Christianity VS Islam - who started the battle?

[pHghost]

No, I take it you are missing the point because all your arguments bypass what I say and don't address a word of it. If you have anything to say ABOUT the facts I present, I'd love to have a sophisticated discussion about it with you.

Your other tactics are trying to discredit me by calling me brainwashed, even though you know nothing at all about me. This is a common thing people do in a discussion when the arguments against them are such that they cannot counter or do not know how to.

If you want to talk about it on a fitting level, read some solid literature on the topic, I would recommend starting with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Inquisition-Fifteenth-Century-Spain/dp/0940322390
At around 1400 pages it is quite exhaustive and you can also check all the books in the bibliography if you want to verify any claims it makes. And there are other books about it as well, you don't have to stop with this one book.

Unless you are willing to do that, or share where you are getting the information you present as truth, this discussion will lead nowhere, because as far as I can tell, you don't know much about it and are only re-stating your belief that is based on unsound theories.

The answer to who started the battle is 100% Islam. The crusades didn't begin for more than 300 years after muslims began their conquest of Christian lands.

But who says the crusades are the only aggression? Did you even read my post about bullying? You only choose to read what you want to hear. As stated higher, I claim you are missing the point not because you disagree, but because your view of the world seems to be a reductionist things are black and white with no tones of gray approach and you completely disregard things that do not fit that.

Saying that it was 100% Islam who started it all is patently and historically inaccurate and wrong. And I say that without any shame as a Christian who believes that Christianity is the true faith.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

I haven't bypassed anything and your comment on bullying is in no way pertinent to the discussion. Who was being bullied? The Holy Land, North Africa, Spain, Sicily, and all the Anatolia were all Christian lands with no Muslims present. Then Islamic armies conquered those lands and were close to conquering the Byzantines. If it wasn't for the crusades the entire Christian world would have fallen piece by piece, as was the Muslim's plan. There was no "bullying", it was pure conquest.

Some issues are black and white, this is one of them. Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire in 634, if as you say it was as much the fault of Christians as Muslims please explain how? What exactly had Christians done to Muslims in the early 7th century that made them as much at fault as Muslims? Where was the Christian aggression?

Muslims invaded the Christian world, not the other way around. It really is that simple. It's because of the Crusaders that fought and died against Muslim invaders that the light of Christendom was not extinguished and it's shameful to drag their names through the mud a thousand years later.

 

[pHghost]

Some issues are black and white, this is one of them.

In that case, the discussion can end here, as you evidently have no intention of accepting any kind historical fact.

NOTHING that includes the acts of human beings is ever black and white. If you cannot see that and understand why that is, you are living in a lie. I find it ironic that you tried to accuse me of being brainwashed by the media, when you yourself seem to be exactly that.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

In that case, the discussion can end here, as you evidently have no intention of accepting any kind historical fact.

NOTHING that includes the acts of human beings is ever black and white. If you cannot see that and understand why that is, you are living in a lie. I find it ironic that you tried to accuse me of being brainwashed by the media, when you yourself seem to be exactly that.

That's laughable considering how much effort the media puts into portraying Islam as a religion of peace. Yes, the media telling me over and over how wonderfully peaceful Muslims are has brainwashed me into seeing them for the evil that they are.

 

[pHghost]

There isn't just ONE media. There's liberal media and then there is conservative media -- or, if you disagree, where do you get your news?

You are blinded by the latter, and also perhaps by other radically conservative people around you. It does not matter where the bias comes from, but that it is there, that you are completely locked in a non-biblical position based on falsehood.

 

[masaya's lover]

In such discussions beliefs overwhelm our judgment.

 

[JacobBoheme]

When it became illegal to practice Judaism or Islam in Spain certain people publicly "converted" so as to be left alone but still privately practiced their old religion or at least syncretized their old and new faiths. The inquisition sought those people out and "dealt with them" in a very unchristian manner.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

None of which has anything to do with the OP, whit is "who started the battle". The answer is 100% Islam. I love how people are bringing up incidents from 800 years AFTER the start of the conflict to try to prove that Christians were equally at fault for the start of the conflict.

 

[JacobBoheme]

None of which has anything to do with the OP, whit is "who started the battle".

I don't accept the theory that there has been a single thousand + year battle to begin with. There have been numerous battles (in the plural) between Muslim and Christian armies started for various reasons

I love how people are bringing up incidents from 800 years

I saw others discussing the issue so I put my 2 cents in.

 

[Fedusenko]

I am going to say that neither the Roman Catholic or the Byzantium Church were christian based on actions taken. I do not need to display the many instances where they acted as Christ. Dirt only makes water muddy. Excuse me, I need to now prepare to be bombarded.

 

[pHghost]

Excuse me, I need to now prepare to be bombarded.

All I can say is that your post utterly confuses me.

[...] neither the Roman Catholic or the Byzantium Church were christian based on actions taken. I do not need to display the many instances where they acted as Christ. [...]

