Christian Crusades - muslim perspectives

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by vta

Why should he? Do Islamists who burn effigies and flags and attack civilians care about the image project? No. Obviously they are allowed such behaviour, but God forbid an American President say something and it's cataclysmic.

America is the focal point of the war on their side. Other countries, while helping, (kudos to Germany and the many others who do help) can afford to be less aggressive at the moment. America, being the most powerful as you've acknowledged has much more to lose.

What others think is fine, it's how others act, most notably when they attack American civilian targets.

Bush did a little more than just say something

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by vta

Their actions in war were as they very much were: atrocious. No doubt. The initial impetus for the Crusades were to retake lands from Muslims.

The later Crusades you mentioned were based more on arrogance.

I'll grant you that but the attacks on German Jews can hardly be dismissed as the atrocities of war since there was no war or enemy being engaged at that particular time and place other than the Jews. Antisemitism fed by religious fanaticism run amok.

Didn't the Crusaders also threaten to attack Constantinople, whom they were supposed to help, for various reasons during the First Crusade? I have the impression that the Emperor at the time regarded the Crusaders as little more than an unruly mob whom he couldn't wait to help get on their way.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Hoov

LOL, seriously ?? if he is an atheist than he has no allegiance to christians or muslims. furthermore he is not mentioning his stance but reporting only what is the perception of muslim nations, not whether they are even right or wrong, just what they think, feel and beleive and what has led up to their perceptions

I noticed you ignored my question even after I answered yours

It was

Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?

[vta]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'll grant you that but the attacks on German Jews can hardly be dismissed as the atrocities of war since there was no war or enemy being engaged at that particular time and place other than the Jews. Antisemitism fed by religious fanaticism run amok.

Didn't the Crusaders also threaten to attack Constantinople, whom they were supposed to help, for various reasons during the First Crusade? I have the impression that the Emperor at the time regarded the Crusaders as little more than an unruly mob whom he couldn't wait to help get on their way.

You're referring to Peter, who was in no part related to any official army and roused up his own small army. Causing trouble, first with local Jews, then moving on to Constantinople.

The real army arrived in Constantinople after Peters mess was moved on and there were no hostilities. Just like today, there were instances of people behaving badly in the name of the cause. People have not changed much, have they?

In regard to the initial topic, I'm not trying to legitimize the actions of an ancient civilization, I simply find the allusion to the Crusades as a reason for bad behaviour amongst Muslims a very empty one.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

http://atheism.about.com/mbiopage.htm

That is the guy who wrote it ..... on atheism.com ...... I think that makes it easy to see why he is against the "Christian" crusades.

Originally Posted by zrinkill

The relevance is that his anti Christian stance will affect his takes on the entire situation .....

That is the same as a Nazi writing about antisemitism.

Or a preacher writing a book about atheist.

Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?

I don't think so.

Atheims isn't anti-Christian. If anything, an atheist writing on the actions between a Christian and a Muslim nation would act as a third party, not a Pro-Muslim.

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

I noticed you ignored my question even after I answered yours

It was

Could you honestly tell me that you would take seriously a Book about the dangers of Atheism, that was written by a Baptist preacher?

1) take seriously - as in beleive that that man was writing something he beleived to be important....yes

2) would i read with an open mind and consider that he might have found, discovered or thought of something that i missed.....yes

3) would i allow for the fact that even though he be a baptist minister, he might be mature enough to try and not let his own religion negate rationalism and reason....yes

4)but i would know that he might write the book to push his own agenda so i would be looking for that, yet that alone would not necessarilly meant that there was nothing of value in the book.

The only way to truly be objective is to forget your own thoughts for a moment, put them aside and try to see the others point of view to determine if ther might be some validity to what they are saying that my own bias blinded me from.

Now i think it is perferctly acceptable for a minister to write about the dangers of atheism, and i think there are "dangers" if you will - to the atheist. from my experince people who strongly ascribe to the atheistic viewpoint seem to be so defensive about anything spiritual that they tend to block themselves off from a important part of the human psyche. and this can be discussed without pushing any religion on someone else.

i am not an atheist by any means. my family is christian, but i have studied christianity to the depths and discovered much is not as it seems, and i have studied the other religions of the world and found that there is so many misconceptions, most people truly are ignorant to the very religion that they ascribe to and know very little.

