Free Dating Site    

Actually many Christian gnostic s believe there were two Gods present in the bible.

Ha ha ha ha ha lemming. what is a lemming. So whats your point. Can you describe a blind albino socialists. Where did you read that from, a comic book. If you got some substance to contribute then do so, if not, do so.

Thank you MerryLass! You hit it spot on. In other forums within this grouping, there is a HUGE amount of incorrect parahprasing by uninformed or intentionally out of context characterizing statments that reads like a script to Jerry Springer.

Thanks for a breath of fresh air. I would add that people have warred on others 'in the name of religion' and history is rife with folks who do wrong things and try to justify their selfish acts in the name of .

Much like experts in the Koran will relate, Jihad, etc. is missused by those folks to justify their actions in similar fassion. Same thing, different religion to blame.

So do you think the crusades would have been fought if jerusalem and palestine was NOT considered the holy land?

Background

The origins of the Crusades in general, and of the First Crusade in particular, stem from events earlier in the Middle Ages. The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire in previous centuries, combined with the relative stability of European borders after the Christianization of the Vikings and Magyars, gave rise to an entire class of warriors who now had little to do but fight among themselves.

By the early 8th century, the Umayyad Caliphate had rapidly captured North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain from a predominantly Christian Byzantine Empire. During the 12th century, the Reconquista picked up an ideological potency that is considered to be the first example of a concerted "Christian" effort to recapture territory, seen as lost to Muslims, as part of the expansion efforts of the Christian kingdoms along the Bay of Biscay. Spanish kingdoms, knightly orders and mercenaries began to mobilize from across Europe for the fight against the surviving and predominantly Moorish Umayyad caliphate at Cordoba. Another factor that contributed to the change in Western attitudes towards the East came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed.

Other Muslim kingdoms emerging from the collapse of the Umayyads in the 8th century, such as the Aghlabics, had entered Italy in the 9th century. The Kalbid state that arose in the region, weakened by dynastic struggles, became prey to the Normans capturing Sicily by 1091. Pisa, Genoa, and Aragon began to battle other Muslim kingdoms for control of the Mediterranean, exemplified by the Mahdia campaign and battles at Mallorca and Sardinia.

The idea of a Holy War against the Muslims seemed acceptable to medieval European secular and religious powers, as well as the public in general, for a number of reasons, such as the recent military successes of European kingdoms along the Mediterranean. In addition there was the emerging political conception of Christendom, which saw the union of Christian kingdoms under Papal guidance for the first time (in the High Middle Ages) and the creation of a Christian army to fight the Muslims. It was also felt that many of the Muslim lands had previously been Christian prior to their conquest by the Islamic armies, namely those which had formed part of the Roman and Byzantine empires - Syria, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, Hispania (Spain), Cyprus, Judaea. Finally, Jerusalem, along with the surrounding lands including the places where Christ lived and died, was understandably sacred to Christians.

In 1074, Pope Gregory VII called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to the aid of the Byzantine Empire in the east. The Byzantines had suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert three years previously. This call, while largely ignored and even opposed, combined with the large numbers of pilgrimages to the Holy Land in the 11th century, focused a great deal of attention on the east. Preaching by monks such as Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless, which spread reports of Muslims abusing Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem and other Middle Eastern holy sites, further stoked the crusading zeal. It was Pope Urban II who first disseminated to the general public the idea of a Crusade to capture the Holy Land. Upon hearing his dramatic and inspiring speech, the nobles and clergy in attendance began to chant the famous words, Deus vult! ("God wills it!")

Think the christians and muslims would have sanctioned war over olives and figs, or who owned the most dunes and camels, instead of what jerusalem meant to their religions?

Perhaps the inquisitors were torturing and killing people just for shits and giggles, not that they were considered heretics, and against religion?

Maybe those islamic nutballs flew aircraft into the world trade center because it would increase bin laden's bank account, or allow him to acquire "more property" instead of it being a JIHAD, as they claim the KORAN instructs them.

The crusades were attempts by "Christians" in the 10th through 12th centuries A.D. to reclaim land in the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslims / Arabs. The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to "convert" to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death. This is blatantly unbiblical...

And perhaps that is the best summary of the issue. The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the Name of Christ is completely unbiblical.

The crusades may have been done by so-called Christians...but many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith should stand for.

I suppose that America invaded the countries where the terrorists of 9/11 came from, to get rid of the terrorists?
Saudi Arabia: 14
United Arab Emirates: 2
Egypt: 1
Lebanon: 1

None of these terrorists came from Iraq. Further, if anyone was supporting terrorist attacks into Israel, it was Syria. So why did America only go after a country with loads and loads of oil, something that America is very concerned that they don't have enough of?

