Christianity ruins families.

[OzzyKP]

WOOSH ! And again he misses the point.

Loyalty is good... lying your ass of isn't.

There are plenty of dumb arguments on both sides here. In most of the Ben arguments there is plenty of obstinance to go around. Which is why I just stay out of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

All of the Middle East are Christian lands so the Crusades were justified because it was a defensive war to re-take Christian lands from the Muslims.

Not quite.

Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Alexandria were all Patriarchates. They are currently in muslim hands and should be restored to the Christians. They were all founded by Greeks. Same goes for Carthage and the rest of North Africa

I'm only arguing for the lands owned by Christians prior to the defeat of the Sassinid Persian Empire by Heraclius. Not the entire middle east.

They are Christian lands because they were Roman lands.

As the Romans at this point in time, they were Christian lands. They were also extremely significant in the Church wrt to Church governance.

Yes, the Romans conquered them from the Greeks, Persians, and Israelites, those groups having conquered them from Medeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. etc. in a constant cycle of conquests.

Which does nothing to explain why the four cities I mentioned, including Carthage were very significant Christian centres in the Near east.

Since the Middle East is the homeland of Christian Romans, they have a legitimate claim over those lands and so a war by other Christians unrelated to Romans would be defensive in nature and justified.

Not just the Christian Romans. The Near East is the home of the Christians. The religion was founded in Jerusalem, and spread from Jerusalem to the rest of the Christian world.

The Israelites simultaneously have a claim to these lands.

The Israelites have a claim to the land from the near side of the Euphrates in Syria to the river of Egypt, from the near side of the Jordan to the sea. This is only a small part of the formerly Christian Near east.

The Israelites conquered these lands, which according to Scripture, were the homelands of a bunch of other groups. Still, though the Israelites conquered them so it's their homeland.

Scripture doesn't say that it was the homeland of these tribes. Only that these tribes resided there. The Hittites at the very least were from the mountains of Turkey. The rest we don't know enough. All we know is at this time, several tribes of these peoples resided in Canaan.

Meanwhile, the US is the homeland of the American people who liberated the Native Americans.

Of which a segment of the American people are the Native Americans is a better wording.

The US didn't conquer the West, they purchased it from European powers and Mexico after the US didn't engage in a war of conquest with Mexico in the 1840's. The US only liberated the people who were there.

Mexico is no different from America, as the former colony of Spain as compared to the former colony of Britain. Neither have a prior existance before being a colony.

The Sioux, Apache, Comanche, etc. etc. all the tribes in America could not claim those lands as their homeland because [they each claimed the land for themselves].

There was no general consensus among these tribes as to the 'homeland' of each other.

Note, there are people still around who claim Indian ancestry so the argument with regards to Hittites et al doesn't quite fly in this case.

These people are also Americans. They were born American citizens and have the same rights as any other American.

Meanwhile, Christians were being oppressed by Evil Islam because they had to pay a tax which is equivalent to slavery.

Christians were oppressed because they were defeated in battle, killed unless they submitted to Islam or paid the Jizya. Christian property was seized without compensation. Christians were subject to slavery. They were not permitted to worship openly. The list goes on.

If muslims were so benevolent, why do they not grant equal rights to their Christians?

Christian treatment of Muslims is irrelevant to the Evils of Islam. So is Christian treatment of Jews, heretics, and even fellow Christians.

Christians who were willing to cooperate with Muslims (ie the Byzantines), were subjugated. The only Christians around are those who successfully defeated them.

[giblets]

Thus sayeth the holy prophet Albert Speer.

Arabs don't even claim to be these tribes. They claim to be children of Esau. At best they'd be Edomites, which aren't even on the list. And that's if you believe they are in fact Edomites, of which the only evidence we have is scanty.

The pre-Israelite populations had nothing in common with the Arabs, who were first in the Levant in 630.

I thought the myth was that they are descended from Ishmael?

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought the myth was that they are descended from Ishmael?

Sigh. I had the wrong generation. Serves me right for relying on memory. Yes, you are correct.

They claim they are descended from Ishmael.

