gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:53 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:45 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:02 am
Crusades anyone?
Do you mean the comparatively small-scale Catholic crusades done for manifestly political and anti-Christian reasons,
noted your irrelivant "anti-christian" wording - to distance your sefl (good that you do) - for the right reasons, (you being a good guy, not that Catholics are are not Christian (I've no time for such games, Catholics are Christians, and some are thugs too.)
(I know my history per Spain in this instance, so bare this in mind). I do not think you are dick, but just ignorant of history. so read up on it per this matter.
Well, if you know European or North African history at all, you know that the Islamic Crusades were far longer, bloodier and more oppressive than anything the Catholics ever did. And if you know Spanish history, you know for sure that the Crusades were political, started with the objective of "liberating" Byzantium from the Muslims who had already conquered it...in other words, it was a military counter-crusade.
But all this is beside the question of religion: there is absolutely nothing in the teachings of Christ to sponsor, approve or even allow such behaviour to be Christian. So there's nothing "irrelevant" about that fact, in determining whether the Crusades were "Christian" or not.
??? do you know history?
Quite a bit, you'll find.
there was no mass expulsion of non-Islamics from the Middle East - as there was of Jews by Christian Spanish around 1000 AD.
Well, the Spanish Inquisition was a case of the religious being used by the secular. And it was an anti-Semitic mess, implicating, perhaps, the Catholics of the period.
But it has nothing to do with Christianity.
instead the Muslims allowed the non-muslims to live on thier lands - but to pay a tax and live is second class citizens with less rights
This is your understanding of dhimmitude? It was much, much worse than that...and still is. Here's a bit of additional information:
https://www.newenglishreview.org/Mark_D ... 7s_Return/
I know my history and not a Christian - so objective. the show that you may not know history and are a christian, so not objective.
Heh. So your assumption is that "not-a-Christian"s are automatically objective, but Christians cannot, by definition, ever be?
Really?
...and yes Islam is not a religion of peace, the opposite in fact, but people are people and if enough muslim people in possisions of power remove a thug, and are of higher character, then Tunisia is a better place today than it was yesterday.
Any place that has less Islam can be getting better, obviously. But in every place where there's more, there's more misery.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:06 pm
Secular regimes killed over 100 million people in the last century alone.
so ya, assholes will be asshole.
So again...if a secular regime kills people, it's just because of "a-holes," and has nothing to do with beliefs or ideology?
...the Athiests have the highest blood count via Stalin and Mao, then the Christians.
I thought you said you knew history...
Mao has probably killed more than Stalin. Meanwhile, "Christian" wars have not exceeded some fragment of 4% of the death toll of wars in history. You're wildly wrong about that, as any survey of death counts makes abundantly clear.
Islam is down to near nothing,
Islam has killed more people than all other religions combined, and done so on orders of its leading figure, Mohammed. Right now, their death count is somewhere between 4 and 5%...with the other 92% being for non-religious causes of various kinds. By far, the biggest killers of human beings have been the socialist regimes, and those espousing various other secular ideologies.
No religion -- not even Islam -- comes close.
you do not know your history Sir.
Um....quite the opposite, I'm afraid.
