Your thoughts on the Crusades?
- Thread starter Squishy Skeever
- Start date
He's counting the entirety of Islamic history.
I would like to check the math on that one. I've seen atheists use similar bullshi...er, unsubstantiated numbers against Christianity. The main flaw in their argument is that many wars, while they may use religion as a rallying cry, are about secular activities like resources and geography. Religion is a tool not a cause in such circumstances.
Like a gun, a pitch fork or a hangman's noose, a book, even a religious book, is just a paper weight until some human being picks it up and puts it to use.
Likewise, all of those things plus any other inanimate object can be used for good or bad. It's the human being who determines its use. Religion can be used for good or evil, this includes atheism. Same for guns, hammers and even cotton candy.
Give enough to a diabetic and it probably can. Does something have to kill in order to be bad?
If I encourage a kid to eat cotton candy until he pukes just for the fun of it, is that good, bad or neutral?
IMO, that would be bad on my part since I'm actively intending to cause harm. The bottom line is that it isn't the cotton candy's fault, but either mine for encouraging the kid or the kid's for eating to much.
Either way it takes a human being to cause the action. The inanimate object, be it cotton candy or a Bible, is not at fault.
anytime a people resort to violence ,it must have a very strong ideology to support the violence ;or else the only ones to benefit ,if there is any benefit will only be a few. and will achieve little or nothing. the crusades accomplished nothing in that in time created a greater muslim threat to Christendom.
It achieved plenty. None of it's goals but plenty (the renocconce being the biggest example).
I'd loooove to see facts supporting your opinions on this.
As it is, I think the Crusades are simply examples of the struggles of different human beings in ancient cultures to survive and do what they thought was best in order to survive.
Lots of mistakes were made by our elders. Reading history can teach us how to avoid making those same mistakes again.
The crusades actually were a failure in terms of providing security for christendom. It provided the muslims a stronger ideology to continue their conquests of European capitals. The slaughter of muslims [women and children] enforced the idea that Christians were as blood thirsty as anyone else and thereby weakened the Gospel message in their eyes. This gave them the compelling reason they needed to keep fighting and in the end succeeded in controlling the balkans , almost all of eastern europe and threatened rome . And this ,after having destroyed the venerable eastern capital of the church in constantinople.
only when the ottomons were defeated at the gates of vienna and the turkish fleet was sunk by the spanish armada in the 16th cent did the threat to europe subside.
I might suggest you review established historical data, and take it into the context on the last few hundred years before continuing this train of thought.
Then...perhaps we can debate this issue appropriately.
Funny how the pro-Islamic/anti-European group totally ignores the advances of the Moors across the Middle East, North Africa and, eventually, into Europe.
People who put all the blame on one group while totally ignoring the fault of another are highly biased and prejudicial IMO.
People who put all the blame on one group while totally ignoring the fault of another are highly biased and prejudicial IMO.
You are muddled. The deeply pacifist Roman and Persian Empire were sending their saints (armed for a joke) to kill Arabs and heretics in all the Eastern Empire by singing holy songs at them, and the rebellious armies of Islam were generally welcomed, as you'd know if you'd looked into the matter, since they reduced taxes and stopped persecution. Other than in Spain - which was not really European, it was the Turks who invaded this continent.
Had the Muslims won, the Middle Age would have lasted 150-200 years, not 800.
So why aren't they 600 years ahead of us now instead of 700 years behind?
Speculation on this is an interesting mind game, but there are more factors involved than simply whether or not one side won a war or a battle.
It certainly did, but that was what the Moorish invasion was all about.
Baghdad used to be the height of science and culture in the Western world while Europeans were busy butchering each other while covered in pig sh**. They're move north stopped in Spain, but it created friction which would later come to play a part in their demise.
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar threads