[Barnabas]

Ben, I don't want to insult you, but I think you bring a lot of protestant baggage with you when you say that Jews have a claim to the Holy Land, no catholic would ever say that (I also see that when you oppose state intervention to help the poor, as if catholic countries had a history of free market capitalism like England or the Netherlands)
.
That territory you mentioned from the Euphrates to the Nile, was never ever controlled by jews in their History, Israel was from Dan to Beersheba, not from the Nile to the Euphrates, that was just wishful thinking.

And that territory would include most holy christian sites like the church of the Nativity, and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of the 5 most important sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople), you can't have both christians and jews having a valid claim over the same territory.

By the way, the Islamic conquest was great for the Papacy, Rome is the only "free" apostolic see, all others fell in control of muslims.

The islamic conquest is probably the only reason why I am a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.


I don't see anything outrageous or unjustified about the crusades, and I don't think the muslims thought the crusaders had outrageous beliefs. They were enemies, infidels, but they were only acting like the muslims who conquered everything in sight from Spain to China. The muslims understood the pshychology of Holy War too well to be outraged by the crusaders.

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?
It is not like muslims half a millenium later had not recovered all the crusader lands, conquered all the byzantine empire, and had advanced as far as Vienna twice.

Do you all think that Spanish christians should have remained happy with only one fifth of their former country, locked between the mountains and the sea? Muslims in Spain would refer to those Christian northerners as dogs, but they saw nothing weird in their constant skirmishes and attempts to advance to the south. It is not like muslims asked for permission when they tried to invade or conquer someone.

As late as the 1950 lebanon had a christian majority, a century ago christians were still over 30% of Syrians, and in many parts of palestine christians were the majority of the population (bethlehem, galilee), the % of christians was much higher during the first crusade. Before the disaster of manzikert, it looked like arabs had lost steam and that the Byzantine Emperor was going to end up reconquering Syria.

[OzzyKP]

Barnabas

[giblets]

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?

Who said their conquests were sacred and good?

[Elok]

I loved the part where people debated the 'justification' of war and conquest in the middle ages. Let's remember that was when everyone regardless of religion bought into principles of modern intl law and enlightenend pacifism.

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

Also, human history is basically one long story of people taking other people's ****, going back to the Cro-magnon conquest of the Neanderthals--which is why I find claims of 'original ownership' pretty silly. The Turks took Constantinople from the Byzantines, who inherited it from the Romans, who I suppose took it from some damned post-Alexander dynasty, who took it from Alexander's retarded half-brother, who got it from Alexander, who took it from some barbarian tribe, who I imagine took it from Greek colonists around 1000 BC or some such, said colonists possibly having pushed certain other people out of the way to found their colony...Antarctica is pretty much the only real estate on Earth that hasn't been taken by force, and that's because it's worthless.

[MrFun]

Ben, I don't want to insult you, but I think you bring a lot of protestant baggage with you when you say that Jews have a claim to the Holy Land, no catholic would ever say that (I also see that when you oppose state intervention to help the poor, as if catholic countries had a history of free market capitalism like England or the Netherlands)
.
That territory you mentioned from the Euphrates to the Nile, was never ever controlled by jews in their History, Israel was from Dan to Beersheba, not from the Nile to the Euphrates, that was just wishful thinking.

And that territory would include most holy christian sites like the church of the Nativity, and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of the 5 most important sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople), you can't have both christians and jews having a valid claim over the same territory.

By the way, the Islamic conquest was great for the Papacy, Rome is the only "free" apostolic see, all others fell in control of muslims.

The islamic conquest is probably the only reason why I am a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.


I don't see anything outrageous or unjustified about the crusades, and I don't think the muslims thought the crusaders had outrageous beliefs. They were enemies, infidels, but they were only acting like the muslims who conquered everything in sight from Spain to China. The muslims understood the pshychology of Holy War too well to be outraged by the crusaders.

Why are islamic conquests sacred, good and to be respected, while christian attempts to reconquer former christian lands (which were generally predominantly christian lands under islamic rule) seen as unjustified outrageous attacks?
It is not like muslims half a millenium later had not recovered all the crusader lands, conquered all the byzantine empire, and had advanced as far as Vienna twice.

Do you all think that Spanish christians should have remained happy with only one fifth of their former country, locked between the mountains and the sea? Muslims in Spain would refer to those Christian northerners as dogs, but they saw nothing weird in their constant skirmishes and attempts to advance to the south. It is not like muslims asked for permission when they tried to invade or conquer someone.

