Jews...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I find this extreamly interesting.

When a terrorist attack happens then its ''minority of Muslims which are terrorists'', but for everything else certain Christians do, its ''majority of Christians which are weird/hateful/stupid''.

This is not necesseraly you, its actually a great nhumber of people on this forum.

I think for many it is a question of history. In recent times, in terms of terrorist attacks, Islam has really come to the fore - however it is, it seems, accepted that this is the act of an Islamic minority attacking the "western world." When people think of Christianities track record though three things usually pop-up in terms of the harm they caused the world - The Crusades, the Inquisition (and things of that nature - witch trials, heretic suppression etc) and Christian motivated expansion.

Now for those three things it is accepted the majority of the Christian population participated and supported them - though fear and ignorance played a part at times. In this day and age the Christian Church has lost many of its former militant teeth, and operates on a more social/cultural influential level. People still see Christianity, the majority, being anti-gay and anti-women and anti-contraceptive and at times anti-science and so on. Of course it can be said Islam has the same problem (except in certain fields the science part, since ancient Islam was very pro-science, particularly before the Arabs where conquered by the Turks.)

Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

Originally posted by frodo34x
I have never understood why Jews are hated. Christians and Muslims both have religious links to Jews (people of the book)

Because Hitler calls the Jews demons, and wants them all to burn in hell. That's why. 😬

Originally posted by fribble
Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".

This seems like a rather tendentious question. Let me guess, in your mind, the Jews are largely responsible for their own problems?

First, of all, hatred for the Jews predates any of the events you mention in your post. They were generally discriminated against and excluded from owning property in much of medieval and renaissance Europe. (Not to mention, periodically rounded up and slaughtered during eruptions of mass religious hysteria.) Their gravitation towards liquid financial markets, banks, and money lending operations was a direct result of this legal handicap.

By the 19th and 20th century, things were better, but still difficult. Jews were still looked upon with suspicion and often scapegoated for national problems (ie. the Dryfuss Affair).

So, your suggestion that the jews should have been more "generous" during the between the war recession in Germany, is a little confusing. I assume you mean Jewish money lenders should have lowered lending interest rates on the notes they held. And since they didn't, they earned the ire of the German people.

I think your suggestion is wrong because it ignores the fact that Jewish money lending was one of the few legal financial opportunities open to them at the time. It also ignores the hundreds-of-years pre-history of persecution, hatred, and, intolerance the Jews faced. Ask yourself where the "onus" of generosity rested in this particular instance. I don't think the burden laid with the Jews.

I also think you're wrong because you assume all money lenders were Jewish. Weren't their other Teutonic money lenders around? Did they lower their interest rates?

Next point. "Stop calling themselves God's chosen people?" Well, that's what they believe. And they have nearly 4,000 years of written and oral history asserting this claim. What other group of people have been able to maintain a sense of sustained cultural/religious identity for this amount of time in the face of so much opposition? The Jews would cease to be Jews if they gave up this belief. This is an unreasonable expectation on your part.

Final point. "They stopped fighting over their promised land?" Well, their claim to it is older than any other group currently vying for it. Plus, I think they would stop fighting...if all their neighbors stopped launching surprise attacks on their territory and articulated any other sentiment less bellicose than an express desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think for many it is a question of history. In recent times, in terms of terrorist attacks, Islam has really come to the fore - however it is, it seems, accepted that this is the act of an Islamic minority attacking the "western world." When people think of Christianities track record though three things usually pop-up in terms of the harm they caused the world - The Crusades, the Inquisition (and things of that nature - witch trials, heretic suppression etc) and Christian motivated expansion.

Now for those three things it is accepted the majority of the Christian population participated and supported them - though fear and ignorance played a part at times. In this day and age the Christian Church has lost many of its former militant teeth, and operates on a more social/cultural influential level. People still see Christianity, the majority, being anti-gay and anti-women and anti-contraceptive and at times anti-science and so on. Of course it can be said Islam has the same problem (except in certain fields the science part, since ancient Islam was very pro-science, particularly before the Arabs where conquered by the Turks.)

Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

I agree with you, but on top of that, I believe it is geographically as well as histoprically.

West has been affected by Islam only ever so recently, while East has been affected and moulded by it for a very long time.
There is a huge differeing there as well, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

Never committed anything comparable to the Crusades? More revisionist history. The Crusades, as misguided as they were in many respects, was a rearguard action. What were the first 300 years of Muslim history other than one series of bloody imperialistic conquests after another? Did you think that Islam spread by peace and love through most of the Middle East and North Africa? Both the Byzantine and Western empires were besieged by militant Islam for centuries before they were finally able to stem the tide. In fact, the Byzantines were eventually conquered in the 13th century.) They weren't besieged by Islam's cultural influence, but by hoards of fanatics with swords. So, I'm sorry but the citing the Crusades as the enduring symbol of the West's guilt before the "Religion of Peace" is a joke.

You're right in pointing to the periodic flowering of independent thought in Muslim controlled areas during this period. In many ways, Muslim culture was superior to the West's at this time. However, also keep in mind, that this flowering was largely due to their possession of the Greeks in translation--something the West didn't acquire until much later on. Plus, the work of Muslim philosophers like Averroes never transformed or impacted Muslim culture like Augustine and Aquinas--unfortunately. It would certainly be a misrepresentation to characterize Muslim culture, at any time, as being radically open to science and open philosophical inquiry.

Impressive Dr Zaius.

justice and the crusades is hard to define. who is the hero? Mehmed II or Vlad Dracula?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Impressive Dr Zaius.

Why thank you, lil bitchiness. I didn't know you cared. 😉

With regards to the first post....

Do not the Christians call themselves "God's Chosen People?"
Why would it be so wrong for the Jewish community to believe that they are "the Chosen People," as do the Muslims, etc.?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I agree with you, but on top of that, I believe it is geographically as well as histoprically.

West has been affected by Islam only ever so recently, while East has been affected and moulded by it for a very long time.
There is a huge differeing there as well, in my opinion.

True, but it is also political/cultural on top of that. Prior to our recent adverse affects with Islam it was portrayed poorly by Christianity - and Christianity has an image problem in the western world for many people. There are those groups who will oppose Christianities claims on almost anything simple because it is a Christian claim.

Never committed anything comparable to the Crusades? More revisionist history.

I love the people who spit our things like "revisionist history" like it is a pox. Heaven forbid modern historians look at new evidence. Heaven forbid historians rework histories to remove the Christian and Eurocentric biases of the past. Heaven forbid historians occasionally look at things from a view - hell, without Runcimen we wouldn't have any real Byzantine history - we would have the histories of English Ivory Tower types told from the divine view of the English king - the Byzantines were greedy and heretical and manipulative etc. Runciman was accused of being a Revisionist originally by people clinging to outdated historical stances - such as yourself, but time and history vindicated him. Why? Because history grows. New evidence comes to light. History can be revised when it is wrong. Study some historiography and then you can attack those who offer a new perspective.

The Crusades, as misguided as they were in many respects, was a rearguard action. What were the first 300 years of Muslim history other than one series of bloody imperialistic conquests after another? Did you think that Islam spread by peace and love through most of the Middle East and North Africa? Both the Byzantine and Western empires were besieged by militant Islam for centuries before they were finally able to stem the tide. In fact, the Byzantines were eventually conquered in the 13th century.) They weren't besieged by Islam's cultural influence, but by hoards of fanatics with swords. So, I'm sorry but the citing the Crusades as the enduring symbol of the West's guilt before the "Religion of Peace" is a joke.

What a joke. The Crusades were a rear guard action? What history book did you get that from? Pick up any number of of history books that don't deal with the idealised, Romantic view (and that is a word I can spit out when I talk of history) and you'll learn the Crusades had a multitude of reasons for each one - that include Christian motivated conquest and forced conversion. That Pope Urban II had visions of a united Christian Empire, and that they had been waiting for something to get their own back against the East Romans for years. You think the Western powers actually cared about the Eastern Orthodox? A joke. The Western powers had just as much to answer for in the death of the East Roman Empire as the Muslims did. More so since it was actually members of the fourth Crusade who sacked Constantinople first and irreparably damaged its ability to defend itself - many years before the Muslims came back to finish the job and make it the jewel in the Turkish empire crown.

