@pizzahut451:

How did they treat them?  Crusaders and corruptted church leaders dont make up for not even 10% of christians in the world, if thats your point. And besides, what religous side treated others kindly? Not one.  Were muslims and jews kind to christians? Nope. In middle ages, war was connected to everything, and as much as you find it hard to believe, Christians arent responsible for every single war that happend in Middle Ages. Examples such as ottoman Empire and muslim invasion of Hispania prove so.

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?

That is bullshit on so many levels its hard...

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.

I agree. In fact all of Balkans should be brought back under turkish rule, because we obviously stole their land in 1912 and in mid-19th century. Also,Poland should be part of Germany, because Poles stole their land in 1945... And India should be part of England as well, those guys stole their english land..

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.

Seriously, I thibk you are getting deprate, you should stop arguing about this. Stole it from romans???? Do you even know who romans were? They were THE FUCKING CONQUERS of the land, you cant steal something that you previously owned. Romans also invaded Hispannia, a land that didnt belong to them. If you take something that didnt belong to you and later you lose it, you cant say someone stole it from you because it was never yours, you just took it away.

Then that would apply to the Spanish Chrisitans, no? Anyway if a population is the majority population living on a territory, then that territory belongs to them. 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.he point of the nationalistic movements that took place in the

^^Just some example on these barberic people. But no, seriously, Europe was and IS the most advanced continent on the planet, to say people there were un civilized is rather...insane

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.

Iberian Peninsula is ruled by christians, the muslims come and attack them ,took the land that didnt belonged to them, than christians attack muslims and took their land that was stolen from the by muslims.

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!

Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point.  I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power.

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

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

@pizzahut451:

Look, I get it you hate Christians because they dont share the same belief as you.

No, I just don't like their beliefs.

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.

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 ).

No, not everyone listend to them. Just the fact that only catholic church was doing that proves so.

The Catholic Church represented 60-70% of Christendom at that time.

The opressing christians in middle ages were in small minority and unfourtenatly they just happend to be the powerfull ones.

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.

How about the lutherans?

I know the protestant religions weren't that much tolerant, though I don't know much about them.

The eastern orthodox christians?

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.

You are choosing the worst of christians to prove how bad christianity is

I'm actually using the avarege Christian I believe.

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.

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.

Or how about the Armenian genocide where Turks killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians (who are christians btw)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't surprise me that they did that. They choose the more benevolent side.

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 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).

So WHAT RIGHT DID THE MUSLIMS HAD TO INVADE A KINGDOM WHERE CHRISTIANS ARE A MAJORITY?

What right did the slavs have to invade Roman provinces?

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.

If you knew anything about Islam, you'd know that Christians were treated much better than a Muslim would be treated by Christians. 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. In 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 ), a period where Christian Europeans didn't care for education, or even hygene.

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.

FaRmLaNd said: Agreed. So. Anyone here follow a less known religion? If so, what is it and what are its tenants?

I'm Gnostic, and I believe someone said that they were Zoroastrian

spdk1 said: FaRmLaNd said: Agreed. So. Anyone here follow a less known religion? If so, what is it and what are its tenants? I'm Gnostic, and I believe someone said that they were Zoroastrian

He was joking.

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 ), a period where Christian Europeans didn't care for education, or even hygene. 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 :)

@pizzahut451:

That doesnt give you rights to spread hate against them. which you obviously do, dont even think of tryng to deny that.

I'm just presenting my opinion.

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.

I know very well Christians persecuted eachother. The Middle Ages is a prime example. And the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages sure represented the Chrisitan message back then, as it does now. And MAritn Luther wasn't can't exactly be said to have been a figure of the Middle Ages.

Thats still not everyone :)

But most of them, no?

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?

You just presented a good argument against organised religion in general.

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...

The Protestant Refomration is a very important event, which greatly helped Western Europe evolve, I'll give it that.

and please tell me how can a church colaborate with comunisam, a system which persecutes all theists and banns religion from the country?

Simple really. Someone goes to confession, the priest then reports of anyone admitted to any sentiments against the Communist regime. Lots of priests worked as agents of the Securitate, the Communist secret police that hunted the people who opposed the regime. Collaborating with Securitate offered great benefits.

