Religious Debates - come on in y'all!

[Cyadkuso]

Well....what about the Holy Crusades? At least one of those was endorsed, if not actively started by the pope. And it led to the slaughter of every person in Jerusalem at the time, when the Catholics took it.

July 15, 1099, entered the city of Jerusalem. Maddened after three years of suffering and frustration, the Crusaders massacred every Muslim and Jew within the city.

And yes at least one of them was called for by the Pope.

Pope Urban II, in one of history's most powerful speeches, launched 200 years of the Crusades at the Council of Clermont, France on November 27, 1095 with this impassioned plea. In a rare public session in an open field, 2 he urged the knights and noblemen to win back the Holy Land, to face their sins, and called upon those present to save their souls and become "Soldiers of Christ."

got the quotes from http://jesuschristsavior.net/Crusades.html

Also depending on when in time you are talking about, the Church held great power over the lords and kings. The fear of excommunication and the wrath of those that the pope could call to take up arms made many of them pay tariffs and grant lands to the Church. As well as the fear of eternal damnation and whatnot.

[Delfos]

Well that's not restricted to Catholics, there was all kinds of Christians in the Crusades, including Templairs that weren't Catholic. It's an error to put all orders in the same bag. But sure we can see Christians versus Islamics. The crusades were like Vietnam or Iraq, only did worse than fixing. Not exactly sure, but i think Saladin was OK with the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the Crusaders arrived.

Even then Inquisition and 'Christian' Expansion (practically sequels) have the top killings :p

[Cyadkuso]

Well, technically the Knights Templar were formed after the First Crusade.

And weren't the vast majority of the people that joined the Crusades Catholics in faith...which was the reason they went on the Crusades? I admit there may have been mercenaries, I don't really know, but I would think the majority of crusaders came from Europe, which was (I thought) predominately Roman Catholic.

[Saletsia]

I see this mistake always being done: "What about the Holy crusades?!"
Yeah, what about them?
Is it not allowed to defend your land after siege by a foreign power?

These are the facts:
Der erste Kreuzzug im Jahre 1095 begann
-460 Jahre nachdem die erste christliche Stadt von den Moslems überrannt wurde.
-457 Jahre nachdem Jerusalem von moslemischen Armeen erobert wurde
-427 Jahre nachdem das christliche Konstantinopel zum ersten mal von Moslems belagert wurde
-380 Jahre nachdem die Mauren in Spanien eingefallen sind
-363 Jahre nach den ersten moslemischen Überfällen auf Frankreich
-249 Jahre nachdem Rom selbst von moslemischen Horden geplündert wurde

The 1st crusade took place:
460 years after the 1st Christian city was conquered by muslims
457 years after islamic armies conquered Jerusalem
427 years after Constantinople (capital of the Eastern Roam Empire to which the Holy land belonged to) itself was attacked
380 years after they conquered Spain.
363 years after the first attacks by muslims launched against FRANCE (Islam says only defense is okay- they defended themselves from Medina all the way to France: WTF?!)
249 years after Rome itself had been plundered by muslims


I am not saying the crusaders were all good. Indeed there was a significant number of them who did atrocious acts. But the crusades themselves were a DEFENSIVE act in an effort to liberate former Christian lands from islamic aggression.

No one can tell me that is not a legitimate reason to go to war. It is self evident that Islam has always wanted to conquer Europe and destroy Christian - if possible. Christians though were not even interested in Islam when it started: no one cared about muslims...that changed after they started "actively defending" themselves through military aggression.
That was not the first and last time muslims tried to crush Europe: the Ottoman Empire launched a number of attacks known as the "Turkish wars": once they had even reached Vienna with their Sultan vowing they would replace the cross on St. Peter's Cathedral with a crescent and force the Pope wear a turban in the near future. Luckily they were stopped by a Christian coalition force.

Note: Without Christianity: there would be no free world nowadays. You and your ancestors would be muslims. And Islam does not allow any other way of thinking: you got the sharia for that. In Catholicism heresy is punished with excommunication (Congregation of faith).

Atrocities? Muslims plundered monasteries, killed monks, raped nuns, kidnapped children to be used as elite soldiers, burned churches, killed civilians: long before the first crusade even took place as a REACTION.

