The peace-loving Indian Muslim

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned
H, what about Sodom and Gehmorrah? Actually, a lot of the jihadists look to upon the West as a modern Sodom that Allah wants smitten to bring justice to humanity.

It is Old Testament whose importance for christianity is debatable, but anyway, it is an act by God himself. No-one to blame... like when a flood comes and kills people.

My reference to Urban II is correct. He did say that those who would fall in battle would enter Heaven.

And, you cannot deny that Karl der Grosse actively conquered to spread Christianity.

You completely missed my point... Read my post again.

But when it comes to this point of yours, it's about Saxony, isn't it. I wouldn't say spreading christianity by force was his greatest goal. He did not convert Wielets, nor did he try to convert Obodrites, his allies against Wielets.

[Ned]

I don't have the details before me, H, but the Saxons were a prime target. I also think he went after the Avars and Muslims in Spain for the same reason.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Sava
As I said, religion is the product of humans.

So is God

* LordShiva runs away

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
Political power doesn't have to be warlike. Take Byzantium, which considered itself christianity incarnated, which only defended its boarders or tried to regain control over the ones lost, and islam incarnated, which conquered half of civilised world

Considering that Byz considered itself Rome, and Rome had at one point ruled everything from Mesopotamis to Scotland, only trying to regain areas lost hardly constituted a limited agenda. Even so Byz intervened in Arabian before the muslim conquest, and north and east of the Black Sea afterwards, places Rome had not ruled.

In any case I was thinking of violence in general and Byz was certainly violent. Christianity became intolerant as soon as it was strong enough.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned

So Christianity (of old) was similar to Islam in its use of violence to spread religion. But what Islam offers are multiple wives and as many concubines as you can conquer on Earth, and virgins in heaven for the martyr.

Makes one think.

There is an important difference. The commands of the Pope during the crusaders were in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ were as the modern Jihadi is indeed following the Koran. It was relatively easy to reform Christianity due to just demanding people go back to the Bible and follow the teachings of Christ. This won't work in the case of Islam.

[LordShiva]

"With your powers combined..."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There is an important difference. The commands of the Pope during the crusaders were in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ were as the modern Jihadi is indeed following the Koran. It was relatively easy to reform Christianity due to just demanding people go back to the Bible and follow the teachings of Christ. This won't work in the case of Islam.

Which gave us antisemite reactionary Martin Luther, and er, John Calvin. Its odd that some folks point to the Reformation as the improvement of Christianity, when it really took place during the enlightenment, and came to fruition in Catholic countries as much as Protestant ones. Islam needs to follow what happened across the Christian world in the 18th and 19th century, not what happened in Protestant Europe in the 16th c. It wont be easy, but it doesnt necessarily have much to do with the literal text of the Korah.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Considering that Byz considered itself Rome, and Rome had at one point ruled everything from Mesopotamis to Scotland, only trying to regain areas lost hardly constituted a limited agenda.

Well, it's not christianity's fault that it was successful in a successful nation

Even so Byz intervened in Arabian before the muslim conquest,

what? When? You probably mean when a mad jewish Yemen ruler started persecuting christians and blocking byzantine trade, and so, Constantinople asked Ethiopians to depose him? It's hardly a bloodthirsty crusade

[quote]
and north and east of the Black Sea afterwards, places Rome had not ruled.
[quote]

What do You mean by that? I do recall Byzantines acquiring a temporal souvereignity over Khazars, but they hardly tried to conquer them. Georgia and Armenia were ruled by Romans earlier and were christian.

In any case I was thinking of violence in general and Byz was certainly violent. Christianity became intolerant as soon as it was strong enough.

It's almost a century between legalisation of christianity and banning pagan cult, and two centuries or more before it was really done.

Oerdin is understanding my thoughts good.
It's a basic difference, very simple and obvious, yet majority of people have great difference grasping it.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't have the details before me, H, but the Saxons were a prime target. I also think he went after the Avars and Muslims in Spain for the same reason.

