Is Religion the real cause of Extremism?

Originally posted by finti
it was all about religion, the kings no doubt hungered for for wealth and glory as well as religious ambitions. After all they were under the belief they had a divine right to rule and conquerer, and Rome wanted to cling on to its political power, a political power driven by the church and the Pope (The crusade led to that the pope became the wests highest religious power in christianity) And the knights actually tried to conquer the eastern orthodox church too. What you wrote is the excuse christian use to shy away the responsibility the church had causing a war.

Wars fought out of religous reasons are as much political as they are religious even so religion do have to take it share of causes to wars.

Wrong! Go back and re-read (or read) the history of these wars.

They started when the Byzantine Emperor need a few soldiers
to help out in his fight against the invading Turks. He had no
interest in invading the Holy Land, just ti preserve his empire.

The Pope got his message, and decided that that would be a good
opportunity to extend his authority eastwards (the Pope's authority
may have been "divinely based", but he and his line were just
humans beings with political motivations and power-hunger like
everyone else; the Pope didn't necessarily want to extend his powers
because the Church or God or Christianity, but because of his
own human power-lust).

The kings that the Pope gathered around, went off to the east, but
not so much with a plan to help the byzantines and then leave, but
to go on to the Holy Land (which also happens to be located in a
very wealthy tading area of the world), and conquer it, and also
take over other regions as well.

Talk of God and Christ and the Holy Sepulchre was just that, talk,
used by the Pope and the western European kings to rally the
masses for support, much like Bush's current talk of "democracy".

And as for western European kings trying to conquer the Eastern
Orthodox Church. Well, if you're refering to the assault on the
city of Constantinople, that too was all about politics and greed. The
whole thing was schemed and organized by the Venicians and
their blind Doge.

Religion didn't start the Crusades, it was just an excuse. Remember,
Rome conquered a whole massive empire without any "religion"
being involved. So even without religion to use, people still go to war
for all sorts of reasons.

Originally posted by finiti
What you wrote is the excuse christian use to shy away the responsibility the church had causing a war.

Maybe the "church" had a responsibility in the wars, but christianity
didn't.

The Pope got his message, and decided that that would be a good

The kings that the Pope gathered around, went off to the east, but
not so much with a plan to help the byzantines and then leave, but
to go on to the Holy Land (which also happens to be located in a
very wealthy tading area of the world), and conquer it, and also
take over other regions as well.

and here is a question for you who think christianity is so innocent, how do you think Scandinavia was christened?

Maybe the "church" had a responsibility in the wars, but christianity

Before the popes came alone.... the Caesars were their own religions, Worshiped as gods. The popes were greedy lier's for power. Some throughout history referred to them as the Antichrist.... 😈
Rome as had a form paganism which was borrowed from the greeks.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Before the popes came alone.... the Caesars were their own religions, Worshiped as gods. The popes were greedy lier's for power. Some throughout history referred to them as the Antichrist.... 😈
Rome as had a form paganism which was borrowed from the greeks.

Whoa, you are way off! The Ceasars ruled as kings or Gods on earth but they were not worshipped in a traditional sense.

There were gods of various rank and Ceasar was not the head cheese. Jupiter was the supreme god of the Roman pantheon, though many different gods were worshipped. Also the gods that people of the italian penninsula worshiped were not borrowed from greek myth, the belief system was passed through trade and settlement much like christianity was.

The power of the Ceasars' did not derive from their worship by their people. Religion was more about tradition than as a means of power or control and for the most part who you worshipped was not of terrible concern to anyone (unless you were concerned with your social position). Well, that was until christianity came along.

The popes however used religion as a tool of control. Their power solely laid on the fact that they were the representatives of god on earth.

I guess I was mistaken about the Caesars. I thought that a few of them wanted personal worship, but I really do agree with you about the Popes. Even kings had to bow down to them and kiss their ring, or feet.

Even today the popes think they are gods rep on earth...

finti,

Good hatched job on my quotes.

Orginally posted by finti
[quote]Orginially posted by King Burger
The Pope got his message, and decided that that would be a good[/i]

Here is the full quote:
The Pope got his message, and decided that that would be a good
opportunity to extend his authority eastwards (the Pope's authority
may have been "divinely based", but he and his line were just
humans beings with political motivations and power-hunger like
everyone else; the Pope didn't necessarily want to extend his powers
because the Church or God or Christianity, but because of his
own human power-lust).

Understand? The Pope was a power-hungry human being
who used this chance to extend his powers.

