I don’t have a time machine. May I borrow yours?
What makes you so sure that religion is more a cause than a symptom or even a coincidental correlation?
Oh God, not that again! 
Let us know when you get published. 
So they did not attempt to raid Rome with varying degrees of success? That’s not even my main point. Does Christian theology have a concept of holy war and jihad like Islam? No.
Religion is culture. And for a long time, they were a dominating part of what culture is for these countries. Culture is the driving force for a group of people or at least is shaped by what the group of people is about. Of course it plays a major role.
So there’s no reason you can think of theologically on why 2 religions although very similar. Has produced very different cultures and nations? Perhaps the point I gave you about
The concept of Holy war? The role of Muhammad as a governor of what is to be an empire and compared to Jesus who had no earthly positions? Nothing that would make sense to you?
The fact that, even after the other discussion, you still reach for that one time Rome was attacked by people who weren’t pagans or Christians as an example of what’s scary about Muslims is… I can’t even.
Yours doesn’t. Yet your theology conflicts with that of many Christians (people who identify or get identified as Christian) on many points, so it’s not a reliable indicator of what Christians in general believe.
Are there Christians who believe God wants them to wage war? Yes, of course. More so in the past, but even to this day. That doesn’t make me scared of Christians in general.
That’s true, but it’s not even half the story. Bananas are fruit ergo fruit are bananas. See what I mean?
Now you’re seeing Christianity and Islam as “very similar”? 
How about, why has Christianity produced such different results in Europe/CANZUK compared to Latin America, large parts of Africa, bits of Asia… basically the whole rest of the world?
Or how about, if religion is the most important factor in the development of civilization, why does the decline of Christianity correlate with the rise of human development (as generally understood)?
Or how about, if religion is the reason why the West is ahead in terms of human development now, why did it take so many centuries for this to happen, including centuries in which the West was behind?
Or how about, if converting to Christianity many centuries ago is why Europe is so developed today, why does it not seem to make a difference that parts of Europe converted at different times? Italy has had more centuries of Christianity than Scandinavia, yet Scandinavia is doing better by most metrics.
And so on…
Your concept – central human figure in the religion is a general ergo culture is belligerent – is simple and easy to understand. I happen to think it’s wrong.
By the same logic, Christians should be notable for their woodworking, right? Yet when I think of woodworking as a significant aspect of a culture, I think of… China. Is that because of Buddha, Lao Zi, Kong Zi, or Mao? 
Because its about how much the Islamic empire has expanded. Enough to take many Christian territories and to even making it far enough to Rome. The point you want to over look and pick on the tiny details of how much a wall needs to be penetrated to be a “sack”.
So which relevant theological schools of thought and theologians has the concept of a holy war like Islam? Just because my theological background is different on some stances does not make me wrong on issues pretty much universally agreed. Don’t try to use that.
When have I denied they are similar?
Because of a varying number of reasons. I’ve never claimed it’s the only reason. But it’s part of it.
Has it? weren’t there a number of atrocities following the rise of atheism?
Many factors and there are entire books on the great divulgence. I would say the east had more of a culture of being orderly as one.
Again, one of the reason. Not THE ONLY reason.
Did Jesus in scripture call people to be carpenters and make things out of wood?
Did Muhammad spend the 2nd half of his life ummm…talking about a just war? Hmm maybe that might be why many Muslims blow themselves up saying it’s just? Or it’s just a coincidence?
The only reason Muslims didn’t sack Rome was because the Byzantine Empire served as a buffer state. Constantinople and the Balkans took it on the chin repeatedly.
[tedious stuff about the sack of Rome hidden]
You’re playing banana peel here. (As in, people of description X toss banana peels, and it’s not news, but one person of description Y tosses a banana peel, and it’s a barbarian invasion.)
Pagans, pagans, pagans, pagans, they can sack Rome all they like, and it’s just details, man.
Christians can also sack Rome all they like, and it’s still just details, man.
But Muslims? Oh no, it’s terrorism!
You’re the one who keeps bringing up the wall. I told you I have nothing more to say about walls until you explain why that one sack of Rome makes you afraid of Muslims, yet the many other (more serious) sacks of Rome don’t make you afraid of pagans or Christians.
