| sapphi_snake said: @pizzahut451: No, I just don't like their beliefs. That doesnt give you rights to spread hate against them. which you obviously do, dont even think of tryng to deny that.
Can you present evidence that the vast majority didn't listen and believe whatever the Church told them? Oh, and nice of you to admit that Chrisitanity doesn't encouarage thinking (you said it first Uh, well how about the fact that eastern christians didnt listen to them? And how many people that opposed the church were killed? Yes, the church killed christians who disagrred with them, thousands of them in fact. Not only muslims and witches were killed there, you know. Funny how you avoided Martin Luther and his followers here, who was a christian and the church still hanuted him down. Also, catholic church in the Middle ages doesnt represent Christianity and its message. But I dont even know why I am arguing this, I already posted 2 points (which you didnt respond to) why all this Middle Age debate is pointless and has very little to do with the beginning of our discussion. The Catholic Church represented 60-70% of Christendom at that time. Thats still not everyone :) Most people did listen to the ones who were powerful. If people had not listened to them, they wouldn't have been able to persecute anyone. Thats not how it works. You are on power, you persecute the ones who dont obey and listen to you, and the others pretty much follow and obey out of fear. Back than if you are on power, you could have persecuted anyone you wished. Have you not heard of Absolutism? I know the protestant religions weren't that much tolerant, though I don't know much about them. The lutherans pretty much oppesd everything church did, but they still stayed christian They oppsed the church's policy where you have to pay money to the church to clean yout´from your sins, and where you ''bought'' your place in heaven... Don't know about the Eastern Orthodox Church in other countries, but the Romanian Eastern Orthodox Chruch is the most backwards bigoted institution over here. It promoted slavery, it was the main owner of slaves (gypsies), and was the chief opponent to end slavery up 'till 1854. It also colaborated with the Communist authorities, leading to the encarceration, torture and death of many, and was also the chief opponent to the decriminalisation of homosexual relationships. I dont know much about Romanian Church but there are no crimes of Serbian, Macedonian,Russian, Greek, Montenegrin or even Bulgarian othodox church that I am aware of. Most of them were barely even active until the end of ottoman occupation. and please tell me how can a church colaborate with comunisam, a system which persecutes all theists and banns religion from the country? Im choosing averige Christian, I believe You think your avergie Christian burns and kills people like the church did 600 years ago? That was war. People die in war. My country was under Ottoman rule too. THe Hungarians who were Christians persecuted Romanians far worse then the Ottomans. The Ottomans also didn;t try to forcefully convert the Romanians to Islam, while the Hungarians did try to forcefully convert the Romanians from Transilvania to Catholicism. And we were talking about the Moors, not the Ottomans. Oh, so Reconquista wasnt a war than? Im sorry, but weather religious opression and violent convertion happend during the war time or during the rule of a king of another religion is complelty irrelevant. its equally bad. So Christians kill Muslims in war: Genocide, opression, ehtnic cleansing. Muslims kill Christians in war: Its no big deal. people die in war ??? You dont see the huuuuuge bias here? And I find it hard to believe Ottomans didnt try to forcefully convert people to Islam, they did that in all Balkans, especially in center Bosnia, where still many uslims live, even though they were christians before.And we were talking about christian_muslim relations overall, not just spanish warfare. BTW, I thought you were Hungarian. Christians wiped out MILLIONS of people in the Americans in the name of spreading their religion. Whole populations with their culture destroyed, forcing the survivors to worship... I'm not gonna say this or else I may get banned. They didnt do it to spread their religion, stop cherry picking. They did it to own the land, slaves and gold. The convertion of Sout America happend AFTER most of people were killed and inslaved. While I agree the spreading of Catholicism in Sout America wasnt always violence free, it wasnt the cause of mostof deaths of South Aerican people I don't particularly think Muslims are any better than Chrisitans, and modern day muslims are inferior to the Muslims who lived in Spain and had one of the most advanced and progresive states at the time (you wouldn't even know you were in the Middle Ages). I just don't like it when Chrisitans demonstrate hipocrisy. Your religion is just as "bad" as theirs. And my country's constitution protects my right to hold whatever religious beleifs I want, and to say whatever I want. Constitution and Human Rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any religion. Yes, because if you lived in a muslim country like Saudi Arabia, Libia or Iran you sure would have had the same freedom of speech as if you lived in Christian country such as Romania... And I wasnt talking about you only, but for all people in general that complain how Christianity is opressive because the church did some stuff, what... 600 years ago? And at the same time people are not allowed to say the word Muhammed on television, becauseMuslims