Link back to comment

Peter is ahistorical because he believes that huge and varied religions can be boiled down to an essence that is derived from their scriptural writings. This is an unsophisticated folly that puts aside historical contexts over hundreds of years.
Let's look at some examples:
Indonesia was conquered and colonised by Europeans who genuinely believed that violence and subjugation was entirely consistent with their Christian beliefs. As usual, Christian missionaries backed the invasion with widespread attempts to convert the populations. The Muslims they conquered had not provoked this aggression in any way. Is Peter telling these conquerors that they had misunderstood their own religion? That they should have been seeking peace and love in the world, if they were to be true followers of Jesus? That's what is so appallingly ahistorical about Peter's argument.
There is not the time to rehash the crimes against humanity, across the world, that followed in the wake of Christian conquests around the world. Obviously spreading the faith was not the most important motive behind imperialism but there is no doubt that it was a source of popular support in the imperial centres and a comfort and justification for imperial soldiers and officials.
(Part 1)