So how about Islam was not the only reason why a random group of North Africans we’ve never heard of stole some treasures from the outskirts of Rome many centuries ago, though it certainly didn’t stop them from doing it? Nope, it must be the only reason, or at least, the main reason!
“Universally”! 
Here we go again.
Christianity has been interpreted a million ways. Here are three:
-
Christian over here says God wants us all to be poor.
-
Christopher over there says God wants us – or at least me – to be rich.
-
And Cristobal, wherever he is, says God doesn’t care if we’re rich or poor.
Maybe only one of them is right, but they’re all Christians.
And while there have been (and are) many Christian pacifists, there also have been (and are) Christians justifying war with theological arguments – including Christian government after Christian government – but it doesn’t matter because whatever examples people give you, you’re going to say that’s not relevant. What is relevant, Andrew? For most of the history of Christendom, the vast majority of Christians and probably all Christian governments failed to meet your standards of true Christianity. Any bad thing they did, you just shrug and say that’s not true Christianity. Any good (or bad but useful) thing they did, you say aha, this is proof that my religion is right!
You might as well be a Communist arguing that no country has ever been truly Communist, yet the glorious achievements of Communism (and the crimes and failures of Capitalism) prove that Communism is the one true path…
We have different ways of parsing your arguments.
Well, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! 
That sounds like more people died in the 20th century than in any previous century ergo the 20th century was the deadliest. You might as well say the population grew more in the 20th century than in any previous century ergo it was the least deadly.
If you want to be objective, you need to keep context and proportionality in mind.
If you value isolated incidents over long-term trends, it’s like valuing the height of one building over the average building height in the whole city, or the size of one city over the size of the whole country, or the death toll of one bomb over the death toll of the entire bombing campaign, or the death toll of one campaign over the death toll of the entire war.
For example, you could say one country has killed more people with a single bomb than any other country ergo it must be the most violent and dangerous country ever, ignoring the context of the war in which it happened and the total death toll caused on all sides by things other than one particular bomb (or other than bombs period), not to mention that it was a mostly Christian country led by a Christian president. (Oh wait – are Episcopalians true Christians?)
Indeed there are many books about it. Which one is your favorite?
(I’m afraid to recommend mine because you’re more likely to enjoy it if you don’t know it’s my favorite!)
So what is the defining feature of his earthly life that people are supposed to imitate?
-
Christian: Jesus led by example. He was poor. That’s why true Christians are poor.
-
Christopher: Jesus defended private property rights by saying render unto Caesar. That’s why true Christians are successful capitalists.
-
Cristobal: Jesus said and did a lot of things, but a true Christian prioritizes his moral teachings above his lifestyle-from-another-era and also doesn’t cherry pick to justify one particular idea.
If you can’t find similar disagreements in other religions, you’re not looking very hard. 
The point of Rome isn’t that it’s terrorism and others aren’t. I’m not even going to bother reading the rest since you can’t even get that point. The point is Muslims have been expended Into Christian territory and got as far as Rome, a important Christian city at that point.
It’s like you live in a village and was attacked by raiders. Your village leaders scream “we were sacked by the raiders!!!” Youre the guy who wants to be the smart ass and say “technically we didn’t get sacked because the didn’t penetrate this wall enough, and we’ve been infighting here and there plus that other village also attacked us!” You’re missing the big picture like you always do argueing the details. If you were attacked at your house and the attacker’s failed…would you say oh it’s only happened once and there’s been other stuff. No worries!
You’re going to keep using because I have a certain criteria for Christianity…therefore all others are wrong lol. Seriously weak, the point isn’t that I disagree with some others. The point is, there isn’t anything like jihad and holy war in Christianity. If you wanted to argue on point and prove me wrong, simply show me where there is something like jihad instead of attacking points you sneak in like I’m saying Christianity is right which is not what I’m saying here. It’s why two religions has produced different results. Stop trying to make it about my own theological disagreements. Religious institutions are flawed…it’s not a secrete. I’ve never denied and I’ve aleady conceded that part on people doing horrible things for Christianity like any other religious institutions.