As a small example: The island of Cyprus was also Christian: The Christians there feared muslim rule and defended themselves against the aggressors..though the muslim force was much stronger: it ended with massacres and the Christian commander of the island was even taken his skin off alive.

If you were an average European during that time, how do you think you would feel?

[Saletsia]

The crusaders were all Roman Catholics: protestantism was not yet even born.
Though not only Catholics fought against the muslims:
Byzantine Christians were the first targets of Islamic aggression = Eastern Roman Empire.

[Saletsia]

Well that's not restricted to Catholics, there was all kinds of Christians in the Crusades, including Templairs that weren't Catholic. It's an error to put all orders in the same bag. But sure we can see Christians versus Islamics. The crusades were like Vietnam or Iraq, only did worse than fixing. Not exactly sure, but i think Saladin was OK with the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the Crusaders arrived.

Even then Inquisition and 'Christian' Expansion (practically sequels) have the top killings :p

Actually all orders were Catholic.

And Saladin..well

Have you ever noted that muslims were weak until the time Saladin was able to unite them all? Though Christians actually did not continue on attacking them: Mecca was not even a target for any attack: they concentrated on the liberation of the Holy Land.

There is a story told by a muslim wherein a muslim emissary talks to Saladin:

"Saladin, the Christians want peace. According to the Quran if the enemy seeks peace, we have to accept it."
Saladin: "You are an Arab, I am a Kurd. You ought to know the Quran better than me. Does it not also say: why accept peace offers if you are in a better position than your enemy? We only accept peace if we cannot win. Now we can."

[Delfos]

380 years after they conquered Spain.

The Muslims that gone to Hispania (not exactly Spain) weren't the same that were in Middle East, this ones were from North Africa and related to the nowadays Tuareg. And they stayed there for quite a while, the formed pre-Spanish kingdoms weren't able to drive them off and that's when Portugal had the change to erupt, ran the Muslims down the Peninsula and bang...here we are.

Sure they are able to defend, that's exactly what Muslims extremists are doing right now (what they claim to be doing), specially in Palestine. Are we like Muslim extremists? or is this just a concept we created to make them look suspicious? lol

[Saletsia]

380 years after they conquered Spain.

The Muslims that gone to Hispania (not exactly Spain) weren't the same that were in Middle East, this ones were from North Africa and related to the nowadays Tuareg. And they stayed there for quite a while, the formed pre-Spanish kingdoms weren't able to drive them off and that's when Portugal had the change to erupt, ran the Muslims down the Peninsula and bang...here we are.

Sure they are able to defend, that's exactly what Muslims extremists are doing right now (what they claim to be doing), specially in Palestine. Are we like Muslim extremists? or is this just a concept we created to make them look suspicious? lol

The Moors - muslims from North-Africa -, where did they come from? Before Islam was invented by Mohammed North-Africa was Christian and some others were pagan: the rise of Islam made all others disappear.

Please do not compare the Christians who defended themselves with wannabe Mujahideens.

The islamic defense is subjective whereas it is historical fact muslim aggression came first: no one can tell/prove otherwise.
Palestinian muslims defending themselves against what? Judaism has been in the Holy Land long before Islam was invented and muslims invaded the later Christian province of Palestine.

Is it not odd the Palestinians are revolting now along with other muslim "brothers" against the Jewish "occupants"?
BUT they kinda shut up when under Arab rule, under Ottoman rule etc.
Other muslims never cared about Palestinians, nor have they given them liberty. Palestine was first Judea, then a Roman province, then muslim province, then now Israel - so technically back to Judea.
Why do muslims support Palestinians nowadays?

Simple because it gives them a "reason" to preach hate against Jews and the state of Israel.

[Delfos]

true, and the few focus of christian north Africans came with the Roman Empire, and i dare to compare them to Mujaheddin, there's no "he hit me first i can hit him back", that's the beginning of madness...yes what a mad world we live in...

[Saletsia]

It is legitimate to fight against the source of aggression with logical reason.

