Christianity Is Dangerous

[Christianbookworm]

Sure, just paint EVERYBODY the same way! What's up with all the "bronze age" nonsense? Fallacy of chronological snobbery, much?

[TimelessTheist]

because they insist that God is above the state.

And? In the Middle Ages, this was literally true, as Christianity was declared the state religion of all of Christendom, thus, God was declared as the legally proclaimed head of the state.

Christianity is no different to Islam in this respect.

Which is funny, because you can't produce one example.

That is why it is so important to keep the state secular.

The problem wasn't with the Muslims following their Sharia law in 'their own' country, the problem was that, throughout history, they have been 'invading other countries' using force and violence to force themselves onto others.

Please help to keep Bronze Age morality out of government.

Neither Muhammad, nor Jesus, were born in the Bronze Age, idiot.

[TimelessTheist]

That wealth wasn't fungible, it was part of religious objects dedicated to God and priceless artifacts of antiquity. They didn't even stop at taking what was owed to them, they further robbed, destroyed, raped and murdered on top of it (maybe they were owed sex and blood too):



Be sure to read on the Massacre of the Latins and its causes too for extra flavor. Christian behavior at its finest.

And if "Gerbil" is still reading, this is one reason why atheists are dumb to worry about Christian persecution. We'd be too busy raping, slaughtering and killing each other to worry about some neckbeard with a pasta strainer on his head.

What source is that quote taken form, exactly? Because, judging by the constant references to the Crusaders' "Blind greed, lust, and violence" I'd say, not a very reliable one.

[Darth Executor]

What source is that quote taken form, exactly?

http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/1203-1204.html

The site is poorly organized, but you can find their bibliography here.

Because, judging by the constant references to the Crusaders' "Blind greed, lust, and violence" I'd say, not a very reliable one.

Since it involved destroying artifacts for their materials, rape, and murder, I would say "blind greed, lust and violence" are perfectly applicable. Or maybe you think the city was sacked in a peaceful and civilized manner?

[One Bad Pig]

What source is that quote taken form, exactly? Because, judging by the constant references to the Crusaders' "Blind greed, lust, and violence" I'd say, not a very reliable one.

You think the Crusaders had a better reason for sacking Constantinople while on a mission to attack the enemies of the Byzantine state?

[TimelessTheist]

http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/1203-1204.html

The site is poorly organized, but you can find their bibliography here.



Since it involved destroying artifacts for their materials, rape, and murder, I would say "blind greed, lust and violence" are perfectly applicable. Or maybe you think the city was sacked in a peaceful and civilized manner?

Well, their source for that is a single historian named Ernle Bradford, which, talking about the Crusaders or Byzantine politics weren't exactly his field of historical study. I would expect an actual Crusades historian (like the one I gave you) to be more trustworthy on that topic than him. There are plenty of works that debunk his assessment.

[TimelessTheist]

You think the Crusaders had a better reason for sacking Constantinople while on a mission to attack the enemies of the Byzantine state?

Well, it had to do more with Byzantine politics than anything involving their wealth. Short version though: Yeah.

[Darth Executor]

Well, their source for that is a single historian named Ernle Bradford, which, talking about the Crusaders or Byzantine politics weren't exactly his field of historical study.

Amazingly enough people can read scholarly works without dedicating their lives to studying it.

I would expect an actual Crusades historian (like the one I gave you) to be more trustworthy on that topic than him. There are plenty of works that debunk his assessment.

I don't really feel like wasting 11 minutes right now, at which time in the video does the author assert there was no looting? At which point does the author assert there was no raping? At which point does the author assert there was no murdering?

[TimelessTheist]

"Amazingly enough people can read scholarly works without dedicating their lives to studying it."

Not my point. Ernle Bradford is a historian specializing in Mediterranean world and naval studies. Jonathan Phillips is a leading Professor of Crusading history.

[Darth Executor]

"Amazingly enough people can read scholarly works without dedicating their lives to studying it."

Not my point. Ernle Bradford is a historian specializing in Mediterranean world and naval studies. Jonathan Phillips is a leading Professor of Crusading history.

Do you have a link to where Philips claims there was no murdering, raping or excessive looting during the sacking?

[TimelessTheist]

Do you have a link to where Philips claims there was no murdering, raping or excessive looting during the sacking?

Never said that. Simply said that the claim that they did is being espoused by a man making assessments outside of his field of study. Of course they killed people during it, as happens during pretty much every other battle, ever. However, raping is where I draw the line as a false claim.

[Darth Executor]

lol
watched the video
crusaders forcefully placed alexios IV on the throne
byzantines killed him and refused to honor his agreement (perfectly legitimate seeing how they didn't make it)
crusaders then attacked the city because they were stupidly stuck there without money
video confirms they stole far more than they were actually owed and that acts of violence "the leaders couldn't control" took place, which is the opposite of what you claim happened.
i dunno whose claims the video is supposed to refute, but it sure wasn't my claims.

[TimelessTheist]

As for looting....well, yes, but there's a reason for that two. After the third siege left their army even more depleted than it was before, the Crusaders literally had no other way to finance its army. It's a truly sad moment in the history of the Crusades, but it should be noted that the Crusaders did not take more than was necessary for the finance of the army, and were very calculating and fair of dividing it up amongst the different factions of the Crusaders.

[Darth Executor]

Never said that. Simply said that the claim that they did is being espoused by a man making assessments outside of his field of study. Of course they killed people during it, as happens during pretty much every other battle, ever. However, raping is where I draw the line as a false claim.

http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan...constantinople

"That same night Murtzuphlus fled. Over the next few days the westerners began to put the city to the sword. Many of its citizens were slaughtered and women of all ages were raped as the crusaders ruthlessly despoiled the metropolis."

"By Jonathan Phillips "

Checkmate.

[TimelessTheist]

crusaders forcefully placed alexios IV on the throne

After the Byzantines forcefully took the throne from him.

crusaders then attacked the city because they were stupidly stuck there without money

No, actually, the Crusaders attacked them because they committed regicide against their rightful king....which, before that, they forcefully took the throne from him to begin with.