Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

In your opinion, were Popes remarks even close to offending Muslims?


  • Total voters
    156
Meh, Christianity has been spread mainly by conquest.

Europe: Spread by the Romans
Americas: Spread by the conquering Europeans
Africa: Spread by colonial Europeans

The only difference is Islam was spread by Arabs while Christianity was spread by Europeans.
 
Truronian said:
Meh, Christianity has been spread mainly by conquest.

Europe: Spread by the Romans
Americas: Spread by the conquering Europeans
Africa: Spread by colonial Europeans

The only difference is Islam was spread by Arabs while Christianity was spread by Europeans.

The only thing I'll challenge you on is the spread in Europe. Rome had already conquered to its limit far before Christianity became the norm. Though technically Romans spread it, they spread it around Rome. When Rome fell the invaders took up the cross. I know the Vikings took up Christianity because it would allow them more lucartive trade, while Russia took it up because they saw the marvels of Contantinople. There was the Baltic Crusade, but I'm not aware of any real Christian conquests in Europe outside of that.
 
Truronian said:
Meh, Christianity has been spread mainly by conquest.

Europe: Spread by the Romans
Americas: Spread by the conquering Europeans
Africa: Spread by colonial Europeans

The only difference is Islam was spread by Arabs while Christianity was spread by Europeans.

I wonder when will people stop excusing evil by pointing at the fact, that someone other has done that too :rolleyes:

Europe: Christianity spread peacefuly throughout the Roman Empire. After its fall, the 'barbarians' converted to Christianity without coercion. Then, Christians had to defend themselves from Muslims, who attacked Byzantine Empire without provocation, only because they wanted to spread their faith. Then, they attacked Spain and conquered it. Fortunately, Charles Martel stopped their onslaught in the Battle of Tours (Poitiers). Muslims then expanded to the East and tried to destroy Byzantines (fortunately, they managed to hold them back long enough for the rest of Europe to develop.

America: you can hardly say that the main motivator was Christianity. Spain surely wanted to spread it, but the main motivator of overseas expansion was trade and gold (silver). Besides, the Mesoamerican beliefs were much more violent that the christian conquiastadors, so I don't know if we can blame them for putting an end to their mass sacrifices of prisoners.

Africa: when did Europeans exterminate some faith by force in Africa? They spread their faith, but not by force.


If you compare Christianity and Islam with regard to using violence as a tool for expansion, you have to come to conclusion, that Islam is much more violent in that respect. Islam practically wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia, Orthodox Christianity in Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, attempted to destroy Hinduism in India and Catholic Christianity in Western Europe. This expansion was motivated almost exclusively by their religious zeal.
 
Winner said:
Besides, the Mesoamerican beliefs were much more violent that the christian conquiastadors, so I don't know if we can blame them for putting an end to their mass sacrifices of prisoners.

You think the ritualistic killings of mostly condemned prisoners, slaves, and even volunteers is more violent than the Inquistions of Spain which were occuring at the exact same time of the Spanish conquistadors in which tens of thousands died and tens of thousands more tortured and forcibly converted not to honor the gods but to "save their souls"?

I'm not saying the rituals weren't violent or that, but to say they were much more violent than the brutality of the Spanish is way off.
 
Warman17 said:
You think the ritualistic killings of mostly condemned prisoners, slaves, and even volunteers is more violent than the Inquistions of Spain which were occuring at the exact same time of the Spanish conquistadors in which tens of thousands died and tens of thousands more tortured and forcibly converted not to honor the gods but to "save their souls"?

I'm not saying the rituals weren't violent or that, but to say they were much more violent than the brutality of the Spanish is way off.

Spanish Inquisition was indeed terrible, you're absolutely right in that.
 
You're missing my point. Historically its violence that spreads religion (intentionally or not), eg Christianity spread in Europe because of the violence that occured before its founding (the expansion of Rome). Singling out Islam historically is pointless.

Anyway, Islam has changed since its inception. When was the last time Muslims hordes invaded their neighbour?
 
