Declining moral values

[SmarterThanHick]

The recounting of historical facts is not a debate to be won. This is not high school debate club. We are not attempting to sway some unseen audience into believing which one of us holds the stronger stance. There is fact, provided by me and others, and conjecture and hand waiving, provided by you. You say I need to disprove your point, but your point appears diffuse and constantly changing, like some 5 year old who can't quite grasp the concept of game rule permanence and so makes them up to their own benefit as they go along.

Now regardless of whatever point you think you may have made, the statements I have made are accurate, supported, and in no way contradicted by any source shown in this thread. Specifically:

The historical fact still remains that Christianity has been propagated in many instanced by force, coercive incentivisation, acts of terrorism, threats, and other violent methods. This is not a judgment on Christianity. This is a historically accurate representation of events, which I have referenced previously.

For your reference, here again is the Wikipedia page, with primary sources on it, which supports the above claim: Christianization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These groups were not converted en mass because they "saw the light" and just decided to give up their own previous religions. They were conquered and forced into it, including but not limited to black slaves brought here from Africa. You have provided ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Now you can ramble on about how it was only peaceful or about some made up debate rules or any other unsupported garbage you'd like, but the historical facts still remain.

 

[Foxfyre]

I need to disprove your point, but your point appears diffuse and constantly changing, like some 5 year old who can't quite grasp the concept of game rule permanence and so makes them up to their own benefit as they go along.
QUOTE]

The point I made is that whatever acts with whatever intent have been done in the name of the Church or in the name of Christianity is one thing. How Christianity is spread is quite another. I have not been the least bit ambiguous about that nor have I changed it at any time that this line of discussion has been going on.

This is the point I made and the one you seem to be having a really difficult time grasping.

But that's okay. At least you're scrambling to re-read some of the history to reinforce your flawed thesis here, and you're probably learning something in the process. That is a good thing.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The point I made is that whatever acts with whatever intent have been done in the name of the Church or in the name of Christianity is one thing. How Christianity is spread is quite another.

You say this as if they are two different things. In general, the acts done in the name of the church or Christianity are done to propagate and/or reinforce the religion. Again, forcing Christianity on black slaves in early America is a perfect example of force used to spread the religion. This is just one of many times this has happened. Your "point" is still delusional and inaccurate.

Nice back-pedal attempt though.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey.......Faux Failure.........wanna explain how "peaceful" the preachers were when teaching Native American children?

Christianity is spread through violence and division.