And you mix up the periods of Islam - you treat it like a blanket term for all people of that religion. In the point in question here there was more then one nation with "Islam"as the descriptor. Not all of them were bloody conquistadors. In fact it was only with the influx of savage Islamic tribes which overthrew the old Islamic order that Islam turned savage - prior to that they were far more tolerant then any Christian power, and held onto cultural formalities far more similar to the then defunct Greek and Persian powers.

You're right in pointing to the periodic flowering of independent thought in Muslim controlled areas during this period. In many ways, Muslim culture was superior to the West's at this time. However, also keep in mind, that this flowering was largely due to their possession of the Greeks in translation--something the West didn't acquire until much later on. Plus, the work of Muslim philosophers like Averroes never transformed or impacted Muslim culture like Augustine and Aquinas--unfortunately. It would certainly be a misrepresentation to characterize Muslim culture, at any time, as being radically open to science and open philosophical inquiry.

Compared to the Christian powers the Muslim world prior to the Turks was significantly more advanced and dedicated to philosophical pursuits and the sciences then anyone else. Go down to your local university and ask a lecturer about the things the Crusaders brought back with them from the east - the study of medicine, new architecture, improved hygiene, new agricultural techniques etc. All this from Godless heathens they had gone to slaughter. And you are presenting a horribly Renaissances view there - how so much can be attributed to people reading the Classics. I love the Great Romans and Greeks, but I dislike the way people erode the achievements of those that followed by comparing them, or by saying "well, they only really could do that thanks to left over Roman knowledge." The East, both East Roman, Islamic and down into the Asia's was far more vibrant, far more advanced and far more motivated then the quagmire that was the Western kingdoms, and it deserves respect. The Crusades, just or unjust, has no historical comparison to any of the other nations present at the time, or their military actions - and don't bring up jihad, because if you do I will know that you have no idea about its function in the ancient world - the ancient Jihad was in no way an Islamic crusade.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What a joke. The Crusades were a rear guard action? What history book did you get that from? Pick up any number of of history books that don't deal with the idealised, Romantic view (and that is a word I can spit out when I talk of history) and you'll learn the Crusades had a multitude of reasons for each one - that include Christian motivated conquest and forced conversion. That Pope Urban II had visions of a united Christian Empire, and that they had been waiting for something to get their own back against the East Romans for years. You think the Western powers actually cared about the Eastern Orthodox? A joke. The Western powers had just as much to answer for in the death of the East Roman Empire as the Muslims did. More so since it was actually members of the fourth Crusade who sacked Constantinople first and irreparably damaged its ability to defend itself - many years before the Muslims came back to finish the job and make it the jewel in the Turkish empire crown.

Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

Also, do you mean to assert that for its first 300 years, Islam didn't largely proselytize by putting peoples to the sword and conquering foreign peoples? And even though it was sacked by members of the Fourth Crusade first, do you also maintain that Constantinople wasn't eventually conquered and held by Muslim invaders? And, finally, do you deny that Muslim forces besieged parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages and beyond? If so, what was Charles Martel doing in 732 at Tours, holding theological debates with Islamic Holy Men?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

And I would argue that there was a multitude of alternate reasons that in ratio equaled, or surpassed the weight given just to to just nice holy motivations. Plenty of perfectly valid reasons well supported by historical study that cover all the Crusades in one degree of another such as:

Christian conquest: A strong motivation held by the papacy at the declaration of the first Crusade. Pope Urban and his Church saw great potential to unify the Christian world - however, without due provocation it would be hard to motivate the squabbling western powers caught up in fighting each other. He desires his Holy Roman Empire to have the power of kings. The appeal for aid from the East Roman Empire was this motivation, and the answer was not to the wishes of the East Roman leadership - they wanted money to recruit mercenaries and raise their own armies to deal with the Islam nations that had only recently been able to really challange the East Roman Empires military dominance - but of course the ERE was in natural decline. Anyway they did not want armies of western "barbarians" stomping around - but that is what they got. Likewise, these Westerners, for all their claims about saving the Holy Land, got into near violent "debate" about who got to keep the land they "retook" from the Islamics. Land that, by rights, should have gone back to the East Romans, yet the Crusaders and their Church wanted it - hmmm. Yes. Reeks of Christian charity and a wish to simple defend the holy land.

