Joanne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sdelaney Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I'm not sure that I agree that this is or was
> a
> > basic doctine of the church.
>
> If you have some other documented explanation for
> the forced conversions (by Charlemagne, for
> example), what is it?

I may have mis-interpreted the point you were making. I thought you were saying that it was a basic tenet of church beliefs that the whole world needed to be converted before Christ would return. What you seem to be saying above is that it was simply a common, intended practice for the church to gain converts (forced or otherwise). While I readily agree with the latter, I would not agree with the former.

>
>
> > Was the purpose of the treaty and the pope's
> > intervention to come up with a grand scheme
> to
> > convert the world, or was it a means to keep
> two
> > important powers from fighting with each
> other in
> > Europe? Were there other political or major
> power
> > considerations involved rather than simple
> > religous zealotry? I'm not up on the details
> > enough to comment authoritatively, but
> perhaps
> > someone who is can contribute?
>
> I'm not saying it was religious zeal or part of a
> grand scheme to convert the world. I offer it as
> attestation of the worldview that I've ascribed to
> the church of that time. The countries involved
> had economic reasons for agreeing to the treaty,
> certainly.
>

I think we have reached a basic level of disagreement here. I attribute much of these conquerings and killings as the normal political machinations of major powers, with perhaps a does of religion included. You point at religion as the major shaper of these events with power politics playing a secondary role.


>
> > It would be a pretty common trait that
> people
> > intent on robbing you (or conquering you)
> have
> > little regard for your interests. I do not
> agree
> > that this requires religious inspiration.
>
> I agree with your first sentence. I do not and
> would not equate a worldview with an inspiration,
> religious or otherwise.
>
> > The Chinese used gunpowder for weapons too!
> So did
> > everyone else who came in touch with the
> > technology including the Tatars, Arabs, Turks
> ...
>
> The Chinese had gunpowder for three or four
> hundred years IIRC before Marco Polo came and got
> it. They did not use their technology to oppress
> and conquer.

Although I have little background in Chinese history of this period, my understanding is that gunpowder weapons were used by the Chinese. Perhaps they were not used on other nations, but they were certainly used internally. There are numerous rockets, bombs, and "fire lances" in the Chinese record prior to Marco Polo. (Note that some assert that gunpowder technology was transferred to the West via Arab knowledge, not Polo). Certainly the Arabs used them against Constantinople in their wars of conquering and expansion and forced conversion. And the Mongols used rockets against the Magyars and Arabs in their wars of conquest. No saints when it comes to gunpowder I am afraid.


>
>
> > Unique is perhaps too strong a word. There is
> a
> > certain element of chance involved here. Up
> until
> > the Americas were "discovered" by Europe,
> all
> > previous genocidal opportunities were more or
> less
> > between neighbours. The vagueries of trade
> and
> > exchanges in technology tended to prevent
> huge
> > differences in technical capabilities. And
> > likewise many diseases were being regularly
> shared
> > about. Given the apparently normal
> conquering
> > tendencies of humans as practiced by 16th
> century
> > and onward Europeans, technologies that
> allowed
> > for regular ocean transport, a "new world",
> and
> > you have a recipe for disaster of the
> proportions
> > we have witnessed. a religious element -
> certainly
> > - but not the root cause IMHO.
>
> I don't think the role the church played in
> shaping the worldview of Europeans for nearly 1500
> years is a simply a "religious element." It's
> more about a mindset. Plenty of people were
> conquered throughout history. Frequently, their
> cultures are merged with the conquerors, their art
> is appreciated, their buildings used, their
> knowledge appreciated. That's a major difference
> in the conquest of the Americas. There was a
> willful, deliberate destruction of books and art
> because it was seen as "evil" -- the work of the
> devil. Sure, some gold was taken and melted
> because of European greed, but there was so much
> that had no monetary value that was destroyed
> simply because of the view the destroyers had been
> taught to hold of others.

As above, I think we are dancing around a basic disagreement as to the root cause of such actions. I see normal (unfortunately) traits of humans seeking land, power, resources, and riches and being able to get away with it through force of arms and technology. Thrown in a religious argument to reduce any possibly feelings of guilt and lets lock and load. On your side you see christian religion as the root and the rest of the actions natural outcomes. I am afraid we shall have to disagree.

Frankly, I see too many pre-christian, non-christian, and modern examples of similar behaviours which seem to match my view for me to feel comfortable with your explanation.