You think your avergie Christian burns and kills people like the church did 600 years ago?

We were talking about averege Christians in the Middle Ages, no?

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.

Well, maybe it was a little biased. But generally I always believe people should look at what goes on in their own backyard, not their neighbours'. Since I used to be a Christian, I feel more connected to the past actions of Christians, rather then those of Muslims, hence why I'm more critical of them. And you yourself are biased when talking about the "terrible" things Muslims did, when Christiands did the same, if not worst. In the end, all this finger pointing is useless. There are no innocents.

BTW, I thought you were Hungarian.

O_o. We were talking about the Romanian Orthodox Church earlier. What could've possibly make you think I was Hungarian? (my profile should've been the ultimate clue)

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

Religion was used as a driving factor to encourage the Christians to commit those terible acts. If you'd go back in time and ask a Conquistador, he'd deffinately tell you he's doing what he is "in the name of God", and that those nasty Pagans deserve it. Catholic clergy actually considered themselves the soldiers of God, who were suppose to carry out his bidding, which was to Convert the whole world to Christianity. All the conversions that went out there were immoral (actually any coversions carried out by missionaries today are immoral, as the vicitms are poor ignorant people from 3rd world countries, who are lured into the religion by promises and food from missionaries).

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.

In Romania there is separation between Chruch and state (don't know if it's in the Constitution, but it's still applied anyway). I could hardly call myself persecuted. Most Western countries are nice places to live, THANKS TO SECULARISM (though things aren't that great, as eveyone has to pay taxes to the Romanian Orthodox Chruch, regardless of their religion). An example of an opressive Christian country is Russia. Things are almost as bad there for non-Christians, as things are for non-Muslims in Islamic countries. In Russia there is no separation between Church and State, the Russian Orthodox Church actually participates in running the country. There are actually laws that prevent people from doing things that can be interpreted as "insulting for Christians". An artist over there was jailed and fined several times because he protested against the lack of religions freedom with his artowrk, and some priests vandalised his exposition, and they didn't get any punishment whatsoever. If it weren't for secularism, Christians would be persecuting everybody in the countries where they are the majority.

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.

I'm gonna be more polite, and assume you just don't pay attention, rather than intentionally ignore the parts of your link that refute your claims and support mine. According to your link the Treaty of Granada was signed in 1491. Also according to your link, in 1492, the King of Spain (an avid Chriustian) issued the Alhambra Decree, which revoked most of the protections that the Treaty of Granada offered to Jews and Muslims. The forced conversions, persecution and deportations that I said happened really did happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

Please read what you link more carefully.

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.

Actually the Middle Ages started in the 5th century, and the Ottoman Empire didn't exist 'till the end of the 13th century. 80% of the Middle Ages is actually Arabs, especially the European Moors. The Greels and the Romans were amazing, but we're taling about the MIDDLE AGES, not Antiquity. Europe (exception beint Muslims Spain) was one of the most primitive places in the world, where science and thinking was not encouraged, and the works of the Greek philosophers you acclaim were destroyed, as Christians thought they were dangerous (they also destroyed Roman Universities and discouraged learning). Heck, Christians even discouraged hygene, by destroying Roman bath houses, and scaring people by saying that washing was dangerous (this practice was continued by Chrisitans in Europe even after the Middle Ages were over).

The Byzantines kept the Greek Philosophers writings, but they didn't use them that much (though I'm not sure about that, as I mostly learned about the Western Europeans). The Muslims also cherished the works of the Greek Philosophers when Christians burned them. They developed Philosophical works of theor own, they made progress in the field of mathematics (have you ever heard of arab numerlas?), astrology, medicine (a medieval Christian doctor would probably kill you, while surgical methods developed by arabs were used worldwide 'till the early 20th century) etc. If you'd jsut do a little research you'd find out just how amazing Muslims were back then (don't be fooled by the radicals of today), and how primitive Christians were (we're talking about the Middle Ages, Europe's lowest point).Without them Western Europe would've never had a Reneissance.

well, at least you admited you are wrong in the best way you could :)

