What Religion Do You Follow?

[pizzahut451]

sapphi_snake said:

@pizzahut451:

Everyone listened to those corrupt Church leaders back then. They had more power than anyone, whatever they said was as good as if it came straight from the "mouth of God". And the Christians sure beleived that they were doing "God's will" by commiting all the attrocities they did (which is the onyl thing that matters). And you're seriously gonna pick on Jews? I can undertsand picking on Muslims, but on Jews? They were nomads persecuted by Chritsians starting from the second half of the Middle Ages. They had no power and were treated terribly (and we all know how their persecution culminated in the early 20th century). And Muslims treated Christians way better than Christians treated any non-Christian, after all, Muslims never commited genocide like the Christians did (in the Americas, which was later, and that actually makes things wrose), or ethnic cleansing (in Spain).And did you know that back then it was actually not considered murder to kill a non-Christian, nor was it considered a sin?

Look, I get it you hate Christians because they dont share the same belief as you. But that doesnt give you right to right wrong and inaccurate crap like that. Does it matter if the listend to them? I was arguing if they were opresive or not, and MAJORITY of christians wasnt allowed to think freely or they would get persecuted. The best example is Martin Luther. He saw the sins and evil of the church and the church haunted him. So it was either obey the church or die I, sorry, but to say everyone listedn to them is dumb. You#re are using the good old twisting and subject changing tactic here, and Im getting so fucking tired of it . No, not everyone listend to them. Just the fact that only catholic church was doing that proves so. The opressing christians in middle ages were in small minority and unfourtenatly they just happend to be the powerfull ones. How about the lutherans? The eastern orthodox christians? You are choosing the worst of christians to prove how bad christianity is (and I pointed out how flawed that logic is in my last post), your cherry picking and bias at its finesst. As for muslim and christian relations, i suggest you get little les biased and learn about, for example, ottoman empire (the biggst muslim empire). Yes, they sure treated christians kindly... My country spend most of its history fighting them off and the casualties ottomans brought to Christians is enormous.  Or how about the Armenian genocide where Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians (who are christians btw)? Or go learn about Janissary soldiers. But God forbid you say anything about uslims, because you know...they can bomb you. But you can sure attack those ''opresive'' christians who keep tolerating your hatred towards you. As for Jews, they were on the side of Muslims when Muslims attacked the Holy Land and when they defended  Jerusalim against crusaders in 1099 (and failed lol). Not to ention their attack at Hispania in 8th century... Dont worry, Im sure you'll find an excuse why did those muslims did that and why it was ok.

I'll say it again, a religion can only be judged by the behaviour of it's followers. Religious texts are not so explicit and are often open to interpretation, which leads to followers interpreting them as they see fit. All the attrocities Christians have commited throughout time were done in the name of God, and the people actually believed that.

Actually, religion can only be judged by the message its trying to deliver. And the message and teachings of Jesus Christ the most important person in Christianity were both peacefull and right. How did the small minority of corrupted people used those teachings over 500 years ago doesnt chnage the morallity of Christian message and teachings at all.

The difference is that during the Reconquista Muslims were the majority in Spain. The Christians lived in the North of the Peninsula, and after they starte conquering the Peninsula piece by piece and forcefully converting/killing/deporting the majority population. Also, most of the Muslims who lived in Spain were Spanish people, not people of Middle Eastern descent. They had as much right to live (actualyl much more right) than any of the Christians from the North. From what I know the turks had never been the majority in the Balkans. Unlike Christians they never led an ethnic cleansing initiative, which would've helped them keep that region forever. Your analogies are weak (Indians have always been the majority population in India, ehck there are more Indians than Europeans).The point of the nationalistic movements that took place in the late 19th/early20th century was that those people (Poles, Indians, etc.) were the MAJORITY people living in those territories, and they were treated as second class citizens in their own countries. The only place in Spain where Christians were the majority in Spain was the North. In the part ruled by muslims, muslims were the majority (and most of the muslims were of European descent, not Middle Eastern descent). The Christians from the North had as much right to those lands as the Germans had to Great Britain.

Oh did we twisted words to chnage debate again?  You've done this in every post on this debate so far, so it was pretty stupid of me to ask you not to.But I'll bite so I can see how will you chnage the topic after this. Anyway, your logic here is also extremly biased. You know why? Because the majority of people in Visgothic Kingdom ( which is todays Spain and part of Portugal) WERA ALSO CHRISTIANS. So WHAT RIGHT DID THE MUSLIMS HAD TO INVADE A KINGDOM WHERE CHRISTIANS ARE A MAJORITY?  And FYI, the muslims were majority in Hispania because the land was conquerd by muslims. It was nothing strange that when your land is conquerd by another religion you convert to it, either by your own will of by violence. Muslims conquerd the land, killed christians  and  converted some christians to Islam, so of course there were more muslims there. And while some people were allowed to keep their religion, all non muslims were treated as second class citizens and were forced to live under islamic law. So it was either be a muslim or be treated like shit under islamic laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_Kingdom#Muslim_conquest

And christians had much more rights to those lands that muslim invaders because the land beloged to them before the muslims took it away. You'd think something simple as that would be obvious.

Then that would apply to the Spanish Chrisitans, no?  No, they were there before muslims conquerd their land. it was thier land, they declared independece from Roman empire and later adopted Christianity. Iberia was under almost full Christian rule. Reconquista was there to regain the land that was lost from muslims who took it away using violence.Anyway if a population is the majority population living on a territory, then that territory belongs to them.Unless the land was previously ethnicly cleansed from its true inhabitants who lived there before the invaders.   The Spanish conquered by the Muslims mostly willingly converted to Islam. They were the majority there, and the Christians either killed them or deported them to Africa.Christians killed the muslim conqeurs of Iberia, the invaders, not the spanish muslims. It looks to me like you need more education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista#Christian_repopulation_of_Iberia

It doesnt say anything about christian ethnic cleansing of muslims nor about forcing christianity on them. Just as I thought you made that up to make Christianity look bad and win in this long lost argument. I have provided lots of links in this debate all that disporve you on the reconquista debate, unlike you. You have provided absoulety nothing to support your claim, at least nothing we were talking about.

Europe was the most advanced continent on the planet during the Middle Ages??? O_o Seriosuly???!!! That link doesn't prove your point, as the first person mentioned there was from the 15th century, and the Middle Ages ended then. Europe started progressing when the Renessance started. During the Middle Ages the only European state that can be considered either advanced or civilized was the Islamic state that existed in Spain. Do some research, and you'll find out I'm right. And LOL @ that site claiming spreading false information about Einstein. Pathetic

It doesnt matter? You said Christian europeans were uncivilized i said europe is the most advanced continent on planet and PROVIDED A LINK THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM. You on the other hand didnt even do that. tell me something where were the most important inventions in the world invented again? Was it in europe or ...? Also the only islamic rule by 14th century that existed in europe was Ottoman Empire ... and they were VERY VERY backwards in comprassion with Europe. But it doesnt matter, to say that christian europeans were uncivillized and is just plain wrong and hstory proves so (as well as link I posted)

 

I already answered this already. The only land that belonged to the Chrisitans of the North was the land they had in the North. The rest of the Peninsula belonged to the people who were the majority there: MUSLIMS!

Wrong, the people of Christian Visgothic Kingdom were in majority Christians, there was no ''i'' of Islam before Umyadd attacked Iberia and convrted the christians to Islam.

But the only way the Christian Church would lose power, was if people stopped believing in it.

Again, it has nothing to to with  SPREADING Christianity, only with keeping Church of State at power