There are journals of when the British invaded Jamaica, that make it clear that Englishmen raped their servants, again and again and again. There are documentaries on how the British took vast quantities of food from India, and when India had a massive famine, that Britain took its quota anyway, and 5 million Indians died as a result.

Heck, look at the way Africans were treated in Africa by the British, the Germans, and the French. I suppose you are going to say that is because the British and the Germans were Protestants? Well, Britain wasn't torturing Jews or Catholics by then, and they were torturing the Irish.
I suppose you are going to say that is because the French were Catholics? Well, France was in the Scramble for Africa only after the French Revolution.

If they are nutballs, then they did it because they were insane, and easy to manipulate. If they did it because of religion, then why hasn't the USA invaded Saudi Arabia, when 14 out of the 19 terrorists in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is supposed to be an ally of the US. So why is it that most of them of the 9/11 terrorists were all from the same Saudi Arabia, that is supposed to be a "friend" of the US?

If they are nutballs, then they did it because they were insane, and easy to manipulate. If they did it because of religion,

I have hunch I'm going to have to really control my self here.....

Scorpiomover, why do you think the christians wanted to take back the lands from the muslims and vice versa?

Do you think the christians and muslims kept fighting back and forth for the figs and dates??

Do you think there would have been crusades if there was no christianity/islam?

How does the US invading iraq tie in with the crusades and RELIGION?? Please explain, IN CLEAR and NON-VERBOSE terms the correlation between the two.

King Red Herring of Non-Sequiter strikes again....

WTF do english rapists have to do with being considered a heretic and tortured for it based on religious grounds?? Or the people who committed those tortures and atrocities in the name of religion??
WTF do starving indians have to do with people who were tortured and killed because they wouldn't submit to a religious doctrine??

And Prince Strawman makes an appearance....

Heck, look at the way Africans were treated in Africa by the British, the Germans, and the French. I suppose you are going to say that is because the British and the Germans were Protestants? Well, Britain wasn't torturing Jews or Catholics by then, and they were torturing the Irish.
I suppose you are going to say that is because the French were Catholics? Well, France was in the Scramble for Africa only after the French Revolution.

Bad treatment by the europeans towards africans has exactly WHAT to do with my previous post?

So 14 ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS equates all of saudi arabia , it's people, government, etc, and thus warrants an invasion by US troops?

I suppose by your thinking, if my friends and I drive over the border to the US and blow up a gas station, canada should face oil sanctions and be cut off from it's supply of petrol......

Why is it so hard to understand they likley did it for BOTH reasons? They could have well been crazy, AND doing it in the name of their religion. It does not negate the fact that religion was a motivating factor.

If you decide to respond with olympic marathon length replies, I will not respond... If you can keep the responses CLEAR, CONCISE, and above all... RELEVANT, then we can proceed with a meaningful discussion

If religion is the real EVIL, then if you aren't religious, you have no possibility of evil, so you cannot do anything that would be considered maliciously hurtful,

By the same logic, do you think the Americans and Iraqis would kept fighting back and forth if there was no oil in Iraq?

By the same token, do you think there would have been a Korea or Vietnam if there was no capitalism/communism?

The Gulf Wars were wars of invasion.
The Crusades were wars of invasion.

In the Gulf Wars, the invaded force was a Muslim country.
In the Crusades, the invaded force was a Muslim country.

The Crusades were supposed to be to protect Jerusalem and Israel, but we all know it was about land and power.

If the inquisitors were NOT torturing and killing people just for shits and giggles, and were torturing and killing people because they considered those people heretics, and against religion, then we would expect that non-inquisitors were NOT torturing and killing people.

Why ? Just because someone isn't religious they can't commit evil? Atheists can commit evil acts, and they aren't religious.

Do you understand what a RHETORICAL question is?

The christians/muslims kept fighting back and forth over the holy land for RELIGIOUS reasons.

WTF does oil in iraq have to do with anything?

I am speaking of a religious war between two opposing religions, and you are bringing up the creation of communist regimes

Invasion is usually part of war.

We are discussing the REASONS for this war, the MOTIVATIONS that served as a catalysts for the crusades.

How does the US invading iraq tie in with the crusades and RELIGION?? Please explain, IN CLEAR and NON-VERBOSE terms the correlation between the two.

Irrelevant to the topic. Where the people at war originate from is irrelevant. It is because they use RELIGION as a motivation, THAT is what we are discussing.

The crusades were to regain captured lands from MUSLIMS, lands considered SACRED and HOLY to CHRISTIANS.