I didn't admit I was wrong. I decided to reply anyways, as I was in the right state of mind. You have not managed to support your points, and you cannot, because you're wrong (maybe not regarding the more subjective ones regarding who was right to invade etc.m but definatelt regarding the historical points (the way Christians treated Muslims and Jews, the state of the Christian world and the Muslim world during the Middle Ages etc.). Do some more research regarding the latter, and read carefully.

sapphi_snake said: @pizzahut451: I'm just presenting my opinion. So if I say that atheists are pasty, overfed, underfucked, greasy, fat moms basement dwelwing a**holes I would be just expressing my opinnion no? I know very well Christians persecuted eachother. The Middle Ages is a prime example. And the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages sure represented the Chrisitan message back then, as it does now. And MAritn Luther wasn't can't exactly be said to have been a figure of the Middle Ages. If you think they presented the message of Christianity i suggest you read New testament, especially the the parts about Christ, and read it with no bullshit or bias. And you admited yourself that church killed christians who disagreed with them, which proves not everyone agreed with them, and that they were opressed and forced to listen to them. But most of them, no? well, I never said most of the didnt listen to them. But its worth to take into consideration that the church was the only one in possesion of Bible (because very few people could read back than) so they turend and twisted it how ever they wanted, becuse no one would really know if what they were saying were true or false, because very few people could could even red back than. You just presented a good argument against organised religion in general. Organised religion is only as good/ as bad as the people who run it. personally, I dont think a religion shouldnt have a ''leader'' (except for their God) becuase humans are sinful, and a sinful person cant guide another persons belief system. But of course that depends on religion itself. The Protestant Refomration is a very important event, which greatly helped Western Europe evolve, I'll give it that. Simple really. Someone goes to confession, the priest then reports of anyone admitted to any sentiments against the Communist regime. Lots of priests worked as agents of the Securitate, the Communist secret police that hunted the people who opposed the regime. Collaborating with Securitate offered great benefits. Even if that were true (which I slightly doubt) that's not the fault of Orthodoxy (its strictly forbidden for a priest to talk about other people's confession, doesnt matter what chirstian you are), its the comunist regime and  the ''priest's'' fault. Not only do those people shouldnt be call priests, but not even believers at all. Do you have anything to support that claim. We were talking about averege Christians in the Middle Ages, no? it still would be false, for the reasons I mentioned before. Well, maybe it was a little biased. But generally I always believe people should look at what goes on in their own backyard, not their neighbours'. Since I used to be a Christian, I feel more connected to the past actions of Christians, rather then those of Muslims, hence why I'm more critical of them. And you yourself are biased when talking about the "terrible" things Muslims did, when Christiands did the same, if not worst. In the end, all this finger pointing is useless. There are no innocents. Well, you started defending Muslim actions, while attacking Christians, I was saying that you were biased for saying muslims wre innocent while christians are evil.I never said that Christians were crimeless, but you implied that Christians were the absolute bad guys in reconquista war But at least you admited it for real this time and I am glad I can end this Reconquista argument. O_o. We were talking about the Romanian Orthodox Church earlier. What could've possibly make you think I was Hungarian? (my profile should've been the ultimate clue) I always mix these two, because their capital cities sound alot alike. Religion was used as a driving factor to encourage the Christians to commit those terible acts. If you'd go back in time and ask a Conquistador, he'd deffinately tell you he's doing what he is "in the name of God", and that those nasty Pagans deserve it. Catholic clergy actually considered themselves the soldiers of God, who were suppose to carry out his bidding, which was to Convert the whole world to Christianity. All the conversions that went out there were immoral (actually any coversions carried out by missionaries today are immoral, as the vicitms are poor ignorant people from 3rd world countries, who are lured into the religion by promises and food from missionaries). No, it wasnt. Power, lust for money and wealth >>>>> religious influence. People went to SA for gold,slavery and land, religion was discussad after ost of people wer already inslaved and defeated. You'd think something like this would have been obvious. People didnt go there ''in the name of God'', they went there to get rich, and Christianity had little to do with it. Ask a HONEST conquisitador why is he in SA and I swear to God he would tell you that he is there for wealth, gold and land. As for missionaries TODAY, they are one of the best things in Christianity In Romania there is separation between Chruch and state (don't know if it's in the Constitution, but it's still applied anyway). I could hardly call myself persecuted. Most Western countries are nice places to live, THANKS TO SECULARISM (though things aren't that great, as eveyone has to pay taxes to the Romanian Orthodox Chruch, regardless of their religion). An example of an opressive Christian country is Russia. Things are almost