1
   

Islam? A better religion for minorites

 
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 07:29 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;52114 wrote:
:roflmao: This is a list of mainly wars that have nothing to do with Christianity except for involving a Christian nations. How the hell is a list of pretty much all the wars in Europe since the 11th century prove anything? A lot of those that don't involve two Christian peoples were actually started by the other guys. Funniest BS I've ever heard. Tell me when you've trimmed the crap off that list.


What does Darfur have to do with Islam? You were the one that wanted to talk about ALL wars involving a nation of a particular religion.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP NOT ME!



Quote:
I forgot that the word 'conquer' has deep religious undertones, sorry.




we stoped talking about religious motivation when you started talking about darfur and Islam


Quote:
Okay, then why is it Muslim now? Peaceful conversion?


the muslims and the christians are both guilty of the same things.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/images/map.gif

this map shows how far the christian conquest has spread compared to Islam.



Quote:
WTF? Islam was spread on the point of a sword from the start, Christianity started off with conversion and stayed that way for a long time.


you can't be serious, no one is that ignorant, tell me you're joking. Christanity was localized untill emporer constintine started conquering people in the name of the christian god, he demanded the destruction of everything that reminded him of paganism, thats why records of paganism from rome is so few and far between. Pagan worship was banned under constintine, pagan statues and temples were destroyed, people were forced to worship the christian god is they valued their lives.

Quote:
Those damned Christians! Remember how they burned Rome! And then the one time when the Pope turned back Attila the Hun. All an act! It was they who convinced the barbarians to sack Rome!


Obviously you know nothing of the Library of Alexandria, look it up. The christian emporers not the barbarians destroyed it!
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 07:51 pm
@mousy,
Quote:
What does Darfur have to do with Islam? You were the one that wanted to talk about ALL wars involving a nation of a particular religion.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP NOT ME!


I'm pretty sure you brought up Darfur. You were using it as a third world region that has nonreligious violence. You also said this:

Quote:
HA! If your talking about all wars started by a religion christanity wins hands down, there is nothing that even comes close, but if you really wanna go down that road be my guest.


So what I said was right. I want nonjustifiable wars started by the actual religion of Christianity, like the religion, not just any war involving a Christian state.

Quote:
this map shows how far the christian conquest has spread compared to Islam.


Okay, so take out Eurasia, South Africa (largely converted by missionaries, if I am correct), Australia (settled by Christian Europeans), add the Sahara for Muslims (the people who live there are actually Muslim.)

Quote:
Christanity was localized untill emporer constintine started conquering people in the name of the christian god, he demanded the destruction of everything


Which would be a long time. From when Christianity was widely persecuted and spread through conversion to the time of Constantine was enough to constitute a long time.

Quote:
Obviously you know nothing of the Library of Alexandria, look it up. The christian emporers not the barbarians destroyed it!


Your constant condescension is pissing me off. I just read a mediocre novel about the Library of Alexandria, and as it said, and as wiki said, it is unclear how exactly it was destroyed. Don't think you can get away with that crap, especially since some accounts say the Muslims destroyed it.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:21 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;52209 wrote:
I'm pretty sure you brought up Darfur. You were using it as a third world region that has nonreligious violence. You also said this:




Quote:
So what I said was right. I want nonjustifiable wars started by the actual religion of Christianity, like the religion, not just any war involving a Christian state.


you wouldn't be able to determine that anyway. Even if you could it wouldn't matter if it was "justifiable" anyway. If you were a victim of religious violence it wouldn't matter whether he is justified by his holy book or not, the only thing that matters is that it DID happen and that he THINKS he is justified.

Quote:
Okay, so take out Eurasia, South Africa (largely converted by missionaries, if I am correct), Australia (settled by Christian Europeans), add the Sahara for Muslims (the people who live there are actually Muslim.)


okay so take out malyasia (muslim converts), and add australia back in because the brits had to conquer the local people, and add eurasia back in because that too was through roman/byzantine conquest.

the muslim people don't even come close when it comes to conquest.

Quote:
Which would be a long time. From when Christianity was widely persecuted and spread through conversion to the time of Constantine was enough to constitute a long time.


the christians only accounted for 5,000 people at most and the vast majority were born into christanity not converts and they all pretty much lived in the same region they've always been. Christanity spread through conquest not conversion.

Quote:
Your constant condescension is pissing me off. I just read a mediocre novel about the Library of Alexandria, and as it said, and as wiki said, it is unclear how exactly it was destroyed. Don't think you can get away with that crap, especially since some accounts say the Muslims destroyed it.


