Creation is a Scientific Fact

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Cortes had no religious component in his conquest?

Look at this:

"Cortés later asked Moctezuma to provide more gifts of gold to demonstrate his fealty as a vassal of Charles V. Cortés also demanded that the two large idols be removed from the main temple pyramid in the city, the human blood scrubbed off, and shrines to the Virgin Mary and St. Chris ...[text shortened]... giving credence to the concept that Moctezuma had accepted the King of Spain as his liege lord."

Here is the scientific truth:

DNA : Proof God's Word Created Everything

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Cortes had no religious component in his conquest?

Look at this:

"Cortés later asked Moctezuma to provide more gifts of gold to demonstrate his fealty as a vassal of Charles V. Cortés also demanded that the two large idols be removed from the main temple pyramid in the city, the human blood scrubbed off, and shrines to the Virgin Mary and St. Chris ...[text shortened]... giving credence to the concept that Moctezuma had accepted the King of Spain as his liege lord."

So what if he did! People are religious. So what? What good is religion if it's not based in truth?

You like to think, apparently, that religion, and Christianity in particular, is responsible for so much injustice, but reality defies that mentality.

Even if one in seven people claim some kind of religious affiliation, that leaves six more that must be responsible for something!

Originally posted by josephw
So what if he did! People are religious. So what? What good is religion if it's not based in truth?

You like to think, apparently, that religion, and Christianity in particular, is responsible for so much injustice, but reality defies that mentality.

Even if one in seven people claim some kind of religious affiliation, that leaves six more that must be responsible for something!

You continue to be in denial. Cortes FORCED his religion on Monty. Forced it with death penalties, JUST LIKE BOKO HARAM OR TALIBAN TODAY. There was ZERO difference between the religious based murders of Cortes and those monsters in Taliban and Boko Haram and ISIS.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You continue to be in denial. Cortes FORCED his religion on Monty. Forced it with death penalties, JUST LIKE BOKO HARAM OR TALIBAN TODAY. There was ZERO difference between the religious based murders of Cortes and those monsters in Taliban and Boko Haram and ISIS.

That depends on who wrote the history account one is reading.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That depends on who wrote the history account one is reading.

Spoken just as one who AUTOMATICALLY assumes the absolute superiority of christianity and so condones any of the atrocities committed in its name. Christianity has destroyed civilizations all over the planet but you could care less about that because of your built in bias against any religion but your own.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Spoken just as one who AUTOMATICALLY assumes the absolute superiority of christianity and so condones any of the atrocities committed in its name. Christianity has destroyed civilizations all over the planet but you could care less about that because of your built in bias against any religion but your own.

The history I read indicated that Cortes and his men were outlaws. The things Cortes is reported to have done is just not Christian.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The history I read indicated that Cortes and his men were outlaws. The things Cortes is reported to have done is just not Christian.

Well, there are a lot of so-called christians doing a lot of non-christian things. You included. I just realized who you were talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorio_Cortez

You need to keep your centuries straight.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, there are a lot of so-called christians doing a lot of non-christian things. You included. I just realized who you were talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorio_Cortez

You need to keep your centuries straight.

I am referring to Hernán Cortés A.K.A. Hernando Cortés, conqueror of Mexico, born at Medellin in Spain c. 1485; died at Castilleja de la Cuesta near Seville, 2 December, 1547.

In 1519, he was elected captain of the third expedition to the mainland, an expedition which he partly funded. His enmity with the Governor of Cuba, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, resulted in the recall of the expedition at the last moment, an order which Cortés ignored in an act of open mutiny.

In July 1519, his men took over Veracruz. By this act, Cortés dismissed the authority of the Governor of Cuba to place himself directly under the orders of King Charles. In order to eliminate any ideas of retreat, Cortés scuttled his ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s

In April 1520, Velázquez sent an expedition to capture Cortés.

The most daring of his exploits, and one that may be qualified as absolutely reckless although successful, was his march on Narvaez who, with a more superior force of Spaniards, had landed on the gulf coast with orders from Velazquez, not only to supersede Cortés, but to capture him and bring him to trial in Cuba for disobedience and treason towards the governor.

The impression has prevailed that Cortés was treated by the Spanish Government with base ingratitude. It is true that a few years after 1521 an unfavourable change took place in his relations with the Emperor Charles V and his government. The change never led to an absolute break, but it caused a gradual curtailing of his power which Cortés felt very keenly. While lavishly contributing his own means at the outset, Cortés made his conquest avowedly as a Spanish subject, for and in behalf of Spain and its monarch. Mexico became a Spanish colony through his instrumentality, but it was the duty of the Spanish Government to care for it. Cortés personally was not ungenerously rewarded, but he speedily complained of insufficient compensation to himself and his comrades. Thinking himself beyond reach of restraint, he disobeyed many of the orders of the Crown, and, what was more imprudent, said so in a letter to the emperor, dated 15 October, 1524 (Ycazbalceta, "Documentos para la Historia de México", Mexico, 1858, I). In this letter Cortés, besides recalling in a rather abrupt manner that the conquest of Mexico was due to him alone, deliberately acknowledges his disobedience in terms which could not fail to create a most unfavourable impression. Soon after the capture of the Indian settlement the Crown, as was its prerogative, in 1522 sent to Mexico officers to investigate the condition of affairs, and to report on the conduct of Cortés. To this he could not object, as it was an established custom.