as bad there for non-Christians, as things are for non-Muslims in Islamic countries. In Russia there is no separation between Church and State, the Russian Orthodox Church actually participates in running the country. There are actually laws that prevent people from doing things that can be interpreted as "insulting for Christians". An artist over there was jailed and fined several times because he protested against the lack of religions freedom with his artowrk, and some priests vandalised his exposition, and they didn't get any punishment whatsoever. If it weren't for secularism, Christians would be persecuting everybody in the countries where they are the majority. Actually, Russia has major problems with thier muslims rebels who always comitt crimes against russian state.The best example is Chechenya and thier terrorist. And if someone commits terororist acts against the country they are no longer treated with rights provided to the citizen of that country. You cant say ''An artist was arrested'' and say russia is opressing muslims based on only that example. You need alot ore evidence to support that claim. And there are lots of islamic secular states, but that doesnt mean the society wont condamn you for saying anything against their religion.  And like i mentioned before, its THE PEOPLE who choose what kind of political system will THEIR country have. And if majority of people in the country are christians who decided that their country should be a religon state and not secular, than they have full right to do so. Choice of people >>> Secularism. And i live in germany, a place filled with turkish, iragq and kurdish imigrants and let me tell you this and i swear o God its true, Germans have A LOT of tolerance for muslims here just like the rest of europe, despite the behaviour the majority of them shows. I'm gonna be more polite, and assume you just don't pay attention, rather than intentionally ignore the parts of your link that refute your claims and support mine. According to your link the Treaty of Granada was signed in 1491. Also according to your link, in 1492, the King of Spain (an avid Chriustian) issued the Alhambra Decree, which revoked most of the protections that the Treaty of Granada offered to Jews and Muslims. The forced conversions, persecution and deportations that I said happened really did happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree Please read what you link more carefully. Whoa, hold on there a second. This article is about the jews. we were talking about christian_muslim relations, I never mentioned Jews. That article is irrelevant to our discussion, and treaty of Granada had nothing to do with it. That link doesnt debunk the fact that Spanish gave muslims set of human rights after they retook Iberia. If we were talking about Jews, than you would be right, but we weren't Actually the Middle Ages started in the 5th century, and the Ottoman Empire didn't exist 'till the end of the 13th century. 80% of the Middle Ages is actually Arabs, especially the European Moors. The Greels and the Romans were amazing, but we're taling about the MIDDLE AGES, not Antiquity. Europe (exception beint Muslims Spain) was one of the most primitive places in the world, where science and thinking was not encouraged, and the works of the Greek philosophers you acclaim were destroyed, as Christians thought they were dangerous (they also destroyed Roman Universities and discouraged learning). Heck, Christians even discouraged hygene, by destroying Roman bath houses, and scaring people by saying that washing was dangerous (this practice was continued by Chrisitans in Europe even after the Middle Ages were over). Here are some better links on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_European_scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_science     The Byzantines kept the Greek Philosophers writings, but they didn't use them that much (though I'm not sure about that, as I mostly learned about the Western Europeans). The Muslims also cherished the works of the Greek Philosophers when Christians burned them. They developed Philosophical works of theor own, they made progress in the field of mathematics (have you ever heard of arab numerlas?), astrology, medicine (a medieval Christian doctor would probably kill you, while surgical methods developed by arabs were used worldwide 'till the early 20th century) etc. If you'd jsut do a little research you'd find out just how amazing Muslims were back then (don't be fooled by the radicals of today), and how primitive Christians were (we're talking about the Middle Ages, Europe's lowest pointYes, you did prove you tend to cherry pick and to be biased on lots of points during this debate.).Without them Western Europe would've never had a Reneissance. well, at least you admited you are wrong in the best way you could :) I didn't admit I was wrong. I decided to reply anyways, as I was in the right state of mindNah, you would just never ever accept to lose a religious argument. You have not managed to support your pointsActually, I have posted more links to support my facts than you, and you cannot, because you're wrong (maybe not regarding the more subjective ones regarding who was right to invade etc.m''maybe'' lol... but definatelt regarding the historical points (the way Christians treated Muslims and Jews You are right on some points, I'll give you that, but you are also biased and one_eye blinded. You only choose the see that bad pd things christians did and choose to ignore the bad things muslims did trough history. the state of the Christian world and the Muslim world during the Middle AgesYou have to realize I am not arguing that Christians were superior and better in Middle ages, I am arguing they werent inferior and worse. etc.). Do some more research regarding the latter, and read carefully.