"The museum and library were destroyed in civil war in the late 3rd century AD; a subsidiary library was destroyed by Christians in AD 391."
-wiki

the truth is even if the christians weren't the sole destroyer of the library they were at least a large contributor to the destruction.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:36 pm
@mousy,
Quote:
you wouldn't be able to determine that anyway. Even if you could it wouldn't matter if it was "justifiable" anyway. If you were a victim of religious violence it wouldn't matter whether he is justified by his holy book or not, the only thing that matters is that it DID happen and that he THINKS he is justified.


Who said anything about a holy book? Okay, whatever, let's just cut it down to overtly religious wars first.

Quote:
the christians only accounted for 5,000 people at most and the vast majority were born into christanity not converts and they all pretty much lived in the same region they've always been. Christanity spread through conquest not conversion.


The Apostles spread Christianity through conversion, it was only with the Romans that it started to be spread by force.



Quote:
okay so take out malyasia (muslim converts), and add australia back in because the brits had to conquer the local people, and add eurasia back in because that too was through roman/byzantine conquest.

the muslim people don't even come close when it comes to conquest.


Brits conquered it but there was nothing to do with religion, it became Christian simply because the people there became Christian. There was no conquest involved with the Romans, they already owned the land, just a new empire wide religion, same as their paganism.

Quote:
"The museum and library were destroyed in civil war in the late 3rd century AD; a subsidiary library was destroyed by Christians in AD 391."
-wiki

the truth is even if the christians weren't the sole destroyer of the library they were at least a large contributor to the destruction.


I can't find that anywhere. This is what I found:

Quote:
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 04:51 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;52221 wrote:
The Apostles spread Christianity through conversion,


that would be the sugar-coated version you get from the bible, also the only reference to "the apostles" is from biblical accounts, and thus is not historicaly backed.


Quote:
it was only with the Romans that it started to be spread by force.


....and with momentum. Christanity was merely a localized cult untill rome decided to conquer in it's name!


Quote:
Brits conquered it but there was nothing to do with religion, it became Christian simply because the people there became Christian.


like i said christanity spread through conquest, it matters not that the conquest was not done in the name of religion, but just that it happens.

Quote:
There was no conquest involved with the Romans, they already owned the land, just a new empire wide religion, same as their paganism.


even after the fall of roman empire, europe was conquered by the christians begining with the Holy Romans, the Franks, the Teutons, the castillians and the byzantines.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 08:02 pm
@mousy,
Quote:
that would be the sugar-coated version you get from the bible, also the only reference to "the apostles" is from biblical accounts, and thus is not historicaly backed.


And what do you think happened after Jesus's death, did his 30 some followers go off and kill everyone who wouldn't convert?

Quote:
....and with momentum. Christanity was merely a localized cult untill rome decided to conquer in it's name!


It was spread by conversion still at first, it did have a Roman presence at the time of Constantine before he converted.

Quote:
like i said christanity spread through conquest, it matters not that the conquest was not done in the name of religion, but just that it happens.


Conquest would happen with or without religion, and conquered lands usually grow to be more like their conquerers, if that includes religion, it's just part of the overall cultural conversion.

Quote:
even after the fall of roman empire, europe was conquered by the christians begining with the Holy Romans, the Franks, the Teutons, the castillians and the byzantines.


I'll go with Franks and Teutons, maybe Castilians (if you're referring to the Reconquista, you can do better), but the Holy Roman Empire was pretty much the Franks once they slowed down the conquering. But the HRE didn't do a whole lot outside of the Teutons in terms of religious conversion in Europe. And the Byzantines were in almost constant retreat for the huge part of their existence, notice that all of their former lands in Asia and Africa are now Muslim or Jewish.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 08:19 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;52313 wrote:
And what do you think happened after Jesus's death, did his 30 some followers go off and kill everyone who wouldn't convert?


maybe not at first, or at least untill they were in a position to make such demands.


Quote:
It was spread by conversion still at first, it did have a Roman presence at the time of Constantine before he converted.


true, but it simply did not spread, it may have grow as a result of birth within the religion, but it did not spread untill roman conquest.

Quote:
Conquest would happen with or without religion, and conquered lands usually grow to be more like their conquerers, if that includes religion, it's just part of the overall cultural conversion.


it matters not, my original statement stands!

Quote:
I'll go with Franks and Teutons, maybe Castilians (if you're referring to the Reconquista, you can do better), but the Holy Roman Empire was pretty much the Franks once they slowed down the conquering.


what was that last word you typed?