They acted as Christ -- yet weren't christian based on actions taken...

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Mike]

A post has been deleted from this thread. Do not insult other members. Every member is responsible for their adherence to the ToS. This includes not telling other members they are "brainwashed".

Thank you.

 

[JacobBoheme]

The more christian a person is the less possible it is to start a battle with them. You can martyr them for sure but they will refuse to fight back following the example of Christ or the early Christian martyrs who were slaughtered by the thousands by pagan Rome. Despite this persecution they refused to pick up the sword against empire. It's the secular powers who wrongly appropriate the title "Christian" to themselves and their rule who are involved in crusades and things of that nature. The earliest Christians knew this but when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire more "reasonable" accommodations were taken with the world. A sad degeneration of the Christian tradition.

Listen to the early Christian Hippolytus of Rome for example:

"A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God."
—Hippolytus of Rome

​

Eventually much of mainstream Christianity wedded itself to the beast and is as much a part of the worldly system as the pagan empire of Rome. Christian "emperors" what a sad joke.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

I don't think peacefulness to the point of suicide was the intent of Jesus' message, if that was such he never would have said

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.â€

Nor would he have needed to admonish Peter for striking the Roman with his sword, as he would already have told him not to carry one. Jesus intends that we be willing to fight for righteousness, and the Crusades were a righteous fight.

Were all crusaders always sinless? No. But the Crusades themselves were righteous, and if they did not happen all of Christendom would have been destroyed. The Crusades were a fight between the Good of Jesus' faithful against the Evil of those who follow Mohammad, Satan's prophet.

Christ did not fight back against those who tried him and did him physical harm, but he did fight back against the money changers who defiled his temple. The Crusaders fought back against those who took up arms against Christ, forced his people to convert or die, and defiled God's temples by converting them to worship of Satan.

 

[JacobBoheme]

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.â€
Nor would he have needed to admonish Peter for striking the Roman with his sword, as he would already have told him not to carry one. Jesus intends that we be willing to fight for righteousness, and the Crusades were a righteous fight.

I believe Jesus was speaking spiritually and the Apostles at the time understood it in a literal or carnal sense. Then, when one of them actually used the sword he purchased, Jesus told him to put his sword back in its place because those who live by the sword die by the sword. As Tertullian said in ordering so he unbelted every solider - "the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." I believe he didn't correct them right away so that he could use this later event as a powerful teaching tool.

Paul clarified what our sword should be and also the fact that we don't wrestle against flesh and blood (ie the people you would need a literal earthly sword for) but rather against the demons and spiritual foes.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

-Ephesians 6

​

 

[halfblind]

Actually, there are a number of histories from a number of sources that we started this. This was after biblical records stop, so let us consider not just the Bible but also what records we have. Sadly, there seems to be little citation of any sort of sources on these things. Sorry to say, Chick Tracts and Demonbuster do NOT count. I see only sources without much proof to back them up, sadly.

Liberal lies or not by opinion, I must say that I am sadly disappointed in the hatred that I see. Never our faults, never our sins. Haven't we learned the painful lesson of denying responsibility? Nazis took over Germany because "Not our sin, not our problem." Hitler was a member of a church in good standing. Unreasoning hatred is NOT what the Bible taught, especially if you feel that Muslims are the enemy-after all, did it not say to love thine enemy? Love thine neighbor?

Just as those who kill cannot justify in the name of the Lord and cannot say that they speak for us all, we cannot say that those that kill in the name of Allah stand for all of Islam. For instance, Iran was not originally a Muslim state, in fact, it was quite open to many things and people did not support a Muslim state. What changed that? According to "A People's History of American Empire"-a well researched history, we did.

The CIA assassinated a USA-friendly, democratically elected president and supported a General that would find himself overthrown by a people that did not support him. Unfortunately, in the turmoil, they trusted the churches there to be honest and give up power. They handled the elections and went against the advice of Christ (who they do acknowledge as a prophet at least) in "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's." There began decades of oppression and corruption.

I cannot as a Christian, support a Christian government. Jesus said that his kingdom would be a kingdom of the spirit, not of stone and flesh and it makes me sad that our churches demand power in the Government. Such power is "Vapours of vapours," destined for dust.

Why do we chase after earthly power? We are servants of God and man, we should be focusing upon feeding the poor, cleansing the lepers and easing the sorrows of the afflicted.

We know what happens to those that do not believe in God, they perish from the Earth, never to join the Kingdom. What more can we inflict upon them as we justify our hatred? The Satan-borne hatred?

We became killers and power-mongers, telling ourselves that it is justified in Christ's name. We cannot go such a way. My heart cries out, that we alienate those who would make good brothers. Our burden is to submit, to hold onto our faiths and be siblings in Christ. This hatred, it makes me ill and sad.

I too was lost once and it was someone who accepted me and loved me inspite of being lost, because I was lost that now I am found. All this hatred is but a blade to our own hearts, a darkness that separates us from God. Do not use the bible to justify your hate, your bigotry, your prejudices.

