Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to say. Both have undoubtedly been eclipsed by atheist regimes of the 20th century who were aided by superior killing technology and more fixed belief systems that made mass killing easier, conscience-wise.
Sure. Atheists killed a lot in Russia and China, but most countries involved in WW-1 and 2 were Christians, although they were not religious wars. Crusades and Inquisition were all about religion. Weaponized religion is never a good thing.
Sure. Atheists killed a lot in Russia and China, but most countries involved in WW-1 and 2 were Christians, although they were not religious wars. Crusades and Inquisition were all about religion. Weaponized religion is never a good thing.
At the heart of Stalin's regime and Pol Pot's regime and Mao's regime was a central belief: they were unaccountable to anyone beyond this earth and beyond their lifetimes. This was true of Hitler and the Nazis, as well, regardless the lip service they paid to "Christianity." Such a belief is powerful and makes it much easier to exterminate millions of people.
Your contention about the Crusades is, predictably, a gross oversimplification of why the Crusades occurred. This is what I've come to expect from modern atheists. They're generally ignorant not only of religion, but of subjects like history and psychology. As such, they offer up simplistic arguments like the one you just offered. I say this, by the way, as someone who lived most of his life as an atheist/agnostic. The arguments of the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens are many times jaw-droppingly weak and quickly refuted by more sophisticated Christian apologetics.
Your contention about the Crusades is, predictably, a gross oversimplification of why the Crusades occurred. This is what I've come to expect from modern atheists. They're generally ignorant not only of religion, but of subjects like history and psychology. As such, they offer up simplistic arguments like the one you just offered. I say this, by the way, as someone who lived most of his life as an atheist/agnostic. The arguments of the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens are many times jaw-droppingly weak and quickly refuted by more sophisticated Christian apologetics.
I am not an atheist, I am Christian. Crusades were all about weaponized religion. The soldiers were told that dying on a crusade was a ticket to heaven, which is what the terrorists also tell themselves today. The crusades went on for a long time, and although the major ones were to ME, some others were European campaigns. They destroyed cities and killed people who refused to convert to Christianity, and often times they were not even given a chance to convert, but were simply killed off.
I am not an atheist, I am Christian. Crusades were all about weaponized religion. The soldiers were told that dying on a crusade was a ticket to heaven, which is what the terrorists also tell themselves today. The crusades went on for a long time, and although the major ones were to ME, some others were European campaigns.
Then there's even less of an excuse for you posting that idea. As with most other wars, there were geopolitical factors, economics, social structural issues, et cetera. History is usually more complicated than bumper sticker hucksters would have us believe.
Then there's even less of an excuse for you posting that idea. As with most other wars, there were geopolitical factors, economics, social structural issues, et cetera. History is usually more complicated than bumper sticker hucksters would have us believe.
Excuse? I am posting it, because the crusades were wrong. Jesus would NEVER approve people doing such horrible things in His name. I know why they conducted the Crusades, but the problem was that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ. Maybe you cannot comprehend the problem there. Of course the Christians today have nothing to do with that, but there is no reason to try to justify murder.
Well, they say everyone evolved from cavemen in Africa, so technically everyone is from Africa. The tribes in Syria/Iraq have been there as long as we know. They are considered the original people of the region. Jews are of the same blood, so they are original too.
No they haven't been their as long as we know, matter of fact we know exactly when they went to Iraq and Syria. Arabs are descended from the various tribes in the Arabian peninsula. The natives of Iraq and Syria were a mix of Semitic and Indo-European speaking peoples that have been living there since time immemorial. Groups like the Assyrians and Yazidis. I have no problem with Arab peoples but they aren't originally from Iraq and Syria. This is just factually incorrect.
Because Western European men have never butchered young women before....
Again, there is no risk from that occurring from Western European men by traveling in modern Europe. Trying to state that there is any such remotely equivalent risk is excessively dishonest.
Quote:
Using this logic people in other parts of the global could say that American men are prone to being mass shooters and nobody should travel to America because it is an unsafe place.
Sure. Don't travel to America. I wouldn't blame them. This is a messed up place, but mass shooters also cross the ethnic spectrum here. However, European women definitely shouldn't travel in the Middle East.
Excuse? I am posting it, because the crusades were wrong. Jesus would NEVER approve people doing such horrible things in His name. I know why they conducted the Crusades, but the problem was that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ. Maybe you cannot comprehend the problem there. Of course the Christians today have nothing to do with that, but there is no reason to try to justify murder.
How were the Crusades wrong? The crusades were extremely righteous.
If anything, they weren't effective enough due to lacking European strength at the time. They were a response to the region being ethnically and culturally cleansed by Islamic Arabs and Turks. They murdered millions from the Near East through India. See my prior post.
Christianity isn't some Buddhist "all violence is wrong" religion. No matter how you wish to spin it against the interest of heritage Christianity, we never were nor will we roll over and die in response to aggression from others. Spin or no spin. Religion or no religion. That should be more than obvious by now and you need to come to grips with it. Your spin and half truths are nothing more than insulting.
How were the Crusades wrong? The crusades were extremely righteous.
If anything, they weren't effective enough due to lacking European strength at the time. They were a response to the region being ethnically and culturally cleansed by Islamic Arabs and Turks. They murdered millions from the Near East through India. See my prior post.
Christianity isn't some Buddhist "all violence is wrong" religion. No matter how you wish to spin it against the interest of heritage Christianity, we never were nor will we roll over and die in response to aggression from others. Spin or no spin. Religion or no religion. That should be more than obvious by now and you need to come to grips with it. Your spin and half truths are nothing more than insulting.
Yea, the 4th Crusade really was effective against those Muslims.
I am not an atheist, I am Christian. Crusades were all about weaponized religion. The soldiers were told that dying on a crusade was a ticket to heaven, which is what the terrorists also tell themselves today. The crusades went on for a long time, and although the major ones were to ME, some others were European campaigns. They destroyed cities and killed people who refused to convert to Christianity, and often times they were not even given a chance to convert, but were simply killed off.
You lack a knowledge of history. Your only pseudo-knowledge is meaningless propaganda.
As before stated and documented in a prior very long post in this thread, complete with mainstream citations, Arabs and Turks had ethnically and culturally cleansed the region in a campaign against its original inhabitants. The Crusades were a response to that, and were as much about defense as offense. You have no answer to this (inclusive of Spain, the Near East, and beyond). You are merely citing Arab and Turkish propaganda, who were the peoples who facilitated the original massacres and widespread dispossessions in the region.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