Quote:
But the HRE didn't do a whole lot outside of the Teutons in terms of religious conversion in Europe.


you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this statement.


Quote:
And the Byzantines were in almost constant retreat for the huge part of their existence, notice that all of their former lands in Asia and Africa are now Muslim or Jewish.


the byzantines came close to re-conquering all of the original roman land, and that alone was enough to spread cristanity to the barbarian peoples.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 08:35 pm
@mousy,
Quote:
maybe not at first, or at least untill they were in a position to make such demands.


Quite a long time.

Quote:
true, but it simply did not spread, it may have grow as a result of birth within the religion, but it did not spread untill roman conquest.


No, why do you think we hear about all of these places which letters were written to, etc? Christians in Rome were persecuted for centuries before Rome was Christian. It was spread by conversion on a small scale.

Quote:
it matters not, my original statement stands!


I beg to differ. Just because a place is Christian and was once conquered by people who were Christian does not make it a 'Christian conquest,' any more than the Romans were responsible for 'Pagan conquest.'

Quote:
you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this statement.


Semantics is the game now? Forcible religious conversion, if you like.

Quote:
the byzantines came close to re-conquering all of the original roman land, and that alone was enough to spread cristanity to the barbarian peoples.


The Romans had enough time to spread Christianity to these lands themselves, and many of them had been conquered by those in different sects of Christianity, anyway, most of the reconquered lands are now Muslim, and the reconquests were relatively short-lived.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 08:52 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;52317 wrote:
Quite a long time.


quite a long time indeed, quite a long time where the region controled by christians remained the same.



Quote:
No, why do you think we hear about all of these places which letters were written to, etc? Christians in Rome were persecuted for centuries before Rome was Christian. It was spread by conversion on a small scale.


compared to conquest a very small scale indeed.

Quote:
I beg to differ. Just because a place is Christian and was once conquered by people who were Christian does not make it a 'Christian conquest,' any more than the Romans were responsible for 'Pagan conquest.'


christian conquest- a conquest by christians
roman conquest- a conquest by romans
spanish conquest- a conquest by spaniards

'Pagan' is too broad of a term that is why it is refered to as a 'roman conquest'

Quote:
Semantics is the game now? Forcible religious conversion, if you like.


you fucked up, theres no way getting around it.

Quote:

The Romans had enough time to spread Christianity to these lands themselves, and many of them had been conquered by those in different sects of Christianity, anyway, most of the reconquered lands are now Muslim, and the reconquests were relatively short-lived.


Most? i say not! The land of europe of which roman and the bzyantines controlled more of is and was predominantly christian.
0 Replies
 
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 08:59 pm
@mousy,
Yah yah - blah blah -- here's an interesting link that might give you both a little more perspective. Fatal Freedom, I do find it hugely hilarious that in your list of "wars" of your alleged "christianity", you included the Mongols and their conquering.... Ummmm...they were Asian -- and weren't even Christian..... Not to mention that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to the invasion/conquering of Islam (as you can see in the unbiased historical over-view in my link below). Once Christianity pushed back the barbarism of Islam and relative "peace" (note the quotes) came between the two, Christianity bred the western world and the enlightenment which brought about the great advancements in science and democracy, freeing the individual from SUBMISSION (which is what Islam truly means), allowing mankind to soar to our current heights. Islam, of course, in it's misguided forceful application of it's barbaric Sharia law, stifled individual freedom and that is why Islam could go no farther, and why the muslim nations are all so sorely lacking in education, freedom and advancement.

History of Religion

See, while you point out the "truths" you shown in all your old testament quotes, Jewish people and Christians as a whole (not any individual acts of atrocity that we RESOUNDLY minimalize) understand those stories to be for that specific time - that specific sacking/siege of a city, etc. In other words - WE DON"T DO THAT ANYMORE AS A WHOLE!!! ....BUT according to Sharia law --the alleged word of God - All sorts of atrocities are permissable - stoning is not only ok - it's STILL done today. So, while the grown-ups in the west understand the "word" they recieved to be for it's time and place, the Muslims in any nation where Islam is the religion of the land, as decreed by those in power, still BELIEVE their "word" to be how they should behave -- including beheading, stoning, cutting off hands etc. The ONLY reason Islam had any "science" was due to it's taking over more advanced cultures in it's own "conquering" days. But, once Sharia was implemented and the human spirit squelched, they devolved into the dung-heeps of Muslim society that we see today all over the world. And it's because of ISLAM and the imposition of Sharia law -- Salmon Rushdie most CERTAINLY had it correct in the title of his book.....