Originally posted by finti
[quote]Origininally posted by King Burger
The kings that the Pope gathered around, went off to the east, but
not so much with a plan to help the byzantines and then leave, but
to go on to the Holy Land (which also happens to be located in a
very wealthy tading area of the world), and conquer it, and also
take over other regions as well.

you just mentioned the religous reasons in your own posting here[/quote]

Where is are the "religious reasons" in this quote? I clearly pointed
out that this was about taking over wealthy lands and regions. You're
letting the words "Pope" and "Holy Land" cloud your senses.

Originally posted by finti
[quote]Originally posted by King Burger
Maybe the "church" had a responsibility in the wars, but christianity

That was the worst but-up yet. Here is the whole sentence:
Maybe the "church" had a responsibility in the wars, but christianity didn't.

The Church is an earthly organization made up of human beings,
with all the human faults and limitations. If anything, the Christian
faith is the tool of the Church.

As for the Scandanavians, I dont know. But considering how Vikings
were always raiding and maurading churched across north-western
Europe, I figure it was decided that maybe christianizing them may
be a good idea.

Enlight me oh great and wise finti.

Originally posted by WindDancer
The great Greek Philosopher, Thinker and Philosopher Aristotle wrote in his Politics that slavery was a benefit for the state. Yet Greece was the birth place of democracy?! How about them apples?. And if I'm not mistaken Nietzche himself was a firm believer of Master and slave.

Note that we are all slaves to one thing, person or place. We are a slave to our job, to an employer, to a city. And money is our Master. The ideal of freedom can not be realised because we need 'slavery' for society to function.

Good point...Good thing slaves get paid now...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Good point...Good thing slaves get paid now...

Not e'nuff for the work we do. 😕

Understand? The Pope was a power-hungry human being

Where is are the "religious reasons" in this quote? I clearly pointed
out that this was about taking over wealthy lands and regions. You're
letting the words "Pope" and "Holy Land" cloud your senses.

to go on to the Holy Land (which also happens to be located in a
very wealthy tading area of the world), and conquer it, and also
take over other regions as well.

As for the Scandanavians, I dont know. But considering how Vikings
were always raiding and maurading churched across north-western
Europe, I figure it was decided that maybe christianizing them may
be a good idea.

I figure it was decided that maybe christianizing them may
be a good idea.

The Church is an earthly organization made up of human beings,
with all the human faults and limitations. If anything, the Christian
faith is the tool of the Church.

As for the Scandanavians, I dont know. But considering how Vikings
were always raiding and maurading churched across north-western
Europe, I figure it was decided that maybe christianizing them may
be a good idea.

All religion should be banned, because that's the real evil on earth!

nah people should be allowed to believe in whatever they want, but beliefs should be a personal matter

But people make war for their religion. They kill in the name of there god! It should be banned.

But people make war for their religion. They kill in the name of there god! It should be banned

Still, religious people don't keep it personal - they force it upon others, etc. It Should be banned

Still, religious people don't keep it personal - they force it upon others, etc. It Should be banned

Originally posted by finti
nobody said anything else, but he did it in the name of the religion he lead cause he was actually convinced it was the right thing to do and they used the scare tactic of condemning people to eternal damnation if they wouldnt co operate

You accept that the Pope was a power-hungry man, but still believe that
he did what he did for religion? Which is it then? Did he do all the things
he did because of presonal greed and power-lust, or because he
wanted to serve the faith? A man who wants to serve the faith would
not live in such luxury and commit such crimes against even other
christians.

The Popes of the Crusades were not much different than kings,
hungry for power and authority, while using (not being used bu)
Christianity to give weight to their words.

Originally posted by finti
you really dont see what you wrote yourself, take over other religions and "force" their s upon the conquered lands is the religious reason.

You high-lighted with bold my quote " and also take over other
regions as well.", but fail to see that that line only supports my
views. The whole enterprise was about greed and the desire to
take over land for personal wealth and aggrandizement.
Once the crusaders got to the Levant, they didn't convert anyone.
And even the slaughters eventually stopped, and they settled down
to engage in old-fashioned trade and raid. Doesn't sound too
"Christian" to me.

Originally posted by finti
I see that your advice that upon reading history is actually a thing yo might pick up on yourself.
Have it ever occurred to you that the Vikings went on raids for a reason, do you think it was a coincident that Vikings from distant areas began to raid simultaneously?
Rome had political, religious and economical agendas with Northern Europe, they used Charlemange(Charles the great) a powerful and very devoted christian king to enforce the way and expand the power of Rome. The Northern Kings in Northern part of Germany, in Denmark In Norway and in Sweden saw this a s a threat and responded with preemptive strikes of their own, they showed that they were capable off striking areas deep into the countries advancing towards the north. They hit christian sanctuary cause they knew taken the weatlh stored in these places would hurt Rome more than just crushing the villages surrounding them. Also it became a quest for manhood in the Norse culture, it was their way of growing up getting battle experience for the warrior cult norse mythology really was.
So indirectly Rome was responsible for the starting of the Viking raids due to their greedy lust for expansion
and many Vikings or people up here were actually christians they just wanted to have a choice to make their religious desicion themselves.

