Before you go blasting me for being some atheist, just hear me out and answer my questions.

We all know history tends to repeat itself. We all cannot forget the Crusades and the Inquisition started by Roman Catholicism. Christianity started in 1 A.D. (I know Jesus was just an infant, just sit down and listen.) The Crusades were started around 1100 A.D. and the Inquisition started about 1230 A.D.

Islam started 600 A.D. and in 2004 it is blamed for terrorist attacks and countless innocent deaths.

In 1200 years Christianity became violent and killed and tortured the infidels and those who did not follow Christ. Now, 1400 years later Islam is doing the same, except for Allah.

Are religion like little children who go through stages, and will eventually grow out of it, or do I just dig too deep into things and find connections where none actually exist? What about Hinduism and Buddhism? I have never heard of their violent pasts.

Most religions do. I believe Buddhism may be the exception, being a peaceful religion at heart, but Hinduism was fighting quite viciously against Islam for a while.

Hinduism was fighting quite viciously against Islam for a while.

Good point, I remember the three India-Pakistan wars, but they might have been for Kashmir. But I am sure religion played a big role.

I was actually referring to 14th-18th century India, but that works as well. :)

I don't know if Islam is being blamed for terrorist attacks. There seems to be a little crusade going on these days by Christian fundamentalists to convert the masses. These ideological wars have been going on since Cro-Magnon man.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

War, violence, rape, pillage, conquest, etc have all been with us since the early days of Sumer 6000 years ago. Religion is only one of many excuses we use to kill each other. We are plenty violent without religion. If you laid out all the wars (big and small), you could find any kind of pattern you like. But what's the point? People are violent and enjoy beating up on others, religion is a convenient reason sometimes.

Godwynn, your statements are simple 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacys,

I wish I could read that. But thanks for... well... whatever you said.

Yes, and the Jews went through that process too...

The fact of the matter is, they didn't. We have never had our moment of "power lust" ow whatever you call it.

Let's change Religion to Religious Leaders. They are the ones that barks the order aren't they? So maybe Religious Leaders are the ones that go through the stages through time. Like Pope Gregory (forgot which number) and now that Cleric Al-Sadr.

Seems to me, the Arabs and Jews have been at eachother's throats since Abraham had his 2 sons, Ishmael and Isaac (their respective ancestors) back... (well, Bible timeline says 'pre-history' IIRC), many thousand years ago.

Dare I say that perhaps God made it this way on purpose all along - so he could watch the 'soap opera' unfold? :confused: <-confused, because it really doesn't make sense why things were set up the way they are.

Of course, some argue, that it's all the Jews' fault, because when they were finally delivered to the promised land, God told them to kill all the Canaanites that lived there - even their animals. But, they didn't exactly fulfill that commandment... and now they are dealing with the consequences.

I think there are too many relgions that dont fix this to make it a good theroy. Buddists, Quakers, Mormons, Jews, the Amish, Jevioahs Witnesses, and I think the Lutherns have never gone into phases like this that I can recall. It appears that is the minorty of religous groups, and not the majority, that may be responsible for violence

The Crusades were started around 1100 A.D.

Byzantium was on the ropes and appealed to the Western states for military aid. Spain was largely occupied by Arab and Berber forces and the Iberians in the north sought to reclaim most or all (it was eventually divided) of the pennisula. Certain leaders realized that inter-European wars were destructive and that there was a large amounts of territory could be acquired outside if the European countries allied to gain them.

and the Inquisition started about 1230 A.D.


People realized there was a lot of money to be made by executing them and seizing the property. Tomás de Torquemada for example became very wealthy as a result of targeting Jewish people.

The issues are more complex than the thread makes it out to be.

I wish I could read that. But thanks for... well... whatever you said.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is Latin for "After this, therefore because of this." It means that you have associated something happening after something else as being caused by the original event. (For example: "The Han Empire collapsed in the early 3rd century. The Roman Empire collapsed into a period of near-anarchy shortly afterward. Therefore, the collapse of the Han dynasty destabilized Rome.")

Basically, what you've said is that, because both Christianity and Islam have had bursts of religious zeal 1200-1400 years after being founded, all religions have bursts of religious zeal 1200-1400 years after being founded. Not post-hoc logic, just a broad (and incorrect) generalization. Buddhism, for example, has never been a violent religion. Nor has Confucianism, or Taoism. Hinduism has existed for nearly time immemorable--since the Aryans sacked Harappa in 1200 BCE--but has never had an outburst of specifically Hindu zeal (anti-Islam zeal, yes, but not specifically Hindu zeal). Judaism has never launched anything on the scale of the Crusades.

I was actually referring to 14th-18th century India, but that works as well. :)


I seriously doubt that . Hinduism was fighting tooth and nail against the forced conversions by some of the Mughal emperors or pre-mughal invading armies . The end of the Vijayanagara empire is nto mentioned in any school textbook in India because it shows Islam in such a blatantly horrible light .

FYI , the Vijayanagara empire , one of the most powerful of its time in the region , was destroyed by an alliance of most of its Islamic neighbours . The capital was razed to the ground - totally . The inhabitants were enslaved or killed - Civ style . That is why no one dares mention that peice of history in textbooks for fear of angering the Muslim vote bank .

