What the hell? When did he say that? How the hell are Romans conquering those lands from let's say the Persians imply that those lands are Christian? Neither the Persians or Romans were Christian.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Christianity ruins families.
Collapse
X
-
They were Christian, Albert. The Christians were Roman. Every time you say "Roman" they are Christian.
-
And they are all Christian lands.Wow what the hell are you talking about? Every one of those cities has been conquered and reconquered by some group over the course of history.
How is Vienna a 'defensive' war on the part of Muslims, Albert?
Constantinople? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem?
All offensive invasions, and somehow it's wrong for Christians to demand their return. Why is this?
Leave a comment:
-
What the hell? When did he say that? How the hell are Romans conquering those lands from let's say the Persians imply that those lands are Christian? Neither the Persians or Romans were Christian.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostSo you admit the lands are Christian? Thank you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostMaybe I should add some more for you, Albert .
Poitiers.
Rome
Byzantium
Nicaea
Iconium
Mazinkert
Attalea
Crete
Carthage
Saragossa
Vienna
Budapest
Wow what the hell are you talking about? Every one of those cities has been conquered and reconquered by some group over the course of history.
Crete... were the Minoans Christian? Carthage... were the Phoenicians Christian? I can do this for every city you stated.
Leave a comment:
-
No, it's Jihad time. Time to sweep the Jews into the sea again.Those lands are Israeli now (not to mention the lands of dozens of ethnic groups!). Crusade time?
The crusades never ended, Albert. Why do you think that so many want to destroy Israel?
Leave a comment:
-
So you admit the lands are Christian? Thank you.The Romans took the lands from someone else so it wasn't theirs either, following your logic of course
Leave a comment:
-
Those lands are Israeli now (not to mention the lands of dozens of ethnic groups!). Crusade time?They are Christian lands still Albert. Muslims are not justified in retaining conquered territories. The Christians did not conquer them from the Pagan Romans, they were Romans. The Romans became Christian.
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe I should add some more for you, Albert .
Poitiers.
Rome
Byzantium
Nicaea
Iconium
Mazinkert
Attalea
Crete
Carthage
Saragossa
Vienna
Budapest
Leave a comment:
-
The Romans took the lands from someone else so it wasn't theirs either, following your logic of course.
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks to the Byzantine civil war going on at the time, the Byzantine emperor offered to pay for the crusaders passage, if they helped him take the throne. The Latins came to Byzantium, and then when the 'Emperor' could not pay them, sacked and looted the city.1) Christians were slaughtered by Crusaders... Byzantium 1204?
Now, how does this address the 1st through 10th crusades, minus the 4th which was explicitly assembled for the purposes of retaking Christian lands.
They are Christian lands still Albert. Muslims are not justified in retaining conquered territories. The Christians did not conquer them from the Pagan Romans, they were Romans. The Romans became Christian.2) Christian lands?! Who says? The Christians took it from the pagan Romans who took it from the Greeks who took it from the Persians who took it from the Babylonians who took it from the Israelites who took it from the Canaanites who took it from...
The Lands were Christian Albert. Antioch. Jerusalem. Alexandria. Home of the Patriarchates, and centre of Christianity.3) Defensive? Yes, because you travel hundreds of miles over seas in defensive wars.
Christianity was born in Jerusalem, not in the West. They were conquered by Muslims and the crusades fought to retake Christian lands once more.
Leave a comment:
-
Jizyah:
From wiki:
And that sounds like a raw deal why exactly?From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[6] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the Zakat as obligatory upon Muslim citizens
Leave a comment:
-
Jizyah compared to being killed outright as a Muslim in Christian lands would be? I'd gladly pay the tax!
What do you mean Yarmouk 629, Ben? What does that mean? Yarmouk had just been conquered by Heraclitus in his war with the Persians at that point in history.
And Jizyah compares how to the slaughter of the Cathars or the slaughter of Jerusalem? What did Saladin do when he reconquered the city?
Leave a comment:
-
The jizyah was just a tax. Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, right?
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe we should have put a bomb in Meccah and killed the pilgrims there? 3000 would be about right.I remember in the years following 9/11 there were Christians in America who advocated invading muslim countries and converting them to Christianity, nuking muslim countries, etc. I guess I should judge all Christians because of what a few extremists think.
Would you have dismissed it as 'corrupt' Christians?
I know Islam isn't the true religion because they are never held accountable for their deeds. Only Christians. A muslim could kill 3000 people and they would be hailed as a hero in Muslim countries, and people would find excuses.
It's right here in the thread.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: