Islam? A better religion for minorites

: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.

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

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

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

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

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:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

[edit] Destruction of the Library
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the destruction of the Library:

Caesar's conquest 48 BC;
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century;
The decree of Theophilus in 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 or thereafter.
Each of these has been viewed with suspicion by other scholars as an effort to place the blame on particular actors. Moreover, each of these events is historically problematic. In the first case, there is clear evidence that the Library was not in fact destroyed at that time. The third episode is attested by no ancient authors, and was more or less "deduced" by Edward Gibbon from a single vague sentence written by Paul Orosius that did not refer to the Serapeum at all.[10] The fourth episode was not documented by any contemporary source, although some maintain that the final destruction of the Library took place at this time.[11]


[edit] Caesar's conquest 48 BC
Plutarch's Lives, written at the end of the first or beginning of the second century, describes a battle in which Caesar was forced to burn his own ships, which in turn set fire to the docks and then the Library, destroying it.[12] This would have occurred in 48 BC, during the fighting between Caesar and Ptolemy XIII; Ammianus Marcellinus may be an independent witness to this fact (see below). But 25 years later, Strabo saw the Library and worked in it; however, Plutarch also explains this. During Marcus Antonius' rule of the eastern part of the Empire (40-30 BC), he plundered the second largest library in the world (that at Pergamon) and presented the collection as a gift to Cleopatra as a replacement for the loss of the original Museum library.


[edit] Attack of Aurelian, 3rd century
The Library seems to have been maintained and continued in existence until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.[13] The smaller library located at the Serapeum survived, but part of its contents may have been taken to Constantinople to adorn the new capital in the course of the 4th century. However, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing around 378 AD seems to speak of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, and he states that many of the Serapeum library's volumes were burnt when Caesar sacked Alexandria. As he says in Book 22.16.12-13:

"Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator."


5th century scroll which illustrates the destruction of the Serapeum by TheophilusWhile Ammianus Marcellinus may be simply reiterating Plutarch's tradition about Caesar's destruction of the library, it is possible that his statement reflects his own empirical knowledge that the Serapeum library collection had either been seriously depleted or was no longer in existence in his own day.


[edit] Decree of Theophilus in 391
In 391, Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request[14].

Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

“ At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the Emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. ”

The Serapeum once housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, the passage by Socrates Scholasticus, unlike that of Ammianus Marcellinus, makes no clear reference to a library or library contents being destroyed, only to religious objects being destroyed. The pagan author Eunapius of Sardis witnessed the demolition, and though he detested Christians, and was a scholar, his account of the Serapeum's destruction makes no mention of any library. Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans: "Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement." But Orosius is not here discussing the Serapeum, nor is it clear who "our own men" are (the phrase may mean no more than "men of our time," since we know from contemporary sources that pagans also occasionally plundered temples).

As for the Museum, Mostafa El-Abbadi writes in Life and Fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria (Paris 1992):

“ The Mouseion, being at the same time a 'shrine of the Muses', enjoyed a degree of sanctity as long as other pagan temples remained unmolested. Synesius of Cyrene, who studied under Hypatia at the end of the fourth century, saw the Mouseion and described the images of the philosophers in it. We have no later reference to its existence in the fifth century. As Theon, the distinguished mathematician and father of Hypatia, herself a renowned scholar, was the last recorded scholar-member (c. 380), it is likely that the Mouseion did not long survive the promulgation of Theodosius' decree in 391 to destroy all pagan temples in the City. ”

John Julius Norwich's "Byzantium: The Early Centuries" places the destruction of the library's collection during the anti-Arian riots in Alexandria that transpired after the imperial decree of 391 (p314).


[edit] Muslim conquest in 642
Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library, and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.[15][16] However the legend has been dismissed by some as a later invention of Christian crusaders eager to justify the "barbarism" of Muslim armies.[17]. While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 century translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eus?be Renaudot, and other later scholars agreed, including Alfred J. Butler, Victor Chauvin, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini[18]. Recently, in 1990, Bernard Lewis argued that the original account is not true, but that it survived over time because it was a useful myth for the later Muslim leader, Saladin, who also found it necessary to destroy a library. Lewis proposes that the story of the caliph Umar's support of a library's destruction may have made Saladin's actions seem more acceptable to his people.[19]


[edit] Conclusion
Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that by the 8th century, the Library was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.

The Apostles spread Christianity through conversion,

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

it matters not, my original statement stands!

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

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.

Quite a long time.

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.

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.'

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

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.

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.....

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.....

Not to mention that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to the invasion/conquering of Islam

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.

looks about even to me.

all 9 of the crusades?


:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:


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

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.

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.....