Rome had political, religious, and economic agendas in northern
Europe? Why would Rome give a damn about a primitive land like
that of northern Europe, whose only export was timber, iron, fur,
and slaves?

And what "Northern kings" of "northern Germany" and Scandanavia?
you mean tribal chieftains? Because that's all there were. Sorry to
disappoint you, but there were no civilized states in northern Europe,
only tribal societies and confederacies. Please, don't re-write
history.

And you really think that the viking raids were some organized,
grand strategic plan, to "pre-emptively" attack Rome and hurt it
before it hurts them? You really think that viking savages, as they
were raping nuns, slitting priests' throats, and burning down small,
isolated churches, were thinking "This will hurt the Pope, by
depriving him of valuable wealth that he can use to attack as.
Supreme General Rurik Eisenhower sure is a genius!"?

And if it was about Rome, what about the raids against muslim
Spain (where the vikings got their butts kicked in a major naval
battle)? Or against Byzantium interests?

Originally posted by finti
The main reason for any religion is to expand the word, to build temples, mosques and churches are tools for helping in this expansion. So the churches are tools for the christian faith

True. but guess what? It is the goal of every religion, philosophy,
idealogy, and idea, including scientific ideas, to expand. Otherwise
people wouldn't teach or preach. People like Newton would've just
kept their theories in their own heads.

You accept that the Pope was a power-hungry man,but still believe thathe did what he did for religion?Which is it then?

You high-lighted with bold my quote " and also take over other
regions as well.", but fail to see that that line only supports my
views

Rome had political, religious, and economic agendas in northern
Europe? Why would Rome give a damn about a primitive land like
that of northern Europe, whose only export was timber, iron, fur,
and slaves?[/ QUOTE] the church wanted to expand wherever there were people

[QUOTE]And what "Northern kings" of "northern Germany" and Scandanavia?
you mean tribal chieftains? Because that's all there were. Sorry to
disappoint you, but there were no civilized states in northern Europe,
only tribal societies and confederacies. Please, don't re-write
history.

And you really think that the viking raids were some organized,
grand strategic plan, to "pre-emptively" attack Rome and hurt it
before it hurts them? You really think that viking savages, as they
were raping nuns, slitting priests' throats, and burning down small,
isolated churches, were thinking "This will hurt the Pope, by
depriving him of valuable wealth that he can use to attack as.
Supreme General Rurik Eisenhower sure is a genius!"?

The stories of raping nuns are the stories written by the men of the church. The Viking raids were all about blitz warfare fast inn, attack and retreat before the enemy could round up and gather reenforcement, raping and the sorts were too time consuming. They killed blindly yes, but raping nuns and stuff, they took the nuns with them, but the raping part has been highly disputed by modern research into the Viking raids

Dont get me wrong I dont deny that the Vikings were bloodthirsty murderous bunch of thugs. But at least we the ancestor of these people dont denythe fact about that though unless christians who run away from all the dark sides of their history

And if it was about Rome, what about the raids against muslim
Spain (where the vikings got their butts kicked in a major naval
battle)? Or against Byzantium interests?

True. but guess what? It is the goal of every religion

First off, apologies for the tone of my last post. I do not wish
to come across as condescending towards Scandanavia. In
fact, though it may be hard to believe, but I actually have a
great deal of respects towards those nations, and their great
success in creating stable, prosperous and free societies, as
well as all of their contributions (excluding Ace of Base ofcourse).
-----

You wrote:

"doesnt matter what line it supports, as long as they wanted to take
over other religion means that religion is a factor"

But I believe you may have thought I mis-typed or misspelt the word
"religion" for "region". I didn't. I wrote "region", and I meant "region".
They wanted to conquer lands, not for religion, but for the same
reasons that people through-out history have conquered each other,
for wealth or to increase their own power (the leaders that is).

well seems you are pretty ignorant about this part of history, what you refer to as tribal chierftans was considered kings warlords here, they ruled over larger or smaller areas of land, more like what was considered to be fuedal lords down oin the continents. When called for the Viking Lords/kings could gather pretty big armies, after all the Danish king did invade and conquer large part of Britain.

So be it. But from the perspective of Rome, and to a lesser extent
Charlemagne himself, the north had little to offer, and thus may not
be worth the effort to conquer.

As for the Viking defeat, can't say the name exactly, but it started
with a defeat on land near Seville, then two later naval defeats
near the straits of Gibraltar, arounf the mid-800's.