New Land: Plenty of literary evidence supporting this - the common fact of many Crusaders being second, third, fourth sons without land holdings due to rights of inheritance. Plenty of figures rode through the East Roman lands with sole intentions of carving themselves little Empires. Hell, some only became Christian at that point.

Penance: They were told if they died fighting the Islamics they would be forgiven of sins etc - plenty of Crusader infantry were ex-cons used to bolster the rank and file, led to believe they would get the riches of the east, or if that failed and they died they would get to heaven.

Stopping detrimental western infighting: Better, the Church thought, to have the nobility fighting heathens far from the west then have them continue to waste their energy fighting each other.

Certainly there was some of that noble thought of "we are going to put the boot in the Muslims and take back the holy land"- of course despite the fact that by rights the Islamic cultures had far more claim to it then the Western rabble that populated most of the Crusade armies. Of course remembering that the Islamic cultures had held many of the Christian centres for a long time anyway, and had only recently shown religious intolerance by attacking pilgrims and stopping Christian pilgrimages - this being due to the change in the Islamic leadership as I mentioned previously.

Also, do you mean to assert that for its first 300 years, Islam didn't largely proselytize by putting peoples to the sword and conquering foreign peoples? And even though it was sacked by members of the Fourth Crusade first, do you also maintain that Constantinople wasn't eventually conquered and held by Muslim invaders? And, finally, do you deny that Muslim forces besieged parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages and beyond? If so, what was Charles Martel doing in 732 at Tours, holding theological debates with Islamic Holy Men?

Yes, I do assert that it is taken out of context, and not very often of that nature. The first 300 years of the Islamic faith was indeed a period of growth - however the claim they went around slaughtering is wrong. Certain violent Islamic tribes did such things periodically, but the greater Islamic cultures (the Arabs for example) were far more peaceful, and for a time coexisted with the East Roman empire, and were far more Roman in their attitude to non-Islamics (that is accepting them providing one payed their non-Islamic tax) and expansion. It is an outdated notion that portrays the Muslims as bloodthirsty aggressors of the ancient world - certainly when compared to the Roman expansions, or the Romans ways of dealing with rebellion, or the Crusades.

And oh yes, of course, just because the Muslims eventually took the crippled capital of the near dead Eastern Roman Empire makes them so much worse then the East Romans actual ALLIES who sacked and slaughtered their way through the capital of a CHRISTIAN Empire. The Empire romantic history buffs such as yourself claim the Crusaders were there protecting from those monstrous Muslims who were on the verge of dominating the Christian world. The East Roman Empire did far more in having relatively peaceful relationships with the Muslims for a long time and acting as a bulwark against Western Muslim expansion. And they did it diplomatically and economically - only of certain occasions resorting to strategic military action. None of this "kill them all"attitude of the Crusades. It was the Crusaders and the change in the Muslim leadership that killed it - the Crusaders striking the blow that was the beginning of the end, and far more criminal in such an action. Events such as this, the way the Crusades sustained themselves (care to go look up the number of Christian villages, towns and monasteries that suffered rape and pillage at the hands of the armies looking for supplies?), the peasants and Children's crusades (how many children died? Oh yes, and how many were taken into slavery by Christians, or had worse done to them?) and the attacking of Constantinople really kills the concept that the Crusaders were a "reargaurd" adventure made by desperate, fearful people.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

Also, do you mean to assert that for its first 300 years, Islam didn't largely proselytize by putting peoples to the sword and conquering foreign peoples? And even though it was sacked by members of the Fourth Crusade first, do you also maintain that Constantinople wasn't eventually conquered and held by Muslim invaders? And, finally, do you deny that Muslim forces besieged parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages and beyond? If so, what was Charles Martel doing in 732 at Tours, holding theological debates with Islamic Holy Men?