Don't think so... he was invited into Spain. I do not recall hearing anything about some bloody christianisation politics in Pannonia.
It wouldn't be suprising, but it was a means in his hand more than a cause.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Which gave us antisemite reactionary Martin Luther, and er, John Calvin. Its odd that some folks point to the Reformation as the improvement of Christianity, when it really took place during the enlightenment, and came to fruition in Catholic countries as much as Protestant ones.

lotm says truth

But You know well it was not reformation that was ment.
Luther, and especially Calvin, were not coming back to original christian teachings... and they were under too big influence of OT anyway. True christian teachings = NT
Bad stuff justifications and other bad things came from OT.

Islam needs to follow what happened across the Christian world in the 18th and 19th century, not what happened in Protestant Europe in the 16th c. It wont be easy, but it doesnt necessarily have much to do with the literal text of the Korah.

it is not possible without great doze of naivety / hipocrisy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


what? When? You probably mean when a mad jewish Yemen ruler started persecuting christians and blocking byzantine trade, and so, Constantinople asked Ethiopians to depose him? It's hardly a bloodthirsty crusade

1. Its not at all certain he was Jewish.
2. The sources that do say he was Jewish, claim his persecutions of Christians were motivated by Byz persectutions of Jews. In fact he may actually have been avenging monophysites, who were persecuted in Byz and who apparently supported the Himyar regime.
3. Byz was certainly interested in eliminating a kingdom that was friendly toward Persia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

But You know well it was not reformation that was ment.
Luther, and especially Calvin, were not coming back to original christian teachings... and they were under too big influence of OT anyway. True christian teachings = NT
Bad stuff justifications and other bad things came from OT.

Wow. Just wow. Such a classic antisemitic view of the role of the OT in Christianity. One that wasnt shared by Jesus or his followers, apparently.

[Dinner]

LotM, I wasn't refering to the Protestant Reformation per say and instead just the transformation of most Christian groups from using faith to attack nonbelivers. Instead after the 100 years war people kind of settled down and progressively by the end of the 19th century they focused more on the actual words of Christ and less on the old testiment.

You are of course that the enlightenment had tons to do with this and acted as a moderating influence. That has more to do with the evolution of modern western thought then with the Church itself which was what I was specifically talking about.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
LotM, I wasn't refering to the Protestant Reformation per say and instead just the transformation of most Christian groups from using faith to attack nonbelivers. Instead after the 100 years war people kind of settled down and progressively by the end of the 19th century they focused more on the actual words of Christ and less on the old testiment.

You are of course that the enlightenment had tons to do with this and acted as a moderating influence. That has more to do with the evolution of modern western thought then with the Church itself which was what I was specifically talking about.

I dont think 19th christians turned from the OT at all, though Im no expert. Did they turn from psalms, from the story of King David, from the Ten Commandments, from Isaiah and Amos and prophets of social justice? Or do you mean they turned away from legal texts that were never meant for them and whose proper interpretation they didnt know, and stories of the conquest of Canaan that, you know, only applied to Canaan and no where else?

And I dont really think the ills of the THIRTY years war, etc had much to do with say, the Book of Joshua. It had a lot more to do with differences over certain passages in the NT, like "on this petrus i will build my church" and what that implied about episicopacy and apostolic succession. Christianity was NOT enlightend by turning back to the words of Christ, but by the need to deal with Kant, Voltaire, Darwin, etc, etc. Islam doesnt need to change its founding books, it needs to deal with the modern world. Which incidently, many muslims are doing.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. Its not at all certain he was Jewish.
2. The sources that do say he was Jewish, claim his persecutions of Christians were motivated by Byz persectutions of Jews.

True... But he did that much more bloodly.

3. Byz was certainly interested in eliminating a kingdom that was friendly toward Persia.

And rightly so. Why shouldn't it.

Wow. Just wow. Such a classic antisemitic view of the role of the OT in Christianity. One that wasnt shared by Jesus or his followers, apparently.

Jesus, St Paul, St Peter, St John the Apostle were Jews as well... did You forget about that? And even if they weren't, claiming OT is bad doesn't mean hatred towards Jews.