So yes , the Hindu ( and all other ) kings resisted Islamic invasions . Hindus , IIRC , never went on rampages with delusions of world conquest - even when they could have . I think the real time of Hindu military expansion was the Aryan migration - of which nto many reocrd survive . Therefore , Hinduism seems among one of the top four in terms of evolution - tolerant enough to accept anything . The other three being the Parsee(Persian) religion , the old Egyptian one (now dead) , and whatever the Chinese have .

And Kashmir - when will the world realise that religion has nothing to do with it - it is purely over territory ?

I would put it down more to going through the Enlightenment than the actual age of the Religion.

The Muslim countries didn't go through the largely secular revolution of ideas that Europe did. Maybe they need a Voltaire of their own? :p

Some religons lend themselves to extremisim more eaisly than others.

Moved to History.

There's also the fact that Islam's most violent period was surely in the century following the Prophet's death, when it conquered most of the Middle East and north Africa. Christianity, on the other hand, spent most of its first century trying not to have violence done to it.

...and whatever the Chinese have .
What we Chinese have as our "native religion" is a mix of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism (actually a philosophy) plus ancestor worship. But we have never taken it very seriously, unlike Christianity or Islam which demands control over every aspect of your life. Sure we're a superstitious lot, even taking feng-shui into account when designing houses, but that's primarily to "avert potential disasters" and "ensure a steady flow of good fortune", which translates to simply, desire for more money! So I guess you can say we worship money. :lol:

I think there are too many relgions that dont fix this to make it a good theroy. Buddists, Quakers, Mormons, Jews, the Amish, Jevioahs Witnesses, and I think the Lutherns have never gone into phases like this that I can recall. It appears that is the minorty of religous groups, and not the majority, that may be responsible for violence

Even if they wanted to start violence, I doubt they would be big enough. The Amish? They would have to use bows and arrows, and they are not near the 1300 year mark are they?

I think this may only pertain to major religions.

Before you go blasting me for being some atheist
Whats wrong with being an atheist?
What about Hinduism and Buddhism? I have never heard of their violent pasts.
Budhist fought. Tibetian monks fought against each other. Does "free tibet" means something to you? Dalai Lama? They had their fights.

Yes, and the Jews went through that process too...

The fact of the matter is, they didn't. We have never had our moment of "power lust" ow whatever you call it.


Well it may not be "power-lust" but we did fight for our religion. it was though to save it, time and time again. Agaisnt the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans etc

What about Hinduism and Buddhism? I have never heard of their violent pasts.

Really? You've never heard of Japan?

Some religons lend themselves to extremisim more eaisly than others.

Indeed.

What we Chinese have as our "native religion" is a mix of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism (actually a philosophy) plus ancestor worship. But we have never taken it very seriously, unlike Christianity or Islam which demands control over every aspect of your life. Sure we're a superstitious lot, even taking feng-shui into account when designing houses, but that's primarily to "avert potential disasters" and "ensure a steady flow of good fortune", which translates to simply, desire for more money! So I guess you can say we worship money. :lol:



:goodjob:

This is what I would call one of the few ideal religions . You don't have to take it seriously and you don't have to believe in anything much . With such openness , it is impossible to twist it and make it a rallying point for anything voilent . The same idea of self-interest is there in the three surviving members of the original four (as said earlier , Zoorastrianism , the Chinese religion , and Hinduism (the two thousand remaining pagan Norsemen may be loosely categorised under the same , along withy any remnants of the Greek or Roman religions)) .


Also , I would like to seperate defensive action against an invader forcing his religion on you from you deludedly attempting to conquer the world for your god(s) .

Also , I would like to seperate defensive action against an invader forcing his religion on you from you deludedly attempting to conquer the world for your god(s) .
Hinduism was created by the invading Aryans to place themselves ontop over the conquered dravidian people.

Hinduism was created by the invading Aryans to place themselves ontop over the conquered dravidian people.

Wrong. Hinduism was manipulated to that fashion, like so many other religions have, but it has been around since long before history.

Wrong. Hinduism was manipulated to that fashion, like so many other religions have, but it has been around since long before history.
Ok according to the Greeks, Hinduism is older than I thought. Either way, its been twisted to suit a certain set of people.

Whats wrong with being an atheist?

Nothing, did I say there was?

Budhist fought. Tibetian monks fought against each other. Does "free tibet" means something to you? Dalai Lama? They had their fights.

Thanks for the information, I know about 1% of Far East history.

Really? You've never heard of Japan?

I have.

Although I have never heard of them fighting for Buddhism. When did they fight for their religion?

I have.

Although I have never heard of them fighting for Buddhism. When did they fight for their religion?
The Sohei (warrior monks of Japan) fought. But it was more for preserving their private domains from the warlords rather than for their faith.

I have.

Although I have never heard of them fighting for Buddhism. When did they fight for their religion?What Dann said. IIRC, Oda Nobunaga wiped out a powerful Buddhist warrior sect as well at Mt Hiei I think...

And in China, you have Shaolin... :mischief:

And in China, you have Shaolin... :mischief:
Know what? Unlike the old days, Shaolin temple (yes, there really is such a place in China) is now openly accepting secular students. Ah, the benefits of capitalism... :D