As late as the 1950 lebanon had a christian majority, a century ago christians were still over 30% of Syrians, and in many parts of palestine christians were the majority of the population (bethlehem, galilee), the % of christians was much higher during the first crusade. Before the disaster of manzikert, it looked like arabs had lost steam and that the Byzantine Emperor was going to end up reconquering Syria.

This post here is pure awesome.

And for record, my own opinion about Muslim invasions versus Christian crusades is not to demonize the crusaders and glorify Muslim conquerors. I have a much more balanced view.

[Barnabas]

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

In a way that is true, Christians only became tolerant (more tolerant than muslims) after the European religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that involved pretty much everyone (Spain, Holy Roman Empire, France, England, the Netherlands, Sweden etc) they were so devastating that pretty much Europeans stopped fighting over religion after that, like it was not wise to endure so much destruction for an abstract idea like religion (unlike land, money and resources).

Muslims were much more violent against people who were not of the book, I guess Aneeshm could tell you many horror stories of the islamic conquest of India (lets not forget that Pakistan used to be 100% India)

And Christians were still one fanatic dinasty away from being converted forcibly to Islam. I don't think a Christian could have lived in Taliban Afghanistan even if he was willing to pay taxes.

[Robert]

With protestantism the seperation of church and state was introduced, which was more or less adopted soon by the Roman Catholics as well. (The RC was forced to rethink their theology because of the reformation)

I'm not very positive of true Muslims adopting the separation of church and state.
Such a doctrine can easily be based on the Bible or Jesus, but not on the Quran.

I think that people too easily consider all religions alike, and therefore conclude that all religions will follow the same path. (like: islam will go through a reformation as well).

[Robert]

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

Also, human history is basically one long story of people taking other people's ****, going back to the Cro-magnon conquest of the Neanderthals--which is why I find claims of 'original ownership' pretty silly. The Turks took Constantinople from the Byzantines, who inherited it from the Romans, who I suppose took it from some damned post-Alexander dynasty, who took it from Alexander's retarded half-brother, who got it from Alexander, who took it from some barbarian tribe, who I imagine took it from Greek colonists around 1000 BC or some such, said colonists possibly having pushed certain other people out of the way to found their colony...Antarctica is pretty much the only real estate on Earth that hasn't been taken by force, and that's because it's worthless.

+1

Of course we can't compare the crusades to our moral standards, but even compared to those days moral standards it was very wrong.
Especially because they used false motives and masacred the countryside and the local population.

During the middle ages the muslims were a lot more civilized then we were.

[BeBMan]

I've recently been on a minor military history kick, trying to read some of the basics. Supposedly, many medieval soldiers relied on a military manual written by some ancient Roman. He said that the principal aim of war is to destroy the countryside so your opponent can no longer support his army (apparently this guy was a big RTS player). Also, Henry V is said to have remarked, "War without fire [ie, burning villages] is like sausage without mustard."

Which is the main reason why I don't find the Muslim conquests quite as abhorrent as the Crusades. Yes, they were both conquerors, but when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the streets are said to have quite literally run red with all the innocent blood they spilled. Saladin retook Jerusalem, massacred nobody. Muslims captured by Christians got the rack, or worse. Christians captured by Muslims were largely treated as second-class citizens, which is pretty good by comparison.

The massacre in Jerusalem 1099 certainly stands out as atrocity, but it's not that similiar stuff didn't happen elsewhere too. Not everyone was a Saladin on the muslim side, just read what happened when Baibars began to finally destroy the Crusader states in the Holy Land. A prime example is the siege of Antioch in 1268 where he promised to to spare the lives of its inhabitants, then changed his mind, killed large parts of the population and sold the rest into slavery. Torched earth style stuff was also not uncommon for him. Esp. during the last decades until 1291 when the last christian city fell in the ME massacres etc. from the muslim side were hardly a rare occurence.

I'm not interested to excuse anything vs. anything, but I don't buy that medieval war and conquest were esp. brutal on one side only...

[OzzyKP]

Exactly BeBro.

[giblets]

And for record, my own opinion about Muslim invasions versus Christian crusades is not to demonize the crusaders and glorify Muslim conquerors. I have a much more balanced view.

What a massive strawman. No one is trying to glorify muslim conquerors and pointing out that crusaders committed atrocities isn't "demonizing". It's a fact...