Religious Evolution

[VinceZeb]

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.

[Immortal Goat]

I also would like to apologize for seeming like a complete anti-religion nut. I find nothing wrong with something that brings people hope. I find everything wrong with people manipulating that hope into something ugly, like the Middle-Eastern people and the Catholics that believe that if you don't agree with the Pope (who, by the way, is JUST A MAN, INFALLABILITY OF THE POPE IS WRONG!!!) that you are going to hell.

[Isaac]

Vinth, what the fucks your point? You didn't back up your statement either.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.

Actually if you read his post the things he said were right, and they contradicted what you said, making you wrong. Here you go I'll give you one more shot at comprehinsion

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Vince, you're a complete idiot. The only time the Muslims even tried to invade central Europe was in the campaign against Charles Martel, which took place centuries before the Crusades. Unless you want to talk about the Ottoman siege of Vienna in the mid-1500s, in which case almost all credit should go to the Eastern Orthodox Church. At any rate, that was a full two centuries after the Crusades, and the Church was too wrapped up in the Counter-Reformation to give a shit, and the beligerent forces were too insignificant to pose any threat beyond the Southeastern Holy Roman Empire.

And history would have been better off if the Mayflower never did happen, since the Seperatists were a lot of assholes in the first place.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Real quick impression of Sethomas:

"HAHA VINCE YOU R IDIOT! I ALWAYS DISAGREE WIF U ON EVERYTHING AND I SAY A BUNCH OF THING THAT MAKE ME SOUND RIGHT AND SMART WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF IT!"


That has pretty much been every Sethomas responce to anything I have said. Pretty damn old, man.

Quick tip Vinth: when making a post declaring your intellectual superiority over someone else, it helps to get your spelling right.

[VinceZeb]

No, VOR, show me where they are "right". I guess major history needs to be rewritten to make him right. Crusades I was to turn back the muslims. The others were for land, and they were not sanctioned by the Church. Would you like to keep going or do you want to stop now before you look TOO stupid?

[The_voice_of_reason]

If you are too stupid to see why I am right!!!! I am too busy to prove my point. You are beyond hope, my penis is huge!!!!

retendingtobevince





but seriously i am about to go do some research.

[Sethomas]

Vince, you are the quintessential hypocrite. Countless times you have made a claim, been asked to back it up, and utterly fail. As you would say, it's getting really old. I was decent enough to provide specific names and events so that you could look them up yourself and learn something if you weren't too much of an imbecile to do so. You use the term "crusade" in broad sweeping statements as if it weren't a word that may be employed for about every culture or every century of recorded history.

I know the circumstances by which the first Crusade was declared by Urban II because I researched this crap for my own personal fulfillment years ago. You obviously don't know the first thing about anything, so your absolute lack of authority leaves you with a single option:
SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[AChimp]

Vinth, you really need to read your history. Seth is right, and the Catholic Church is NOT the European superhero you seem to think that it is.

1.) The Crusades were not meant to "push the Muslims back" from Europe, since they hadn't invaded Europe. They had taken over the Holy Land, of which most Europeans didn't give a shit; most people overlook the fact that the Muslims originated in the Holy Land, though, and therefore didn't really take it over. Once the Pope saw an opportunity to unite everyone under him, though, he took it and sent everyone running off. However, once everyone saw that they could make a name for themselves rather than the Church, everything basically turned into a free-for-all and general fuck up.

2.) Charlemagne kicked the Spanish Muslim's (I believe the were called Moors, but I'm not sure) asses centuries before the Crusades.

3.) The Byzantine Empire was what kept any expansionist Muslim hordes out of Europe, and they most definitely were NOT Catholic. Perhaps the Pope thought about them during his morning bowel movement, but that's about it.

[FS]

Really, how could the Crusades possibly have been the only measure to stop the Muslim invasion of the world? Were the Muslims going to biogenetically kick their breeding into overdrive several months later to produce an army large enough to overrun the planet? Did the knights that fought in the Crusades have weapons use mass destruction? Are you a complete tool?

I don't exactly remember the Middle East being "set back" beyond redemption after the Crusades. Nothing much was stopping them from still going through with their master plan of controlling the world, and the media. But I guess those Crusades showed them, huh? Showed them GOOD.

[ItalianStereotype]

Chimp-you are wrong when you say that most Europeans didn't give a shit about the Holy Land. the Holy Land was the sole focus of more than a majority of the Crusaders, they weren't involved for economic gain or the glory of their king.

the pope united the nations in the Crusades partially out of a need to protect himself. the only real state in Europe was the Germanic empire and that was a direct threat to the continued existence of the Papal seat, at least as an independent source of authority. also, by "free-for-all" and "general fuck up" do you mean the Christian states that were established in the Holy Lands that would last until the 14th century?

also, the Byzantine Empire was a mockery of its former power. they couldn't have held a single Muslim back if they had wanted to.