If you looked at the map lin I included, you'll also see that Christianity, prior to it being the religion of Rome - -really did spread through a large area by peaceful conversion. And you CAN'T say it's "just in the bible"! -- It's historical FACT that the Romans persecuted Christians---and they were PEACEFUL!! An you can see in the map the seeds they spread through a decent chunk of the roman empire, until it became adopted as the religion of the land by decree. You're being disengenuous to to ignore Islams expansion and only point out the west expansion (as if the Spanish conquistadors were "terrible" for doing what mankind has done since it's beginings -- conquer - or be conquered....) The indians of North America and incans and mayans (etc. etc) weren't the "noble savages" some make them out to be. They conquered also -- and had their own religions -- a better, stronger one just came along and conquered - as mankind has done since evolving beginnings -- and opened there eyes to their barbarism. And so they evolved..... They're certainly better off now than under Incan, Mayan or any of the tribal indian rule. And the same thing would have happend if Islamic nations had found the America's.

I could go on and on about who did what and where....suffice it to say, Christainity as a whole, marginalizes it's few thousands of extremists.....Muslims glorify it's millions of jihadis (supported by nations) and name streets after it's atrocious, barbaric "martyrs" who blow themselves up to kill as many innocent people as possible TODAY!!!

There is NO comparison to anyone with a truly unbiased eye.

By the way, there are also some other neat little maps-of-time at the link I gave you above.
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 09:15 pm
@mousy,
And by the way.....regarding your last sentence in your last post.....The seat of Byzantine empire was Constantinople - pretty much in the heart of that empire. And, as anyone of history knows, that is now Istanbul TURKEY, which is a Muslim Nation. the OVERWHELMING majority of the lands of Byzantine are now MUSLIM. It's ReagaKnight who was right, and YOU who is wrong.....
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 09:54 pm
@JoJoJams,
JoJoJams;52330 wrote:
Yah yah - blah blah -- here's an interesting link that might give you both a little more perspective. Fatal Freedom, I do find it hugely hilarious that in your list of "wars" of your alleged "christianity", you included the Mongols and their conquering.... Ummmm...they were Asian -- and weren't even Christian.....


I find it funny that you findy it funny! You lack basic mongol history and yet you try to criticize me, rather pathetic! Allow me to educate you:

The mongol conquest was not limited to asia as anyone with even a limited mongol historical knowledge knows, the mongols quite frequently encountered the christian europeans in the northern frontier espcieally in russia/principality of kiev where the Golden horde as it was known did much fighting and conquest to combat the invaders the russians often relied on a group of warriors known as the cossacks and through their effectiveness the cossacks grew in number and status.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 09:59 pm
@JoJoJams,
JoJoJams;52334 wrote:
And by the way.....regarding your last sentence in your last post.....The seat of Byzantine empire was Constantinople - pretty much in the heart of that empire. And, as anyone of history knows, that is now Istanbul TURKEY, which is a Muslim Nation. the OVERWHELMING majority of the lands of Byzantine are now MUSLIM. It's ReagaKnight who was right, and YOU who is wrong.....


http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T013258A.gif

looks about even to me.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:02 pm
@JoJoJams,
JoJoJams;52330 wrote:
Not to mention that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to the invasion/conquering of Islam


all 9 of the crusades?


:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:


give up now before i make you look like a fool.
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:04 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;52337 wrote:
I find it funny that you findy it funny! You lack basic mongol history and yet you try to criticize me, rather pathetic! Allow me to educate you:

The mongol conquest was not limited to asia as anyone with even a limited mongol historical knowledge knows, the mongols quite frequently encountered the christian europeans in the northern frontier espcieally in russia/principality of kiev where the Golden horde as it was known did much fighting and conquest to combat the invaders the russians often relied on a group of warriors known as the cossacks and through their effectiveness the cossacks grew in number and status.


Dude, The Mongols weren't Christians....That's the whole point!! And yet you included them in your alleged "christian" wars!! -- You seem to think that if it's somehow the "west" then it's Christian, which is typical of a Muslim mentality, since you cannot separate church from state. Anothe HUGE problem in the "religion"/cult of Islam. And the Cossacks have nothing to do with Mongols.....damn! Do a Wikipedia! The Mongols were 13th century mostly, and the Cossacks came after!
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:08 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;52338 wrote:
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T013258A.gif

looks about even to me.


