, we see that what the Americans have failed to learn is that you can't impose an ideal on a people, especially educated people.

I can deny little of what you have said - but be careful when you refer to "early Christianity." The last Roman Emperor was deposed by a Germanic Tribe in AD 476. That's nearly 5 centuries after Christ. The "early church" was peaceloving. Christ's teaching are of "love your neighbor" and when you are attacked you are to "turn the other cheek." Even the Old Testament Commandments teach against taking the life of another. The dogmatic teaching that seemingly begin with the rise of the Holy Roman Empire have many differences with the actual "early Christians."
BTW, I am a Christian. But I have many issues with "the church."

I never would have guessed. I share much of your feelings, my friend.

If you ask the people who have studied the fall of Rome, they wouldn't tell you that Christianity was the problem. More likely then not their problem was they got too lazy and started hiring mercenaries to do their fighting, who, of course, are out for themselves.

Rise of the Catholic church, which was not following the Bible at the time. Current Christianity is not looking to control the world, but rather to convince the world, and let it make its own decisins. We essentially leave God at the controls.

Women are not bad just because they made the first mistake. Just because something has a flaw doesn't make it all bad. Christianity never says to not learn (in fact, it is encouraged!) either.

Again, Catholic churches were not following the Bible when they created the Crusades.

Christianity is against ignorance, hypocrisy, and unnecessary violence.

You mean, Catholic "Christianity"? Please make sure you maintain this distinction!

This is a subject dear to my heart. Please read this and then let's talk if you like.

pilgrimage

In reply to scheater5

Thanks, it seems I must ask forgiveness for my ignorance of the Christian faith also. I know very little of the early history of the church. The virtues taught to me of turning the other cheek and to love thy neighbour have been handed down since the beginning. However there is the period in which the leaders of the faith had absolute control over not only the people but of their kings as well. With the coming of the printing press, people were able to learn to read and make decisions for themselves, a good example is Martin Luther. Up until then the bible was written primarily in latin and only the clergy or priesthood could interpret the words of God to the people, a very powerful position and very abused throughout history.

Various orders, sects, divisions, or whatever you want to call them, of the Christian faith have abused the interpretation of the bible to their own ends. I will not name one or exclude any but will group them under the generic term of Christian faith. It is not my intention of singling any Christian group out it is to merely to use as an example in comparison. To point out my thoughts that knowledge or education makes a society more mature in their atitude and tolerant to the beliefs of others.

Yet even today their is a strong movement in the U.S. that tries to impose their version of Gods word on the American public and attempts to control who leads in the White House.

I did a quick surf through your link oxman, it's rather long so I'll get back to you.

My feeling is that Europe's (& North America's) recent growth is not directly linked to Christianity.
There are many countries in South American and Africa which are Christian and they are a mess. Japan is the world's second largest economy , has the highest life expectancy and one of the safest environment in the world. Japan is not Christian at all.
I think the rise of Europe is linked to many factors ,some of them are cultural and some historical. Certainly the Industrial revolution and the French revolution had a big impact. The protestant ethics is another factor. The Education system was changing , with assessment being more based on individual achievements . There were advances in the area of science and technology (guns...) .The fact that Europeans switched from beer/ale to tea and coffee might have had an impact as well....
I'm sure there are many reasons I didn't mention. These cultural/ historic combination created a new phenomenon - modern society , which was very good at economic growth. The growth of the West was a challenge to all other societies. This created two opposing movements within non-western societies - one called for copying the West and one called for retaining one's original culture. It seems to me ,that Japan was the most successful ,striking a balance between Westernisation and Japanese culture, other East Asian societies were also successful. However , other cultures were less successful and Islamic culture is one of them. It seems like it's constantly changing between Westernisation and going back to it's roots. They have not managed to find a balance yet.

I read your story, oxman. Good luck to you!!!!

In short answer, why is the West the "dominant" force in the World. (depends how you define dominant).

1) Read a book called "Guns Germs and Steel" - to my mind basically explains it. btw Religion has NOTHING to do with it.
2) Islam starts in what 620 - 630 AD, Christianity had a bit of a head start.
The current Islamic year is 1428, (this reckoning starts in 662AD I believe).
I am sure in 1428 Western Europe had some issues with Christian zealots - Ever heard of the Inquistion ? Makes Al-Qiaida look like kindergarten novices.