I said none, but that also isn't exactly true, but for the purposes of this it is.

I view absolutely all religious scripts and origin stories as most people view fairy tales (seriosuly, I dare you to come up with a good argument how the qoran or the bible are somehow different than king arthur, make my day). I am however interested as to how and why peop[le in different regions came to believe in these tales. It is obvious that different cultures and different geographical areas have their own tale, but I'm curious as to why the tales are so different at times. Furthermore I'm interested why some folowers of a given tale are considered more successful than others. Though that last one is not as hard to see.

I just go by statistics, and in the grand scheme of things, me writing this very post has a probability of 0, literally. So any given religion to be actually right because of blind shots in the dark (there is no real evidence for any god in any religion) has a probability of 0, therefore I view all religions as being completely and utterly wrong. Because that is most likely the case. To me this story (seriosuly, read it, it will blow your mind) which is 5 pages long is just as likely to be right as any other religion out there, and any religion that comes in the future without any hard facts behind it. That is, 0 percent chance of being right.

To me, maybe something created us, or maybe not. Maybe it's an entire species of beings with each one taking care of a universe or many, and I bet you all the buddies of our god are making fun of him because he fucked up his so bad. Maybe there is no sentient being at all and we're just another random way that atoms interact with each other. There are infinitely many possibilities and treating any of them as correct, much less living your life based on it, is just foolish. Again 1/infinity is 0 and that's what the chance of any religion being right is.

@pizzahut451:

So if I say that atheists are pasty, overfed, underfucked, greasy, fat moms basement dwelwing a**holes I would be just expressing my opinnion no?

Would you be expressing someone else's opinion?

If you think they presented the message of Christianity i suggest you read New testament, especially the the parts about Christ, and read it with no bullshit or bias. And you admited yourself that church killed christians who disagreed with them, which proves not everyone agreed with them, and that they were opressed and forced to listen to them.

I've heard Christians arguin that killing is OK, right on these message boards. I don't know what exactly all those religious writings wanted to say, but they should've been writtin in a more specific manner, as people seem to be interpreting them as they like.

well, I never said most of the didnt listen to them. But its worth to take into consideration that the church was the only one in possesion of Bible (because very few people could read back than) so they turend and twisted it how ever they wanted, becuse no one would really know if what they were saying were true or false, because very few people could could even red back than.

Yes, that could explain why Chrisitans decided to destroy education in the Medieval period.

Organised religion is only as good/ as bad as the people who run it. personally, I dont think a religion shouldnt have a ''leader'' (except for their God) becuase humans are sinful, and a sinful person cant guide another persons belief system. But of course that depends on religion itself.

I agree with this. I'd actually go as far as to say that a god is as good as the people who worshipp it. I don't beleive in the existence of sin though.

Even if that were true (which I slightly doubt) that's not the fault of Orthodoxy (its strictly forbidden for a priest to talk about other people's confession, doesnt matter what chirstian you are), its the comunist regime and  the ''priest's'' fault. Not only do those people shouldnt be call priests, but not even believers at all. Do you have anything to support that claim.

http://english.hotnews.ro/stiri-archive-1750740-candidates-for-top-job-romanian-orthodox-church-accused-collaboration-with-former-communist-secret-police.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_collaboration_with_Communist_secret_services#Romania

I could link you more, but lots of them are in Romanian. This is a well known thing over here in Romania.

Well, you started defending Muslim actions, while attacking Christians, I was saying that you were biased for saying muslims wre innocent while christians are evil.I never said that Christians were crimeless, but you implied that Christians were the absolute bad guys in reconquista war But at least you admited it for real this time and I am glad I can end this Reconquista argument.

Well, in the case of the Reconquista the Christians were the bad guys. Doesn't mean that Muslims weren't bad guys in other situations.