There was NO country of israel at the time of the crusades either.

"Non-Inquisitors were NOT torturing and killing people" has nothing to do with the inquisition. Logical fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion.

I thought so too. But because of this and other threads, I looked it up, and I was very surprised to find out that the religious reasons were not the real reasons for the war.

The British people were specifically told that we were going to war because Iraq could send WMDs to the UK in 45 minutes, and this turned out to be something that even the British Intelligence Services never believed for a minute, and that Tony Blair was informed of this before he stated this. Further, Matthew Wright said TODAY on TV that he specifically remembers being told that we were NOT going to war to remove an evil dictator, or any such notion. The reasons that the UK went into Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons claimed. Not the claims before the war. Not the claims before the war. What are called religious wars are no different. FOR THIS VERY REASON, HISTORIANS SAY "HISTORY WAS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS." You don't know the most fundamental principle of studying history?

I have listed correlations. Where did you ask ONLY for MOTIVATIONS THAT SERVED AS CATALYSTS FOR THE CRUSADES?

How does the US invading iraq tie in with the crusades and RELIGION?? Please explain, IN CLEAR and NON-VERBOSE terms the correlation between the two.

CAPTURED LANDS. Not because they were holy, but because they were lands that used to belong to Europeans, who had started to function as a primitive European Union.

the first thing one learns about combat and war is "know thine enemy".

You were claiming that torture and murder happened because of religion. I showed that this was NOT the main reason for torture and murder.

Arch-conservative religiosity is now known as “fundamentalism”- that modern attempt to revert to a bygone mythos in the face of change too rapid to comfortably absorb. It thrives best in closed systems, and tends to be paranoid about anyone or anything that presents a serious challenge to its fundamental world view and its claims to universal validity. It is a toxic form of cultural narcissism that often takes on a political virulence to promote its agenda. And it is inherently fearful of pluralism- particularly if that pluralism permits any disagreements with, variations, or contradictions to its form of orthodoxy. It also pretends to a theocratic legitimacy- aspiring to righteous rule in the name of whatever version of God it claims to represent. It is often funded by powerful vested interests, but touts its popular appeal by pressing willing, enthusiastic and largely anti-intellectual acolytes into service as a voting block against more liberal forces. At its best it is fearful, at its worst it is oppressive, and it frequently attempts to institutionalize its precepts in a highly efficient marriage of religion, politics and economics.

Why do I do this to myself??

Excellent. This is relevant, concise, and clear. Well done. So I ask that you please provide your sources, as links and PERTINENT quotes to support your assertion. Once you have done so, I will supply mine, and then we can perhaps proceed.

How does this have anything to do with wars or atrocities committed in the name of religion?

right here, where you yourself have already quoted... :
I did not ask for aspects of war like invasion, or origin of armies. I asked, quite clearly, for the possible similarities (TIE IN) between your red herring dish of war for oil, and my crusades. You have offered none.

So the crusaders marched on Jerusalem to preserve the middle east european union????

Can I have some of what you are smoking??

Spoken like a true wannabe. I have served 6 years in an infantry regiment, including in a machine gunner (.50 cal) crew, and a recce (recognaissance) platoon. First thing you EVER learn.. is know THYSELF.

NO, you merely ASSERTED it. Provide evidence from a credible source

And find your own schtick, stop stealing my baseball 3 strikes usage, it makes you look.... unimaginative and ape-like.

Well, folks, I've gotta admit, if I had lived in 1095, I would have joined the First Crusade in a heartbeat. That's even if I knew everything I know today. I would have also joined the Third, and the ones fought by St. Louis IX

However, the death toll caused by the Crusades really pales in comparison with, say, Communist revolutions of the 20th century.

If by that, you mean that I am absorbing mind-altering chemicals, then sure.

I think what's wrong with the world is a lack of compassion... Theist, Atheist... It doesn't matter... If you have no compassion, you are an agent of war.

Oh my god you're a self parody.

Posted by TheLimey
Which in turn pale into insignificance when compared to the 500Million people killed in the 1800's by your god having created smallpox....

And helped along by the first documented case of biological warfare by the British in the 1760's.

Not really. If you research it, you'll discover that doctors have openly said that B vitamins improve your mood, and that many vitamins and minerals improve your cognition. So I am actually in tune with what doctors state about the mind.

Not really. If you research it, you'll discover that doctors have openly said that B vitamins improve your mood, and that many vitamins and minerals improve your cognition.

However, the death toll caused by the Crusades really pales in comparison with, say, Communist revolutions of the 20th century