Are you claiming the Crusades were not about taking back Holy Land from the Muslims?
Pop Urban II's "Deus vult!"?
http://www.donparrish.com/EssayPopeUrban.html
They wiped out the entire population of Jerusalem.
Last edited:
Are you just speaking from what you learned in school?
Jerusalem was under control of the Byzantine Empire up until 1073. The Turks took control and a few years later the Byzantine Empire reached out to the Pope asking for help taking it back. The Pope then called on people to take it back. Fits 100% with what I said guy.
If the only goal had been to take back Jerusalem, then what were the other Crusades after the first about? Do you know the history at all?
https://www.history.com/topics/crusades
The Crusades, like almost every large war in the region during that time involved religion because that is what unified people. Rulers wanted to gain power, and so the used the commoners beliefs to rally them. But, to say that the Crusades were only about attacking non Christians is horribly incorrect.
What beliefs do Muslims differ on vs ISIS? If ISIS and its beliefs were so anathema to Islam, then universally ISIS would be seen as wrong, yet that is not what we see.
Are you claiming the Crusades were not about taking back Holy Land from the Muslims?
Pop Urban II's "Deus vult!"?
http://www.donparrish.com/EssayPopeUrban.html
They wiped out the entire population of Jerusalem.
Ah, the forum’s retard joins.
Read through my post carefully and note how I specifically point out to Starbucks that he had to reach as far out to third world countries to make his comparison. Now look at what you’ve posted and give yourself an uppercut for not paying attention.
Only you are stupid enough to post a chart that not only doesn’t contain any first world countries (irrelevant comparison with the topic at hand and already pointed out) but you are making the claim that ISIS - a conservative terrorist group of Islamists that adhere to a literal and warped translation of their holy book - and Muslims - a non-homogenous group of people whose political ideology and level of religious adherence differ greatly - apparently don’t have any differences in their religious beliefs. Lol.
0/10 terrible strawman. Also Care to tell us how this is relevant to the discussion? I have a feeling you were going to start another one of your shit and run pedantic crusades.
The first one was a mixture of taking back Jerusalem, and was sold as a holy war for sure. It looks to have been about gaining power though as there was a new ruler that wanted to expand.
You simply cannot ignore the context of history though. As I said, the Muslim caliphates had been expanding into Christian Europe for some time. They also clearly had a plan of world domination and so it was not like it would stop. So, they unified under their one and only thing which was religion and expanded themselves.
Now, its also not lost on me that you have shifted from saying this "Lol taking Jerusalem back from the Muslim was the entire purpose of the Crusades.", to trying to say that the Crusades were about religion. That is a huge shift and appears to be very disingenuous. You may not realize that you originally took that stance, but you did.
Also, saying that war was due to religion is both right and wrong depending what you mean. Everyone back then was a religious believer in some way. It was how those who ruled make sure to legitimize and consolidate their power. So, religion being into everything means that it can never be disassociated, but, at that point its just a tool for those whom controlled that tool.
It was a Holy War, how much more religious can it get? Muslims ruled fairly in Jerusalem, Crusaders killed everyone in Jerusalem. Are these not facts?
Again, you are trying to pivot. You said the Crusades were all about taking back Jerusalem. That is 100% wrong. I also addressed the other things you brought up.
Well, if you are talking about Islam, you have to look at undeveloped (assuming that is what you mean by 3rd world) countries. Indonesia only recently got out of being very undeveloped.
But, your point was that ISIS is not supported by the majority of Muslims, but, that does not mean that they do not support their core beliefs and actions which is what is being compared here.
The stated purpose was to take back Jerusalem... holy fuck.
btw, Holy War = Jihad.
Did you read what I posted or are you intentionally being obtuse here?
What beliefs do Muslims differ on vs ISIS? If ISIS and its beliefs were so anathema to Islam, then universally ISIS would be seen as wrong, yet that is not what we see.
You know that there were more than just 1 right? I at first thought you did, because you said the CrusadeS, but then you say the stated purpose was to take back Jerusalem which was only the goal of the first.
Will someone please correct me if I'm reading these stats completely incorrectly (or realibrad's argument, I haven't been keeping track of it, the graphs caught my eye), but it seems to me that these are among the worst stats that realibrad could have chosen to aid his argument. Even if I cherry-pick the most favourable stat to his argument and ignore all the others, 1 in 5 Muslim Nigerians view ISIS in a favourable manner, which is a pretty poor fucking basis for a vaguely "Muslims view ISIS favourably" argument, let alone factoring in the generally barely double-digit favourable ratings.
While I'm slightly mystified by the high "don't know" figures (ie. I would have expected ISIS to be a pretty divisive topic pretty much everywhere except at ISIS HQ), it would be a seriously disingenuous argument position to add the 'favourable' and "don't know" figures together and then use it to claim that Muslims are generally pro ISIS.
first sentence of the wiki
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period
First and Third were about taking back Jerusalem. Rest about sites close to Jerusalem.
https://www.history.com/topics/crusades
first sentence on history.com
The Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups.
You were arguing they were not about religion when clearly they were. sure, most of them were in it for money and power, but they went with the cross in hand.
It does make me wonder if an organisation that protects pedophiles. Will attract pedophiles. Surely it was known within the pedophile community that if you became a catholic priest then you can touch up little boys with impunity.
The church has shown a pattern around the world of trying to ignore the child sex abuse. Which results in the victims having their lives destroyed at a very young age and it also enables further abuse. The German pope before Francis who stepped down due to "health reasons"* was accused of doing just that in Germany.
