The discussion is about one religion murdering another religion, specifically Muslims conquering Christians on their own lands,
Your post said only that "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. My examples happened to be Christians murdering Christians, and you said they weren't as bad. I think any organized religion engaging in the slaughter innocents over differences of beliefs is wrong to the same degree..
which Christians never did to Muslims.
During the first Crusade when the Christians entered Muslim-held Jerusalem they killed everyone they could find: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"
The first pogroms was in Odessa Russia 200 years ago, The word is Russian.
Russia was Christian at the time "pogrom" came to be used, and for a century afterwards.
And these were NOT Christians doing this in Odessa. These were atheists...the same that produced Marx, socialism and communism.
They certainly were Christians. The Odessa pogrom was conducted by Greeks, and their church accepted Christ as the son of God and had done so for over a thousand years. The Marxists didn't take over until the early 1900s, over a hundred years later.
Correct. And then they were forbidden to practice. Crosses and depictions of Christ were replaced by photos of Hitler.
Not sure what your point is there. The card-carrying Nazi party members were overwhelmingly Christian and on Kristallnacht in 1938 there were thousands of Christians out on the streets helping the soldiers destroy Jewish homes, businesses, and houses of worship.
Jews were persecuted for their financial destruction.
So you say, but there is more to it than that. Initially they were mostly persecuted for their refusal to give up their religion, and after Christ died they were scapegoated for that. As you yourself pointed out charging interest on loans was forbidden for a long time in the Christian and Islamic faith, so who else was around to lend money? There's no denying some Jews were moneylenders and disliked for charging interest, and it's true that some of their families have played a role in establishing big banks. But like I said earlier: they're smart enough to do well because they value education. I repeat: 20% of the Nobel prizes won by only 0.2% of the world's population. Of course they'll generally do well at whatever they choose.
Now show me a bank anywhere that is owned and controlled by Christians.
I'd like to keep this discussion focused: it started when you said "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. We've gone a couple of rounds and it seems your latest point is this:
Christians never went to Muslim countries and killed Muslims for being Muslim.
At the same time you're also saying that when they did, as in the first Crusade, it was because the Muslims had invaded that territory at some earlier point. You said:
This was territory Muslims took from Jews by force
and that is historically incorrect in a couple of ways. The Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and forbidden to return by the Romans in the year 136 or so. This was almost 500 years before Islam appeared. In that time there were only two short periods ( 361-363 and 614-617) when Jews were allowed into Jerusalem.
In those 500 years Jerusalem was ruled by a series of empires (the Byzantine empire, then the Sasanian Empire, and then the Byzantine empire again). The Byzantines eventually surrendered the city to a Muslim army after a siege in 637. It was a bloodless surrender, and the Muslims actually allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem for pretty much the first time in almost 500 years. (http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period3-2.htm)
Muslims most definitely did not take Jerusalem from the Jews. They ruled it for over 400 years before the Christians showed up with their Crusade - and slaughter - in 1095.
One way and another you keep saying that when Christians slaughter women and children it's not as bad as when Muslims do it, and I am going on record as disagreeing with that. Let's keep that point front and centre, and remember that Christians have spread their faith in unpleasant ways all over the world. Ask the indigenous people subjected to Christian European rule all over the world in the last 6 or 7 centuries.
Your post said only that "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. My examples happened to be Christians murdering Christians, and you said they weren't as bad. I think any organized religion engaging in the slaughter innocents over differences of beliefs is wrong to the same degree..
During the first Crusade when the Christians entered Muslim-held Jerusalem they killed everyone they could find: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"
Then there was the whole "Be Christian or die" movement (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword)
Russia was Christian at the time "pogrom" came to be used, and for a century afterwards.
They certainly were Christians. The Odessa pogrom was conducted by Greeks, and their church accepted Christ as the son of God and had done so for over a thousand years. The Marxists didn't take over until the early 1900s, over a hundred years later.
Not sure what your point is there. The card-carrying Nazi party members were overwhelmingly Christian and on Kristallnacht in 1938 there were thousands of Christians out on the streets helping the soldiers destroy Jewish homes, businesses, and houses of worship.
So you say, but there is more to it than that. Initially they were mostly persecuted for their refusal to give up their religion, and after Christ died they were scapegoated for that. As you yourself pointed out charging interest on loans was forbidden for a long time in the Christian and Islamic faith, so who else was around to lend money? There's no denying some Jews were moneylenders and disliked for charging interest, and it's true that some of their families have played a role in establishing big banks. But like I said earlier: they're smart enough to do well because they value education. I repeat: 20% of the Nobel prizes won by only 0.2% of the world's population. Of course they'll generally do well at whatever they choose.
That's a tall order, given that there are about 25,000 banks in the world. Off the top of my head I would guess that The Vatican Bank is pretty Christian. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion). Then there's The Kingdom Bank (https://www.kingdom.bank/)
How about Credit Unions? Catholic Family Credit Union (https://www.catholicfamilycu.com/) Holy Rosary Credit Union (https://www.hrcu.org/) Christian Community Credit Union (https://www.mycccu.com/)
I know China has invested in North America, but I suspect you either got that number from Facebook or you just made it up. Prove me wrong.
I'd like to keep this discussion focused: it started when you said "Muslims have a 1400 year reputation of barbary..." and I said Christians are no better in that respect and gave examples. We've gone a couple of rounds and it seems your latest point is this:
At the same time you're also saying that when they did, as in the first Crusade, it was because the Muslims had invaded that territory at some earlier point. You said:
and that is historically incorrect in a couple of ways. The Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and forbidden to return by the Romans in the year 136 or so. This was almost 500 years before Islam appeared. In that time there were only two short periods ( 361-363 and 614-617) when Jews were allowed into Jerusalem.
In those 500 years Jerusalem was ruled by a series of empires (the Byzantine empire, then the Sasanian Empire, and then the Byzantine empire again). The Byzantines eventually surrendered the city to a Muslim army after a siege in 637. It was a bloodless surrender, and the Muslims actually allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem for pretty much the first time in almost 500 years. (http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period3-2.htm)
Muslims most definitely did not take Jerusalem from the Jews. They ruled it for over 400 years before the Christians showed up with their Crusade - and slaughter - in 1095.
One way and another you keep saying that when Christians slaughter women and children it's not as bad as when Muslims do it, and I am going on record as disagreeing with that. Let's keep that point front and centre, and remember that Christians have spread their faith in unpleasant ways all over the world. Ask the indigenous people subjected to Christian European rule all over the world in the last 6 or 7 centuries.