I think we are done if you’re not going to bother to respond to any of my points as usual and hash up different points. This has nothing to do with my understanding of Christianity which you annoying keep hashing up instead of even bothering addressing my points. Because having your religious leader that claims to be gods final prophet spend half his life conducting war and taking about it in your holy book and religious sources isn’t going to result in something different according to you. Or at least you won’t acknowledge it and like weasel out to attacked something not relevant.
Link doesn’t work for me.
1 Like
Thanks, fixed it.
How is that even a point? Rome expanded far into the Middle East. So did “Greece”. So did Britain, France, Russia, Mongolia, and China (depending on how the term is defined). So did Middle Easterners of various kinds. Everyone wants the Middle East. And everyone wants Europe too, though it’s a tougher nut to crack. Religions come and go, but belligerence sticks around.
[still more tedious stuff about Rome hidden]
I mentioned the wall to demonstrate that your point was even weaker than it already was in light of the context. You cling to the wall because you can’t think of a better comeback. It’s boring, Andrew. Super, super boring!
Fred robbed me once, and Bob and Jim have robbed me a dozen times between the two of them. Isn’t it obvious that Fred is more dangerous?
For the love of Jesus, if you’re going to play this game, drop your Roman crap and use examples that actually make sense! They’re not hard to find.
I might start to believe that if you respond to Tempo’s link with something that doesn’t amount to but they weren’t true Christians.
The point is…the natural response to a foreign group of people attacking you in your land would be?
A: Nothing
B: Attack back and repel
You keep getting stuck on other conflicts, we can have a different conversation about conflicts of the early to late middle ages, lots to talk about. But it’s not relevant to the point of one group expending and another responding. And BTW…this is a small part of the point but I guess we will just ignore Jerusalem was now no longer welcome to Christian pilgrimages (Which catholics at the time believed help you gain salvation) and evidence of persecution of Christians were happening after the more radical muslims took control before the 1st crusade in places in Jerusalem and other parts of the Islamic empire. I’m not even saying the Christians were right and holy, it was war. No doubt atrocities were committed and other political reasons were at play.
By your logic, anyone who belongs to a denomination can’t talk about Christianity. Try to come at some points instead of my views on which doctrine is correct which has nothing to do with the issue. 
So you’re really going to say. Christianity and Islam. Religions that have centuries of influence on geopolitical culture, politics, laws, views on human rights and more. Religions that made men rush into battle with reckless abandonment in the face of certain death. Religions that made man and women face persecution in from stoning, burning alive, and other ways we can’t even imagine. Religions that people for centuries dedicated their entire lives from the morning to sleep. Religions that people built monuments to. Religions that were the very social fabric of the time where people connected at Churches and Mosques. These two religions with some important differences did not play a major role in shaping the differences countries that followed from politics, laws, human rights and more??? Really???
You’re a 90’s kid, right? Remember these guys?
I can’t find the clip online, but there’s a scene that goes like…
That’s what it sounds like when you complain that an empire did something expansionist 1000+ years ago. That’s what empires do. They expand. If they don’t expand, they don’t get to be empires in the first place. Ask any emperor.
Okay, so if there were very fine and not so fine people on both sides, how’s your theory working out?
That’s not it at all.
Most Christians (nowadays) understand that members of other Christian denominations are Christians. See for example Vatican II, decades ago. So they might say Protestants are wrong, but they understand that Protestants are Christians, and they won’t say something has nothing to do with Christianity (or Christians) just because they theologically disagree with it on a personal basis or a community basis.
You can lapse or convert to whatever religion you like, and your opinions will still be your opinions. If I ever tell you that you’re not allowed to have an opinion on something because your religion is X, please whack me on the head.
That’s not what I said.
You asked for examples of Christians using theology to justify war. Tempo delivered. Your move.
Yeah, you’re getting it now!! It’s an empire! And it’s expanding and the reaction from a opposition is to
A: do nothing
B: respond
Congratulations 
What are you on about. There is only 1 denomination I don’t consider Christian nd with reasonable cause that many Christians also agree with. Maybe actually attack what I said instead of putting positions on me that I didn’t take to attack easily like you always do.