For the sake of your faiths. For the sake of those who would come to believe if we showed them that God is Love, that we are brothers and sisters who would not judge them.

There is always a chance to repent of this hate. To beg forgiveness, to be born again in Christ. I too have been reborn and tears come to my eyes when I see this unreasoning hatred in the name of our Lord.

This cannot be my brothers and sisters in Christ. These words must surely be but ash in the mouth where words of love are honey. Pardon me while I weep.

For surely as we all return to dust, our deeds are why "Not all who say unto me "Lord, o Lord" shall dine at the Table in the Kingdom of Heaven."

 

[Mike]

For the sake of your faiths. For the sake of those who would come to believe if we showed them that God is Love, that we are brothers and sisters who would not judge them.

There is always a chance to repent of this hate. To beg forgiveness, to be born again in Christ. I too have been reborn and tears come to my eyes when I see this unreasoning hatred in the name of our Lord.

Halfblind, I would be careful, making the accusation that some here are not saved. When you question a believer's salvation, it never ends well.

Welcome to CFnet.

You made a few (actually quite a few) general statements in your post, using a big blanket. If you did read through it, you would see that there is disagreement among the ranks regarding the purity of historical Christendom and the blame only on others. So you're responding to one thread out of many, and only some of those people (actually only a few) who place the blame only on non-Christians.

You're post reads, I'm just saying it reads, a little melodramatic. I'm not saying you're melodramatic, or even that it is. I'm saying it reads like that, and therefore, might not have the impact you're hoping it will. You don't want to put yourself up on that high horse. The higher the horse, the bigger the fall, and we all do stumble at times, right?

 

[ChristianNationalist]

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, resistance =/= hate, and neither is it bigotry. I don't have to hate Islam to resist its takeover of the West.

And what are these sources? People continuously make the claim that Christianity is equally at fault for the beginning of hostility yet can't produce a single fact to support this. Muslims began invading Christian lands in the early 7th century, Christian retaliation several centuries later does not make them equally responsible for the beginning of hostility.

Nazi Germany has nothing to do with anything and bringing them into the discussion is a cheap ploy to transform distaste for Nazis into sympathy for your position. It's a tactic used far to often, I'd guess that 90% of the time when Nazis enter into a debate they have no business being there.

The CIA putting the Shah into power has nothing to do with this topic either, it happened almost 1300 years after the beginning of hostilities. But if you want to discuss recent history how about you try and find me once nation that is majority muslim that doesn't oppress other faiths. Even Turkey, who is held up as a paragon of Muslim democracy, is guilty of brutality against Orthodox Christians.

From its very founding Islam has been violently expansionist, Muhammad himself extorted his followers to spread his faith through fire and the sword. Where Jesus wants us to convince others of the truth through peaceful means, Muhammad wants his followers to convert others through any means necessary. Islam is evil.

 

[pHghost]

Where Jesus wants us to convince others of the truth through peaceful means

Which is exactly what the Christians were not doing.

Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
(Ephesians 6:14-17)

As JacobBoheme already mentioned, there is your sword. That is what Jesus was talking about. Why would he want them to bring real swords if he said:

But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.
(Matthew 5:39)

The shield of faith will protect you from the evil one. God has said many times that he will be victorious in the end. Do you doubt that promise? Or why do you feel that we have the right to pick up weapons and act against what Jesus asked us to do? Then, or now? Hatred only creates more hatred, and the crusades were in no way righteous -- even if it were the case that Muslims had started the battle.

But if you want to discuss recent history how about you try and find me once nation that is majority muslim that doesn't oppress other faiths. Even Turkey, who is held up as a paragon of Muslim democracy, is guilty of brutality against Orthodox Christians.

How about this incident? Or does it not count because Muslims were also the attackers? It clearly shows that the problem is not in the faith they hold, but in a specific radicalized viewpoint.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

Which is exactly what the Christians were not doing.

Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
(Ephesians 6:14-17)

As JacobBoheme already mentioned, there is your sword. That is what Jesus was talking about. Why would he want them to bring real swords if he said:

But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.
(Matthew 5:39)

The shield of faith will protect you from the evil one. God has said many times that he will be victorious in the end. Do you doubt that promise? Or why do you feel that we have the right to pick up weapons and act against what Jesus asked us to do? Then, or now? Hatred only creates more hatred, and the crusades were in no way righteous -- even if it were the case that Muslims had started the battle.

And yet his followers wore real swords at their waste. Jesus certainly didn't turn the other cheek at the temple.

How about this incident? Or does it not count because Muslims were also the attackers? It clearly shows that the problem is not in the faith they hold, but in a specific radicalized viewpoint.

Did I ever say Muslims are incapable of committing good deeds? They are no more incapable of mercy than Christians are of wrath; that in no way negates teh overwhelming majority of the Islamic world that oppresses non-muslims. Nor does it negate the fact that they unwittingly have Satan as their master.