The commissioner, Tapia, charged with the investigation, was so hampered, however, by the officers of Cortés that he did not even reach the valley of Mexico, but returned without carrying out his orders. Cortés himself, while keeping at a distance, treated him with the utmost courtesy, but rendered all action on his part impossible. A second commissioner, Luis Ponce de León, was sent in 1526 with discretionary and very dangerous powers. He died at Mexico soon after his arrival, in a manner that leaves little doubt of foul play, although Prescott discredits it. But Prescott had not then the documentary material since unearthed. A number of minor charges were brought against the conqueror, and they appear to have been substantiated. They could not fail to create grave suspicion, because they presented the picture of a conspiracy, the object of which was to make Cortés the independent ruler of Mexico. Under such circumstances the least that could be expected was the elimination of Cortés from the government of the new province. The situation was a very critical one for the Crown. Cortés held the country and its resources, and controlled a body of officers and men who had, in 1520, expressed to the emperor in writing their admiration for their captain, and dwelt in the strongest terms on the obligations under which his achievements had placed the mother country. It is true, in case of a clash, Spain might have counted upon the support of the inhabitants of the Antilles, but the military reputation of Cortés had become so great that the selection of a leader against him would have been very embarrassing. Hence a conflict had to be avoided as long as possible. Cortés' position was gradually undermined, titles and honours were conferred upon him, but not the administrative authority he coveted. At the same time his attention was insensibly directed to explorations outside of America, to the much-desired Moluccas or Spice Islands.

At a time when there was almost a certainty, in court circles in Spain, of an intended rebellion by Cortés, a charge was brought against him that cast a fatal blight upon his character and plans. He was accused of the murder of his first wife. Prescott makes light of the accusation, but his opinion has little weight because, as above stated, evidence has since been discovered which was beyond his reach. This evidence leaves no doubt that Catalina Xuarez was strangled by her husband. The proceedings of the investigation were kept secret. No report, either exonerating or condemning Cortés, was published. Had the Government declared him innocent, it would have greatly increased his popularity; had it declared him a criminal, a crisis would have been precipitated by the accused and his party. Silence was the only safe policy. But that silence is a strong indication that grave danger was apprehended from his influence.

It is curious that, after the conquest of the Mexicans had been consummated, but more particularly after the sinister deeds above mentioned, success seems to have abandoned his banner. Excluded from the government of Mexico, his eyes were turned to further exploration. Don Antonio de Mendoza, first viceroy of New Spain, was looked upon by Cortés as his enemy, but the accusation that he opposed and hampered Cortés in nearly every one of his new interprises is not justified. It was the latter who, at once, opened a violent campaign against everybody who approached what he considered his new domain. He found grave faults with every measure, and resorted to statements that were utterly baseless. Thus his attack upon Father Marcos of Nizza, charging him with having attributed to himself the discovery of New Mexico while in reality he, Cortés, had been the discoverer, is so groundless that it appears almost ridiculous. Every expedition set on foot by Cortés in the Pacific either failed absolutely or produced meagre, unsatisfactory results. Soured by these failures which stood in flagrant contrast to the brilliant success of his early efforts, Cortés became a chronic complainant. He saw his influence gone, his prestige waning. The Government could not forget the proofs of unreliability which the conqueror of Mexico had given when he thought himself master of the situation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04397a.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am referring to Hernán Cortés A.K.A. Hernando Cortés, conqueror of Mexico, born at Medellin in Spain c. 1485; died at Castilleja de la Cuesta near Seville, 2 December, 1547.

In 1519, he was elected captain of the third expedition to the mainland, an expedition which he partly funded. His enmity with the Governor of Cuba, Diego Velázquez de Cuél ...[text shortened]... thought himself master of the situation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04397a.htm

All that rebellion doesn't hide the fact he was christian and destroyed the culture there already. That is what christians do all over the planet and for the last 1500 years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All that rebellion doesn't hide the fact he was christian and destroyed the culture there already. That is what christians do all over the planet and for the last 1500 years.

One can easily tell by his actions that he was not Christian and was doing what he did for personal material and political gain and not for the cause of Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
One can easily tell by his actions that he was not Christian and was doing what he did for personal material and political gain and not for the cause of Christ.

I guess that will by your rationalization for every atrocity committed in the name of christianity. Of course, you are in deep denial of anything negative about christianity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I guess that will by your rationalization for every atrocity committed in the name of christianity. Of course, you are in deep denial of anything negative about christianity.

Chritianity saved the people from atrocity comitted in the name of pagan religions. That is the way I see it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Chritianity saved the people from atrocity comitted in the name of pagan religions. That is the way I see it.

And you were there? Where do you get your information?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you were there? Where do you get your information?

You were not there either, so shut up about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You were not there either, so shut up about it.

Aha, touched a nerve there.
So as far as you are concerned, anything written about christian atrocities are all lies. Like the burning of witches, like the crusades, like the inquisitions, all just bald faced lies.