Comparing crusaders to certain mujahideen is simply mad: if you take the mujahideen of Afghanistan against the Soviets, then yes that was a legitimate act of defense: if you take the wannabe mujahideen that operate in various countries to establish islamic states, then it's madness

[Saletsia]

To those who claim the Inquisition killed a lot more than Muslims:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition
By Thomas F. Madden
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

[Cyadkuso]

I am not saying the crusaders were all good. Indeed there was a significant number of them who did atrocious acts. But the crusades themselves were a DEFENSIVE act in an effort to liberate former Christian lands from islamic aggression.

No one can tell me that is not a legitimate reason to go to war. It is self evident that Islam has always wanted to conquer Europe and destroy Christian - if possible.

That's true. There were quiet a few atrocities done by both sides. But how did those lands become Christian? The Roman Empire moved in and took it by force. And than Christianity followed when the priests came and converted the masses. So technically the people that took back Jerusalem could have been descendants of those indigenous people that lived there before the Roman Empire took it. So it could still be considered an act of defense. Admittedly its a long stretch, but it's possible.

Also about you saying that Islamic religious people are so willing to go out and kill in "defense."

The aim of Christianity is not to fill the earth, but to fill heaven. Why should one worry if the number of Christians is lessened in the world by deaths endured for God? By this kind of death people make their way to heaven who perhaps would never reach it by another road. ~Humbert of Romans

Another point of complaint is the willingness to engage in violence, even against the innocent, in the pursuit of religious goals. But how can Christians claim moral superiority on this point? Christian history is filled with wars and violence conducted by Christians on behalf of what they believed to be Christian goals. The above quote from Humbert of Romans is simply a very stark expression of what was a relatively common attitude: dying on behalf of one’s religion is a great virtue that will be rewarded in the afterlife.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/229151.htm

[Saletsia]

That's true. There were quiet a few atrocities done by both sides. But how did those lands become Christian? The Roman Empire moved in and took it by force. And than Christianity followed when the priests came and converted the masses. So technically the people that took back Jerusalem could have been descendants of those indigenous people that lived there before the Roman Empire took it. So it could still be considered an act of defense. Admittedly its a long stretch, but it's possible.

I have to disagree: Christian evangelization originated from the province of Judea - which has been part of the pagan Roman Empire for a long time already - even before Xtianity was born.
The 1st Christians were those native to the Holy Land - such as the Jews.
Islam however was officially established in Medina and the islamic warriors came from the Arabian peninsula and the Seldjuks came from central Asia: so no that was no defense at all: it was pure aggression/invasion.

Even if some muslims came from Christian lands: how would they liberate those lands from its original habitants that just chose Judaism or Christianity?

[Cyadkuso]

I have to disagree: Christian evangelization originated from the province of Judea - which has been part of the pagan Roman Empire for a long time already - even before Xtianity was born.
The 1st Christians were those native to the Holy Land - such as the Jews.
Islam however was officially established in Medina and the islamic warriors came from the Arabian peninsula and the Seldjuks came from central Asia: so no that was no defense at all: it was pure aggression/invasion.

Even if some muslims came from Christian lands: how would they liberate those lands from its original habitants that just chose Judaism or Christianity?

Well they are calling it a jihad, which could mean anything from "defense of Islam" to "holy war." So its not neccesarilly that they are calling it a defense. They are calling it a jihad which has many meanings.

As for how did they "liberate" those lands? Well the most obvious would be that the other people converted. The other less pleasant idea is that they were killed or forced out or just slowly lost people to conversions. But the same could be asked for what happened to all of the native religions of Europe. There were quite a few religions based on things other than Christianity. What happened to them? Hopefully they only converted, but we know some at least were killed.

[Eientei]

So Islam really is the religion of violence?  Wow.  Where's my helmet, spear and horse?  I can't be a proper barbarian murderer without them!

Well, seriously.  I'm pretty certain Muslims have killed about as many people in the name of God as Christians have.  It has nothing to do with the actual faiths as laid out in their revealed texts, though.  Every religion that's adopted by the powerful is used by the powerful to maintain and expand their power and influence.  That's when religion causes violence.  The other instance is fanaticism, and again, most religious faiths have their fanatics who are prepared to kill, regardless of whether it's justified by their faith (it usually isn't.)