FS-while the Muslims couldn't have kept up their invasions with the size of their forces, it is interesting to note that the Mongols from the east indentified rather closely with Muslims, many of their "states" like the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate even going so far as to declare Islam their national religion.

and you are right about the Crusades not setting the Muslims back. a quote that I rather like comes from Mehmed II after the Battle of Lepanto and it goes something like "at Lepanto, the Christians shaved my beard....with time, it will grow back."

edit-I'm pretty sure I put the wrong sultan, but at 3:15 in the morning I don't care about dead Turkish men.

[VinceZeb]

Ok, ok, fine then. The Catholic Church never fought the Crusades against the muslims. I shouldn't believe the multitude of books and textbooks I have read on the subject and have studied in school. I should just believe 3 people on here that have 1) given no back up to their statements or 2) would argue with me that the grass is green and the sky is blue.

OH YES, VINCE IS WRONG! SO IF VINCE SAYS SOMETHING, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY WRONG BECUASE SOMEONE ON HERE SAYS IT IS! IF VINCE SAYS THAT THE SKY WAS BLUE IN ST. LOUIS TODAY AND SOMEONE SAYS IT RAINED, IT MUST HAVE RAINED. WE HAVE TO IGNORE THE WEATHER REPORTS, THE FACT THAT VINCE LIVES IN ST. LOUIS, AND THE FACT THAT MILLIONS OF OTHERS SAW THE BLUE SKY! IF VINCE SAYS IT, IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES FALSE WHEN SETHOMAS COMES ON HERE AND SAYS IT IS!

Man, I'm glad we got that ironed out.

[mburbank]

"I shouldn't believe the multitude of books and textbooks I have read on the subject and have studied in school. "
Vinth.

No, but you might concider returning to these texts nd others to see if perhaps you missunderstood some of them. I think certainly your historical time line has errors, and your understanding of the events is simplistic. Having been supplied names, it should be very easy to check reputable sources, make some sort of supportable argument, and one way or another people might learn something. Tyat said, I personally have never heard the argument made by anyone, in any text, in any history class, in any religion class, that the crusades prevented the Muslims from invading Europe and conquering the world.

The expulsion of the Moors is from a totally different period. The siege of Constantinople is from totally different period. The real estate in question during the crusades was the holy land. That's why the Europeans had to go all the way there.

I know you're not Lexus Nexus, but urely you can point me toward something, anything, that would argue what you're arguing. I'll take it from there. Can you do that much, or will you once more fall back on your "Common knowledge" "ask anyone" hoo-haa to support an argument I have NEVER heard anyone make, and tht inlcuides four years of Episcopal school.

[Brandon]

Vinth sees all of time in his crystal ball.

Remember how he predicted the crucifixion of Jesus by your great-grandchildren, Max?

[VinceZeb]

AB, I don't have to have a crystal ball to see you are a chump.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

AB, I don't have to have a crystal ball to see you are a chump.

Ooh, touche.

[AChimp]

you are wrong when you say that most Europeans didn't give a shit about the Holy Land. the Holy Land was the sole focus of more than a majority of the Crusaders, they weren't involved for economic gain or the glory of their king.

All right, "not giving a shit" may have been an exaggeration, but you can bet that most people had absolutely no clue about the goings-on in the region, other than the fact that the area existed somewhere to the east. Don't forget, practically the entire population was completely illiterate.

Economic gain was a big driving force behind the Christian armies, or at least, it was a huge incentive. Who do you think the Crusaders were composed of? Certainly not the lords of the land, and not their eldest sons who were already assured of a fat inheritance. Many of the younger sons who would never have a hope of controlling the land themselves saw an opportunity to get estates of their own out of the massive areas of land that they would be "liberating."

also, by "free-for-all" and "general fuck up" do you mean the Christian states that were established in the Holy Lands that would last until the 14th century?

The whole idea behind setting up a separate state with yourself as its ruler after you conquer it is economic gain. Sure, you can convert them all to Christianity at the same time, and that'll probably make it easier to convince them to pay you as well. Besides, all your Crusader states that lasted that long weren't exactly in the heart of Muslim controlled areas like you're making it sound.

By free-for-all I mean the Crusaders massacring regular peasants (including many Christians living in the area), kicking major ass and in turn, having their asses kicked repeatedly.

By general fuck-up, I mean the fact that they all failed for the most part. Yeah, there were a few forts built that lasted for a couple centuries, but the Muslims still occupied the Holy Land, so in the end the Crusades proved only that dumb people could run around in the desert while wearing armor. The first Crusade mildly succeeded only because the Muslims were in the middle of a civil war and couldn't get their shit together to repel invaders.

A whole other complicated mess of events eventually led the Byzantines and Westerners into to fighting each other. How is that not a fuck-up when allies start fighting each other? Look at the mess the last Crusade turned into; it accomplished next to nothing.