IRRELEVANT

Whether winning back land or fighting for Faith.....the crusades resulted in the mass slaughter of men, women, and children. Nothing justifies this atrocity.

Your God must be proud. 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]IRRELEVANT

Whether winning back land or fighting for Faith.....the crusades resulted in the mass slaughter of men, women, and children. Nothing justifies this atrocity.

Your God must be proud. 🙄 [/B]

You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.

But you're wrong in suggesting that this event doesn't take place within the larger context of prior Muslim injustice and agression.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.

But you're wrong in suggesting that this event doesn't take place within the larger context of prior Muslim injustice and agression.

I never said Muslims weren't responsible.

Both Christians and Muslims have equal share in what happened during the Crusades. Point is both dogmas were destructive, as are most dogmas throughout history.

Either way, Christians are still responsible for the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition, which mainstream Christians happen to so easily excuse themselves going "that was the past....Christianity is different today"...

Point is Religion doesn't work. It hasn't worked for millenia, WTF makes anyone think enforcing religion into politics, authority, and social media is going to work today ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Point is Religion doesn't work. It hasn't worked for millenia, WTF makes anyone think enforcing religion into politics, authority, and social media is going to work today ?

Sweet Christmas! Religion doesn't work? That's one hell of an historical reduction. I'm not even sure in what sense you use the word "work". I assume you mean that religion has never produced anything of value and has only led to violence and moral atrocities. If this is what you mean, you're dead wrong. Your general line of reasoning seems to be that if anyone ever does something wrong in the name of religion, then religion is categorically bad. This is not sound logic. Atheism and Marxism have led to gross, historically unpredented evils. I would certainly put up religion's score card next to secular humanism's any day.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Sweet Christmas! Religion doesn't work? That's one hell of an historical reduction. I'm not even sure in what sense you use the word "work". I assume you mean that religion has never produced anything of value and has only led to violence and moral atrocities. If this is what you mean, you're dead wrong. Your general line of reasoning seems to be that if anyone ever does something wrong in the name of religion, then religion is categorically bad. This is not sound logic. Atheism and Marxism have led to gross, historically unpredented evils. I would certainly put up religion's score card next to secular humanism's any day.

Religion is responsible for more causing Disunity than Unity. The point of religion, in general, is to promote unity and create Peace.

It's sorely failed at that point throughout History.

For thousands of years Religion has been one of the MAJOR justifications for war and slaughter.

So, yes it has sorely failed...

NOW...if the POINT to religion is to promote DISUNITY and HATRED, then I'd budge and say "okay it's working" 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Religion is responsible for more causing Disunity than Unity. The point of religion, in general, is to promote unity and create Peace.

It's sorely failed at that point throughout History.

For thousands of years Religion has been one of the MAJOR justifications for war and slaughter.

So, yes it has sorely failed...

NOW...if the POINT to religion is to promote DISUNITY and HATRED, then I'd budge and say "okay it's working" 🙄

It requires two for disunity. If it is religion's fault, then it is also those that are not religious' fault. Point of blame cannot be assigned unbiased by a member of either group.

The fact is that people tend toward division. It is not caused by religion, it is caused by people. Typically the intent of religion, any religion, is to unify. People do not unify easily, unless of course there is a common other.

For what it's worth, I've always made this distinction...
Religion: truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending.
Religionism: ego-serving and ultimately self-contradicting.
Problems through the centuries have been caused by religionism.

I understand that for some people there is no distinction, because they see no truth in religion at all (ie, there is no God). That's cool. Many colors make a rainbow.

Originally posted by Mindship
For what it's worth, I've always made this distinction...
Religion: truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending.
Religionism: ego-serving and ultimately self-contradicting.
Problems through the centuries have been caused by religionism.

I understand that for some people there is no distinction, because they see no truth in religion at all (ie, there is no God). That's cool. Many colors make a rainbow.

Good call, Mindship. I like your definition of terms. The ability to make lucid and powerful distinctions is the key to all rational discussion. Kudos to you.