He kept moving a notorious pedophile priest around the German countryside. The police call those enablers or non-contact pedophiles.
It must be very hard to deal with this as a Catholic. It is now well established that the church will ignore and effectively facilitate the sexual assault of children. As a catholic what can you do? You have to defend pedophiles. The church is asking the Catholic community to pay for Pell's legal fees.
*There are also rumours that benedict only touched up 4892 little boys before being elected pope.
http://historylists.org/events/9-crusades-into-the-holy-land.htmlDid you take a history class outside of High school?
Again, you originally said that the Crusades were about taking back Jerusalem and that is not true.
Religious empires were fighting during that period no doubt. You are trying to still shift from your original statement. Jerusalem was under Christian rule and was lost during Muslim expansion. That is how things were then. So the Christians retook it, and then the Muslims retook it. If you want to say it was really about religion and power, fine. That is not what you originally said.
http://historylists.org/events/9-crusades-into-the-holy-land.html
Read through the list and get back to me on how many were about Jerusalem. This shit is still impacting ME peace.
One of the few things Karl Marx was right about.Ah, religion, the opium of the masses...
The Abrahamic religions have always been bigoted toward other religions and non-believers.Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. So it was only a matter of time before the anti-Islamic bigotry that's currently in vogue in the West spread to bigotry against other religions.
The Abrahamic religions have always been bigoted toward other religions and non-believers.
They are the worst, but that was on purpose. I choose that data so it would not seem like I was cherry picking.
Now, there was more than just pictures in that post, but, lets talk about that data. It is true that ISIS is disliked by the majority, but, if ISIS were so distant from Islam, then it should be pretty universal. For example, if you asked Christians was Jesus the savior, you would get a pretty universal Yes as that is inherent to the religion.
Now, for the Muslims view ISIS favorably... you should remove the quotes as I came nowhere near saying that. That is massively incorrect to paint my position as a universal statement like that. Either very dishonest or incredibly stupid on your part.
Show me where the OP set those parameters for the comparison and I will gladly concede the point, and then you won’t have to repeat yourself.Jesus are you dense. In plain English I’m telling you your comparisons are invalid. Do you understand why? I could come up with a BS argument similarly as stupid as yours: 6’5 White Males are rapists because [insert actor here] may have play roled as a rapist in a film. Your baseline for comparison is almost at the level of other unsubstantiated and stupid claims conservatards make up to the point where they can easily be brushed off without a second thought. You are reaching way too hard with the examples you’ve given because not only do you have to look outside of first world countries but you have to reach so far as a fucking terrorist group to make a comparison at all! How many times do I have to rephrase and repeat this to you?
I’ve added NO criteria of my own, that’s me pointimg out to you how easily dismissable your comparisons are. I’ve explained to you that you can’t compare apples to oranges because one is not similar to the other. Unless of course you are saying priests and terrorists are one and alike and are seen similarly in status/character/role to both of their respective religions. Absurd, I know but THAT is the comparison you’ve made and you are stupid enough to defend after so many rules I’ve pointed it out to you. Now think about that instead of dodging it with a BS answer like “there were no criterias so I can come up with any shitty comparison I like because nobody said otherwise.”
At this point you’re just admitting that you’re arguing in bad faith and just for the sake of arguing, again proving my initial point. You dont give a flying fuck about what op has posted you’re just here to shit out whatever comes to mind to deflect from actual discussion. Stop your stupid act and let’s see an actuall answer as to why you think a comparison between ISIS and priests sits congruent in any state of mind. I’m sure you’re not stupid enough to dismiss the fact one is a terrorist organisation condemned by its religious followers while the other is revered for its holy status by its religious group. Then again you’re not very bright so I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the best example you could shit out.
Oh no, I fully acknowledge your whataboutism married to an opinion.And you are denying the truth.
Last paragraph first: Let's put aside the name-calling, especially as an opening argument. Can you do that?
Next, the topic is "is Catholicism worse than Islam", and the opening argument involved talking about paedophile priests and the complicity right to the very top of the faith of their actions. I'm sure that we're both in agreement that if Christians across a number of countries were surveyed and asked "is paedophilia wrong", the result would come back 99-100% positive, yes? Nowhere in the values that Catholicism preaches does it give any impression that paedophilia is anything less than 100% wrong. There's no room for uncertainty. Correct?
On the other hand, you're attempting to bring Muslims' views of ISIS into play as an attempted counterpoint. Not only is the comparison faulty because you're not comparing something that is universally considered as unquestionably wrong (ideally, the comparison would be the survey results of what Muslims think of paedophilia), but you've taken a topic (ISIS) that sufficiently muddies the waters for Muslims because the very nature of organisations such as ISIS involves perverting the teachings of religious faiths, and even then, your survey results are a piss-poor demonstration of any kind of counterpoint that reflects poorly on Muslims, let alone the one you shrouded in implication then cried foul when I made an inference rather than clarifying your point! Please don't think I'm going to make the mistake of spending ten pages trying to nail you down to a point like last time!
The funny thing is, despite the fact that the Catholic faith preaches paedophilia being an unquestionable sin, we still have people going to church every Sunday despite the conspiracy to cover up priestly paedophilia right up to the top. If we want to talk surveys, I can't think of anything more damning than a survey result showing Christians unanimously condemning paedophilia yet still worshipping the church that condoned it in its own ranks. That is the very epitome of hypocrisy, and while hypocrisy is everywhere, I doubt that an example quite so blatant, extreme and widespread in its complicity can be found anywhere on the planet.