Winner said:
If you compare Christianity and Islam with regard to using violence as a tool for expansion, you have to come to conclusion, that Islam is much more violent in that respect. Islam practically wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia, Orthodox Christianity in Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, attempted to destroy Hinduism in India and Catholic Christianity in Western Europe. This expansion was motivated almost exclusively by their religious zeal.
Makes me want to rethink Islam as a forcefull converter force that should be treated with suspicion :hmm:.
 
CivGeneral said:
Makes me want to rethink Islam as a forcefull converter force that should be treated with suspicion :hmm:.
Now, would you be interested about Islamists talking about reformation of Christianity and western values through dialogue which condemns the current way of violence if they would refer to christianity as violent religion of the past and link it with Jesus himself (even when it would be through quoting some past emperor) before saying how great the heritage of Islam is?

Really, think about it, before you answer.
 
I know that I'd be thinking "oh, some Muslim said something rude again" and then I'd go off to play computer games.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
C~G said:
Now, would you be interested about Islamists talking about reformation of Christianity and western values through dialogue which condemns the current way of violence if they would refer to christianity as violent religion of the past and link it with Jesus himself (even when it would be through quoting some past emperor) before saying how great the heritage of Islam is?

Really, think about it, before you answer.
I know that I'd be thinking "oh, some Muslim said something rude again" and then I'd go off to play computer games.
Some how that is what I would be saying and doing. Though I would give the Muhammedians a nice little poster to let them know that I dont care and to buzz off ;).
 
CivGeneral said:
I know that I'd be thinking "oh, some Muslim said something rude again" and then I'd go off to play computer games.
CivGeneral said:
Some how that is what I would be saying and doing. Though I would give the Muhammedians a nice little poster to let them know that I dont care and to buzz off ;).
Now both of you, imagine living in society where there aren't computer games or CFC for some reason, and these people are still mocking you, wouldn't you be enraged? :lol:

I'm sorry if my comparisons fail while I construct them but deep down I know they hold solid base of truth.
 
C~G said:
Now both of you, imagine living in society where there aren't computer games or CFC for some reason, and these people are still mocking you, wouldn't you be enraged? :lol:
I'll still tell them Muhammedans to buzz off and lay off my religion as well as verbaly rebuke them. I wont stupe to their level and strap a bomb on myself and blow up in their face or whip out a Katana in anger :p.
 
Winner said:
Well, this isn't really an apology, but I haven't seen the transcript to know if this is the whole thing or just the part they decided to print in all the news:

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive"

If this is all he said, and thinks that insulting people because they reacted wrong to his statements is an apology, then I would have less respect for him than I do for other Catholic leaders, if I respected them in any way in the first place. This is a typical apology style from corporate leaders and the Bush administration (and pretty much all politicians, to be somewhat fair):

"I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand that I'm right, and that you have reacted wrongly based on these wrong assumption made in your feeble little brain" or something to that effect.

So if I were inclined to care what the pope said in the first place, I guess I'd also be inclined to care about his follow-on insults. But I don't.
 
The majority of the protesters have been given misleading and partial information.
I would imagine that the few (informed) objectors are merely idiots; but like all vocal idiots, they're dangerous in that they're willing to propagate lies for what they perceive to be personal gain.
 
Winner said:
who attacked Byzantine Empire without provocation, only because they wanted to spread their faith.

????????? ??????? ??????

Didnt Emperor Justinian retake a huge part of the byztine empire including egypt, Asia minor and most of the near east. The muslim empire at that time had made no attempts to convert the christain and jewish citizenship. (they did treat them as second class citizens) :confused: :confused:

EDIT: In fact most welcomed byzatine empire back being mostly coptic christains.
 
As for popes comments I have no problem with them.

Muslim reaction = disappointing
but then thats freedom.

Iam not to worried. everywhere inc UK and Australia had now quitely shutting down muslim imigration.
 
C~G said:
Now both of you, imagine living in society where there aren't computer games or CFC for some reason, and these people are still mocking you, wouldn't you be enraged? :lol:
I lived in such a society. South Africa, ten years ago.

I read books. I got educated. I realized that the mockers were stupid. And then I moved.
 
Back
Top Bottom