[vta]

Originally Posted by Hoov

Bush did a little more than just say something

Very true. And of the actions before Bush... ?
These are pertinent and have guided him in the decisions he's made.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Atheims isn't anti-Christian. If anything, an atheist writing on the actions between a Christian and a Muslim nation would act as a third party, not a Pro-Muslim.

So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda? I think you should look him up a little.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Hoov

1) take seriously - as in beleive that that man was writing something he beleived to be important....yes

2) would i read with an open mind and consider that he might have found, discovered or thought of something that i missed.....yes

3) would i allow for the fact that even though he be a baptist minister, he might be mature enough to try and not let his own religion negate rationalism and reason....yes

4)but i would know that he might write the book to push his own agenda so i would be looking for that, yet that alone would not necessarilly meant that there was nothing of value in the book.

The only way to truly be objective is to forget your own thoughts for a moment, put them aside and try to see the others point of view to determine if ther might be some validity to what they are saying that my own bias blinded me from.

[View Full Quote]Now i think it is perferctly acceptable for a minister to write about the dangers of atheism, and i think there are "dangers" if you will - to the atheist. from my experince people who strongly ascribe to the atheistic viewpoint seem to be so defensive about anything spiritual that they tend to block themselves off from a important part of the human psyche. and this can be discussed without pushing any religion on someone else.

i am not an atheist by any means. my family is christian, but i have studied christianity to the depths and discovered much is not as it seems, and i have studied the other religions of the world and found that there is so many misconceptions, most people truly are ignorant to the very religion that they ascribe to and know very little.

Thanks you for answering .... I believe this particular guy has an agenda he is pushing .... just from other articles I looked up that he wrote.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda? I think you should look him up a little.

I don't know whether he does or not. I didn't read the entire article. But it isn't fair to ridicule an article on a historical event because the author is an atheist.

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

So you do not believe this particular guy had an agenda?

there were other peices or parts to teh article. i just posted the one that discussed crusades and muslims, to be honest i read the whole thing as more of a history peice.

its possible he is a bush hater and therefore threw that comment about bush in there when it was not neccessary, but the fact remains that Bush was not so bright in some of the things he has done and said and that is one example of many.

i found the article by googling -crusades and muslims - and was suprised that what i found was very similar to what i had been posting in the other thread.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

I don't know whether he does or not. I didn't read the entire article. But it isn't fair to ridicule an article on a historical event because the author is an atheist.

Agreed ..... I think I misspoke, I should have said an Athiest who takes offense at any kind of religion ...... which a great great many of them do ..... Just like a great many religious people take offense at someone who rebukes the notion of a god.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Hoov

there were other peices or parts to teh article. i just posted the one that discussed crusades and muslims, to be honest i read the whole thing as more of a history peice.

its possible he is a bush hater and therefore threw that comment about bush in there when it was not neccessary, but the fact remains that Bush was not so bright in some of the things he has done and said and that is one example of many.

i found the article by googling -crusades and muslims - and was suprised that what i found was very similar to what i had been posting in the other thread.

Understood, I apologize if I seemed judgmental or aggressive on the motives behind the post..

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

Understood, I apologize if I seemed judgmental or aggressive on the motives behind the post..

not really.

its a sticky situation right now though - the amount of animosity from muslims toward christians. and even if we think they are wrong in their thoughts and beleifs, the fact remains that what they beleive is very real to them and they feel justified.

what can be done to alleviate some of this, more attacks on them make them think even more that they are victims and in the right and we are the aggressor, thus another 4-8 years of what we've had with the Bush regime could further escalate things.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Hoov

not really.

its a sticky situation right now though - the amount of animosity from muslims toward christians. and even if we think they are wrong in their thoughts and beleifs, the fact remains that what they beleive is very real to them and they feel justified.

what can be done to alleviate some of this, more attacks on them make them think even more that they are victims and in the right and we are the aggressor, thus another 4-8 years of what we've had with the Bush regime could further escalate things.

I agree with most of this .... but i personally believe that even if we do what Ron Paul wants us to do and pull all of our troops out of every part of the middle east ...... that we will be attacked again.

The fanatics have twisted the Muslim religion so much that our very existence is an abomination to them.