You're confusing a religion with state and or people when you speak of the unspeakable things done by people who used islamic tactics to press their ideals on other people. Nowhere in the new testament does it say to force a religious tenet or sytem of beliefs on another person. And why would it? If there IS one true God, would not this God not fear His creation, and not suffer His followers to slay the unbelievers? A prophet of this one true God would surely profess to his followers to share the good word, and that if it is not well recieved, then turn away and leave in peace.

I think that if you look at the timeline, you'll find that it was after the advent of conversion to islam at the tip of a sword before people who used Christianity as a front for their ideals began using the sword themselves as a tool for conversion. Surely these fine gentlemen are en flambe right about now. And if not, it's not recommended by Jesus at any point in time, ever.

Just read the book, and pay attention to what Jesus said. Live like he said to live, and you should be fine. Do you really think a one true God would want you doing his dirty work?

"but what about this country and that country doing this that and the other thing, blah blah blah", I can hear the replies already, and I haven't even pressed submit.

Read one book, then the other, then see if they could possibly be written about the same thing. I have both books, and it's like ... well, there's no way. Sorry if this offends anyone, but there's just no way one could reasonably construe that there's any correlation between the two other than the latter used some of the same stories.

In all actuallity, if Christians truly followed the faith, there would be no Christian nations.

What is and has been done in the name of God/Elohim/Yahweh, specifically under the Guide of Christianity has been as numerous or more numerous than acts by other religions, even Islam itself. One must take these kinds of things into perspective really. Islam itself may be a current times flashpoint for the responsibility of loss of life, but over the whole of times, they are themselves no more violent than Christianity is as a whole. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Papal state (how many popes have excommunicated and had killed other non christian believers?).

I have found that any and all good things that have been done in societies or peoples are often co-opted for political ends. That in essence defines the task of the would be seeker of truth. What is true when so much misrepresentation for so many reasons has taken place.
To sift through the vast mire of ignorance, books, histories, paradigms and agendas is a formidable if not impossible task.
We are left with learning to hear our heart and conscience as a tool that discerns between right and wrong, truth and error.
Once a strand of truth is discovered it leads to another. On that path much of the clamor of modern religion is bypassed. Faithfulness to the light we receive leads to more light. The arduous burden of wading through the mire is dispensed with. Once one places the burden of finding truth and light onto the truth and light the burden of discovery is reduced immensely. Peace and confidence come. A living relationship with Elohim grows and His Son leads the way. The Ruach Kodesh empowers us to follow.

By any concept otherwise I would say Oxman that is a very educated view. Though I doubt many if any modern conservative Christians recognize the idea of ruach kodesh or what it means. Walk up to Jerry Falwell and ask him if he takes faith in ruach Kodesh. He will probably look at you crazily and say your a child of the devil. One primary issue with Christianity and its evolution is that many Christians do not recognize the roots of their own faith or how it was defined. Certainly such Judaic traditions are if anything else , ignored.

I think many christians would evolve and adapt more if they took, say, a class in Hebrew. Just as similar as if such individuals took the time to read the biblical apocrypha if for no other reason to learn. Sadly, too many Christians are not brave enough in their own faith to do so. The Bel and the Dragon from the later portion of the book of Daniel an example. Its quite a fantastical read (the babylonians revered a dragon, whod have thought it) -- though clearly not canon in nature, thus its "exclusion" from most modern biblical texts. Yes, there is a dragon mentioned in the bible that is not the same dragon the whore of Babylon sits upon (though I imagine it could be interpreted that way) in the book of Revelation.

+1

My Biblical Hebrew is a little weak, but, since it is also a semitic language, my Arabic helps. That and I'm pretty well educated in world religions, including Judaism and Christianity.

ouch. I googled Ruach Kodesh

and went to a site that showed up and got this:

Content Blocked
The City of Rome, Georgia uses network filtering technologies to reduce our network's exposure to illegal, inappropriate, dangerous, or bandwidth intensive material. A request from your computer matched one or more criteria to be blocked. Below are details of this transaction.
Request denied by WatchGuard HTTP proxy.

Reason: one or more categories denied helper='WebBlocker.2' details='Hate Speech'
Method: GET
Host: christianparty.net
Path: /holyspirit.htm

hate speech?

The Hebrew term "ruach kodesh" was translated to the Greek term "hagios pneuma", which was then translated to the English term "Holy Spirit"......