I'm not saying the Crusades were useless. They did a lot for Europe by facilitating the introduction (and in some cases, reintroduction) of many commodities and ideas that paved the way for the Renaissance. Did you know that the Muslims were big fans of the Greeks and Romans and were responsible for the survival of many of the classics? No Muslims, no Renaissance.

[Zosimus]

Could it be concivable to think that if one removed all the rules/laws belonging to all religions, wouldn't we realize that they all, in reality, are all saying the same thing?

Zoroaster (zoriastrism/the first monotheistic belief in the world) stated it simply and beautifully:

1. Say Good Things
2. Do Good Things
3. Think Good Things

If we all (regardless of our religeous affiliation) followed these three simple acts, it wouldn't matter which religion we followed (or didn't follow), for in our basics, these are the only fundamentals we need in order to at least tolerate each other and treat one another with respect!!
Rules seperate us from each other, making us falsely believe that: "I am better because, my religion says/does so and so." If we look real closely at all of the great religions, I think we would see how, in fact, they are all saying the exact same things and sadly, the joke will fall upon those that haven't realized what fools they are for not having seen that!

[kellychaos]

Isn't that pretty much analagous to the "Golden Rule"?

P.S. I'll make humanists of you all yet .... muahahahah!

[UnDeath]

Humanism is for pussies
screw betterment of yourself, its all about betterment of yourself. Satanism wins.

[Vibecrewangel]

UnDeath - Are you making reference to the actual teachings of LeVey?

[theapportioner]

Haha. LaVey is an imbecile.

[Vibecrewangel]

Actually he wasn't. What his church has become on the other hand......

[ItalianStereotype]

allow me to backtrack a moment and correct Chimps distorted view of history.

yes Chimp, most people were illiterate at this time. remember, most of the Crusades occured before the advent of the printing press. however, even the most severely retarded people understood word of mouth.

also, KINGS themselves participated in the Crusades, the most notable of whom being Frederick Barbarossa, Phillip Augustus, and Richard I the Lionheart. it was seen as a royal duty to take the cross and fight in the Crusades. plus, do you think the Reconquista was won by a peasant rabble?

Besides, all your Crusader states that lasted that long weren't exactly in the heart of Muslim controlled areas like you're making it sound.

bullshit. bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

how much farther into Muslim controlled lands can JERUSALEM get? also, Acre, Syria, Anatolia? do any of those ring a bell?

oh, and what did you think was going to happen? did you think that they were going to conquer these places and hold free elections? christ chimp, do you have no understanding of history at all? some of these countries ended up being controlled by the Hospitaller and Templar Knights and ALL kingdoms (including establishing a ruling line) had to be approved by the Pope. now, unless you think the Pope is some shifty eyed bandit with a handle bar moustache cranking his adding machine while "nyah nyah nyah-ing" menacingly, then you should probably concede this point.

as for your idea of "free for all" it is only partially correct. the Christians weren't running around slaughtering civilians, especially not Christian civilians. the military orders, the Hospitaller Knights and the Templar Knights, were established to not only protect Christian pilgrims, but also to ensure the safety of Christians living inside the Holy Land. while it is true that there was a certain amount of brutality on the part of the Christians during the Crusades, it was truly characterized by the Muslims. one particular encounter comes to mind (without researching it again). at Nablus, the Muslim forces under Ibn Habar ad-Din agreed to parley and discuss terms of surrender and the ransom of the women and children of the city. a price was set at 30,000 dinars for the freedom of the prisoners and the surrender of the fighting men. when the gates were opened and the ransomed began their march north, ad-Din fell on them, killing all the men, selling the able bodied women and children into slavery, and disposing of the rest. this was business as usual for the Muslim armies for most of the Crusades, Chimp.

the Byzantines, let's think on them for a moment....a decadent, primarily orthodox "empire" with whom the catholic world had very shaky and tenuous relations. i would hardly call that an ally. also, are you referring to the hotly disputed primarliy French and Venetian invasion attempt? 'cause you know, that is really considered more of a Byzantine civil war.

I'm assuming that you mean the Eighth crusade and not the later "crusades" against the Hussars and I agree that it was pretty much an utter failure. St. Louis simply did not have the full support of Christianity behind him.

yes Chimp, I knew that the Muslims studied the Greeks and Romans. hell, without them, most of the literature, art, and philosophy of the old world would have been lost.

in short, don't try to explain history to me. (i'm sure that there are some inaccuracies in my post, but this is all off the top of my head.)

[UnDeath]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

UnDeath - Are you making reference to the actual teachings of LeVey?

no, more along the lines of how damn similar the two are, yet Ive seen members of both who think the others are stupid.
And no, LaVey wasnt stupid. A liar, yes, but look a lot of his writings. Theres a lot of good advice in it.
and yeah, the CoS has more or less changed into what it supposedly opposes. Thats why Im in a small "church", and Im even thinking about quitting this one. (yeah, in case you cared, I am a modern satanist.)

Anyway, this doesnt pretain whatsoever to the main discussion, so carry on, all you blokes.