I'll back off on the overwheming majority statement -- but look closer with a neutral eye. More of the land area "colored" in that map is muslim - tad more than half.
0 Replies
 
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:13 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;52339 wrote:
all 9 of the crusades?


:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:


give up now before i make you look like a fool.


Ummmm -- yeah. All 9, since it took that many, over hundreds of years, to get the "holy land" back..... Yes, I'm aware some scholars claim some of them were "political" - but doesn't that just bump your argument that they were "Christian" out the door?? rotfl! ~ From a Christian perspective YES ! All 9 were trying to reclaim the "holy land" from Muslims. That has nothing to do with any other motives and events on the way to Isreal. (and what do you have to say about the "children's crusade"??? How does that fit in to your "evil christian" perspective?? ((though granted, it was stupid and naive))

You won't make me look like a fool. You can quote your "muslim" history, and I'll quote the world's history....It's Muslims that are the fools.....
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:16 pm
@JoJoJams,
JoJoJams;52340 wrote:
Dude, The Mongols weren't Christians....That's the whole point!! And yet you included them in your alleged "christian" wars!! -- You seem to think that if it's somehow the "west" then it's Christian, which is typical of a Muslim mentality, since you cannot separate church from state. Anothe HUGE problem in the "religion"/cult of Islam. And the Cossacks have nothing to do with Mongols.....damn! Do a Wikipedia! The Mongols were 13th century mostly, and the Cossacks came after!


mmmm dude, i'm not muslim nor do i have muslim mentality, this only goes to expose the prejudice you hold against people of different beliefs.

CHRISTANITY IS NO BETTER THAN ISLAM!



Golden Horde

n.
The Mongol army that swept over eastern Europe in the 13th century and established a suzerain in Russia.

in the 15th century it broke into several smaller khanates.


Cossack:
The name entered the English language from the French Cosaque, in turn, probably via Polish from the Ukrainian Kozak rather than the modern Russian Kazak
This term is first mentioned in a Ruthenian chronicle dated 1395. Cossacks (Qazaqlar) were also border keepers.
JoJoJams
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:23 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;52343 wrote:
mmmm dude, i'm not muslim nor do i have muslim mentality, this only goes to expose the prejudice you hold against people of different beliefs.

CHRISTANITY IS NO BETTER THAN ISLAM!


Look around the world today....I beg to differ.


Quote:

Golden Horde

n.
The Mongol army that swept over eastern Europe in the 13th century and established a suzerain in Russia.

in the 15th century it broke into several smaller khanates.



MONGOLS WEREN"T CHRISTIANS!! SHeeash!!! What part of that can't you can't you GET@!! ROTFL!!
And YES, I know the invasions were more than just Asia (per your past post) - that doesn't negate my statement that the Mongols were ASIAN which is all I stated - to show that they weren't Christian---yet you included THEIR wars that THEY started against "the west" in your disengenuous list of "Christian" wars.

Quote:

Cossack:
The name entered the English language from the French Cosaque, in turn, probably via Polish from the Ukrainian Kozak rather than the modern Russian Kazak
This term is first mentioned in a Ruthenian chronicle dated 1395. Cossacks (Qazaqlar) were also border keepers.


First mentioned in 1395....and the mongol invasions were roughly 1205 - 1312. Timeline of Mongol conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My God man!! the two had nothing to do with each other!! This is why I take you as Muslim -- because either you are woefully ignorant of true world history (in it's unbiased entirety) - or you are a Muslim practicing "taqiyya".
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:23 pm
@JoJoJams,
JoJoJams;52342 wrote:
Ummmm -- yeah. All 9, since it took that many, over hundreds of years, to get the "holy land" back..... Yes, I'm aware some scholars claim some of them were "political" - but doesn't that just bump your argument that they were "Christian" out the door?? rotfl! ~ From a Christian perspective YES ! All 9 were trying to reclaim the "holy land" from Muslims. That has nothing to do with any other motives and events on the way to Isreal. (and what do you have to say about the "children's crusade"??? How does that fit in to your "evil christian" perspective?? ((though granted, it was stupid and naive))

You won't make me look like a fool. You can quote your "muslim" history, and I'll quote the world's history....It's Muslims that are the fools.....


for the last time i'm not muslim, i just happen to believe in religious equality, you bigot.

why would the christians need to "conquer" the holy land if they were just defending themselves? The crusades aren't even comparable to "recoquista" not by a long shot. The crusaders killed the children and men and raped the women, can that be said of the moors to the same extent? NO! The crusades cannot be justified.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 07:47:18