I always mix these two, because their capital cities sound alot alike.

Believe it or not, I get this a lot actually.

No, it wasnt. Power, lust for money and wealth >>>>> religious influence. People went to SA for gold,slavery and land, religion was discussad after ost of people wer already inslaved and defeated. You'd think something like this would have been obvious. People didnt go there ''in the name of God'', they went there to get rich, and Christianity had little to do with it. Ask a HONEST conquisitador why is he in SA and I swear to God he would tell you that he is there for wealth, gold and land. As for missionaries TODAY, they are one of the best things in Christianity

I'd say Christian missionaries are terrible and immoral with their behaviour. Obviously money and wealth were big incentives. But you can be surte that the Conquistadores were using the fact that the natives were pagans to make themselves feel better (and I doubt priests were discouraging them).

Actually, Russia has major problems with thier muslims rebels who always comitt crimes against russian state.The best example is Chechenya and thier terrorist. And if someone commits terororist acts against the country they are no longer treated with rights provided to the citizen of that country. You cant say ''An artist was arrested'' and say russia is opressing muslims based on only that example. You need alot ore evidence to support that claim.

I was using Russia as an example of what would happen if a Chrsitian majority country would no longer be secular. And what more proof do I need then the fact that the Chruch participates in the governing and there's a law that says it's illegal to insult "Christians"? Situations like these only exist in Islamic theocracies, countries where Christians like to complain that they're being persecuted. I'm starting to see that you're a hipocrite.

And there are lots of islamic secular states, but that doesnt mean the society wont condamn you for saying anything against their religion.  And like i mentioned before, its THE PEOPLE who choose what kind of political system will THEIR country have. And if majority of people in the country are christians who decided that their country should be a religon state and not secular, than they have full right to do so. Choice of people >>> Secularism.

In a democracy civil rights>>>choice of the people. And religous freedom is a civil right that can only be protected by secularism. Of course Russia's hardly the example of a democracy, but it's the closest thing to a Christian theocracy that we have (if you ignore the Vatican that is).

And i live in germany, a place filled with turkish, iragq and kurdish imigrants and let me tell you this and i swear o God its true, Germans have A LOT of tolerance for muslims here just like the rest of europe, despite the behaviour the majority of them shows.

Yes, because Germany is a democracy, and like any self respecting democracy tries to protect religious freedom, freedom of speech etc. Now personally I think there should be harsher immigration laws, and certain behaviours should lead to expulsion, but that's another issue. Still, making an insulting drawing of Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha whatever should not be illegal.

Here are some better links on the subject:

In the first link there were actually some Muslims from Spain mentioned.

In the second link it's important to note they say that in the Early Middle Ages the West was cut-off from the works of Greek philosophers, and that education was limited to strictly clergymen. Most people were illiterate and ignorant, and knowledge was certainly not enocuraged. The link actually awknoledges that there was a Reneissance in the High Middle Ages thanks to contact with the "more knowledgeable Muslim" Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

And hen we're talking about who's superior and who's not, we should also talk about the whole society, not just some elite clergymen. Do you think the averege Chrsitian peasant had it better than the averege Muslim commoner? The Muslim commoner went to school, learned to read and write, while the Christian peasent couldn't even take a bath.

Watch the documentary I reccomended (like a million posts ago).

Nah, you would just never ever accept to lose a religious argument.

You'd have to genuenly prove me wrong, which you haven't.

Actually, I have posted more links to support my facts than you

Yes, but they don't really prove your points if you read them carefully. Plus I also reccomended a documentary and can reccomend books if I ever decide to ask my Uni professor (though I think I have a lsit of required reading for my class somewhere).

You are right on some points, I'll give you that, but you are also biased and one_eye blinded. You only choose the see that bad pd things christians did and choose to ignore the bad things muslims did trough history.

I certainly don't think Muslims are that great now. And they certainly did do some bad things throughout history. But I dislike it when Chrisitans judge them, considering all they've done (and things like the Inquisition, what happened to the natives from teh Americas etc, are hard to beat)

You have to realize I am not arguing that Christians were superior and better in Middle ages, I am arguing they werent inferior and worse.

Overall Christian society<<<Muslims society back then.