can get angry. But Christianity is the opressive religion !!!! PS: I am not saying Islam is opressive religion, because i know very little about it and I am only judging individuals not the whole religion. Doesn't surprise me that they did that. They choose the more benevolent side. They choose the side that attacked them first... The message can be interpreted and reinterpreted ad nauseaum. In the end, it all comes down to how it's interpreted, and how people act. You can be sure that all the attorcitites Christians have commited were fully supported by Scriptures (as interpreted by the poeple who commited the attrocitites). That scriptures that are largely incomplete and were almost alwyas twisted and taken out of context. Its true that ''believers'' can twist change and dissobey the message but that doesnt change the true message itself that was going directly against the churches actions in the middle ages. A first example that goes to my head and this is one of the most important messages of Jesus:''Dont do anything that you dont wish to be done to yourself'' and ''Let him who is without a sin cast a first sin cast a first stone'# which impies that no one is without sin and that sinners shouldnt be judged by man. Those 2 messages alone go strictly against Inquisition
What right did the slavs have to invade Roman provinces? You didnt answer my question. Those ''roman'' provinces werent really Roman, romans took those lands, it wasnt theirs, they just had controll of it which they gained with violence. if you had said ''Illyrians'' instead of Romans you would have a point, but Romans were conquers of the Balkans. On Reconquista however, the Spanish fought for the land which previously belonged to them and it was taken from them with violence. And correct me if i am wrong, but didnt Slavs inhibitate Balkans almost violence free? If you knew anything about Islam, you'd know that Christians were treated much better than a Muslim would be treated by ChristiansAgain, look at ottoman Empire. And you're wrong. If that would've been the case than the Balkans would be 100% muslim, but that's obviously not the case.Actually, most of south eastern Balkans were under EXTREMLY VIOLENT muslim ruleIn Spain people converted to Islam because they found it to be a better religion, not because they were forced. Chrisitans operated differently (genocide, ethnic cleansing, focing people to convert etc.), so it's clear who was the more "humane" religion. You're so wrong its not even funny. It seems to me you need a bigger dose of education on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Granada_(1491) Read a little about those 67 rules christians and muslims had to follow.
The population who lost those lands no longer existed. When you're no longer on a land you no longer have any right to it (as opposed to the populations under Ottoman rule who never left their lands). it did existed but to a smaller extent. small christian kingdoms in norhtern Iberia (the remains of visgothic Kingdom still existed and managed to defend themselfs against muslim invaders. You disgust me. You can't even look at your link right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista#Conversions_and_Expulsions This was in the very same article you linked, but obviously you ignored it because it confirmed what I said. And if you bothered to watch the documentary I reccomended maybe you'd learn somethin about this too. why dont YOU read a little more on the topic you posted. Like the trety of Granada in 1491 which gives Muslims religious tolerance and set of human rights, something Muslims didnt bother to provide to Christians when they attacked Iberia, instead they were forced to pay taxes and be treated like second class citizens under islamic law. And later you say ''Christians converted to islam by free will'', when the links I posted obviously stated diffrently. they were forced to convert to Islam by paying high taxes and by treating like shit by Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Granada_(1491)
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) You said IS, and I agreed with that. You said WAS, and I disagreed. We're talking about the Middle Ages here. The Middle Ages officially ended in the 15th century. All you gave was a link of names of great Europeans, non of which lived during the time we're talking about. And most of the first great European minds of the Reneissance were greatly inspired by the knowledge that came from Muslim Spain, the only civilized European state of the Middle Ages. I reccomened a documentary about that. You have not (and can not) gove any evidence to support that Europe was the most advanced region during the Middle Ages (Islam and China say hi You just said ''when the time machine is invented I'll show how civilized european Christians are''. And you'll find that 80% of Islam in Middle ages was ottoman empire, and they were in no way, shape or form more adcanced than Europe.China ? Yes. Islam? No and if you wanna talk about Europe overall (not just christian europeans) you might wanna mention old Greeks, one of the greatest philosophers and anccient Romans, the masters of architecture and art. Both very advanced and amazing civilizations. This is the last post I will write to you. You have shown to be ignorant, manipulative, and lacking knowledge regarding history. You can reply if you want, but I do no care. I will no logner waste any time wtih you.well, at least you admited you are wrong in the best way you could :) |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
).