All of them were about just wars against the crown/power that be or for wealth. I’ve never made the case people didn’t use Christianity for war, they did. I’ve already conceded that many times. But There is no concept of a a holy war or jihad in Christianity. War and violence are not seen as virtuous things that gets you salvation, most would even consider it hurts your chances of it. Unlike Islam where It does. If you’re counting where scripture tell followers it’s their duty to convert…it’s a big stretch to kill them if they don’t as there’s nothing that says that. If I tell you to ask someone to join my soccer team and you go kill all the ones who refuse. That’s a big stretch of what I said. Islam does have kill infidiles if they don’t convert. Yes, Muslim apologist will argue it’s only in certain context, here’s another quote that says to leave none believers alone or that’s not a reliable source. But it does have it.
Did they just find out who Dawkins is? He’s been debating, giving speeches, writing books against religion for longer than i’m alive probably.
You’re still not explaining how the fact that an empire did something expansionist would prove your theory that religion A is better/worse than religion B.
And you’re still not getting how tedious it is to listen to the same point over and over.
You’ve made statements before that do not match what you’re saying here. (I won’t quote your old posts because you don’t like it when I do that.)
Maybe your views are evolving, which is something I can respect.
The article was mostly about the colonization of the Americas. I’m afraid I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say. Would you like to rephrase it?
Did you read the article?
Spanish Wiki goes into more detail.
When a war is not just condoned but actively encouraged by religious authorities on theological grounds, what do you call it?
Of course there were (and to some extent still are) Christians pushing the line that violence against the right enemy scores you points in heaven. How many soldiers do you think would go to war believing the opposite?
Ditto Buddhists btw. It’s simple math: the good karma of protecting your community etc. outweighs the bad karma of taking life.
And ditto for all major and many minor religions, which is not to say that all religions are the same, but simply to say that they all can be, and have been, interpreted in similar ways on the question of war.
You want Islam to be unambiguously belligerent, and the concept of jihad gives you an opportunity for that. Ask your echo chamber what it means, and the answer is genocide against non-Muslims. Ask a normal Muslim, and the answer is completely different. I won’t claim to speak for them, but that’s my experience. (And if you’re wondering why my experience is so different from yours, the easiest way for me to answer that would be to quote some of your old posts. 
)
You’re doing exactly the same thing with Christianity in this thread. (And don’t tell me it’s rude to quote your post from a few days ago in this very thread.)
And what is that supposed to prove?
In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum (“just war”), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum (holy war).[39]
In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: “'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls… When he inflicts death, it is to Christ’s profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain.”[44]
The Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was used by Oliver Cromwell to justify genocide against Catholics.[46]:3[47] Daniel Chirot, professor of Russian and Eurasian studies at the University of Washington,[48] interprets 1 Samuel 15:1–15:3 as “the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution.”[46]:7–8
And so on. Did you even glance at the article?
1 Like
Based on Christian theology from scripture, there is no concept of holy war and jihad like Islam. ive already said above many times, religion has been used for war. I’ve never denied this and have said this myself over and over again.
If you want to use forced conversion as one which I agree is not good. It’s a far stretch to say Jesus a person who says to love your neighbor as yourself as the most important of Gods commandments and did not resist romans crucifying him meant to kill those who didn’t convert when he says to spread the faith. There will be some people who might take it this way or use it, but there’s nothing that says anything of this sort nor did Jesus do anything of the sort in the New Testament. The exact opposite in fact…he allowed himself to be sacrificed instead of fighting back.
If you’re going to pull Joshua and other Old Testament Wars. It’s also a far stretch as they were wars for the nation of Israel at that particular instance and there’s nothing to suggest it was beyond that or be allowed after even by religious leaders. Unlike jihad where it’s a constant struggle of the Muslim faith.
Dude, I’m not the one saying God wants you to do this or that. I’m not the one saying this or that theological interpretation is correct. I’m saying the interpretations exist and have been believed (though not universally) by many people over the centuries.
We’re basically going in circles.