Islam is not inherently evil

[NeoTemplar]

I wouldn't post it if I couldn't source it.

The Historical Charlemagne

You dumbass that was a tactical move any military leader would have beheaded the Saxons, it had nothing to do with Religion.

Prove it.

He founded sees, issued a decree banning the rites of the heathen gods, and ordered the Saxons to be baptized and to pay tithes. The only result was another large raid on the Franks, after which the emperor beheaded 4,000 Saxons at Verden. The war went on, with Saxons burning new churches, killing Christian priests, and rebuilding the shrines of the gods. 2

2 Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 101

I proved you wrong with your own link so you have to post something from another that i can't read? my point stands everything Charlemagne did was tactical you don't allow an army like the Saxons thats right on your step to get any kind of idea that they might win, so you make an example (head chopping) and demoralize (Ban there Gods etc) them and assimilate them into your own society so they can no longer cause trouble (sending them Missionaries). The Saxons weren't just "any" people they were a highly successful pillaging Warrior race that pludered everyone they came upon and Charlemagne deported 10,000 of them to Neustria rather then kill them, also Guess what Charlemagne also made their leaders into Kings and the Saxons agreed to convert.

Charlemagnes biographer writes

"The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people."

Remember the Saxons started this war Charlemagne just finished it in a way that would ensure peace

 

[manifold]

Johnny come lately here... just noticed the thread.

But at almost a thousand posts deep I'm going to set the over/under on how many times people have defended Islam of today, by directly or indirectly comparing it to Christianity a thousand years ago, at roughly 477.

 

[Gideonprime]

Johnny come lately here... just noticed the thread.

But at almost a thousand posts deep I'm going to set the over/under on how many times people have defended Islam of today, by directly or indirectly comparing it to Christianity a thousand years ago, at roughly 477.

Do you really beleive all teh christians of today are hippy flower in your hair types?

Look at some of the posts here and you see some who are slavering to cry havoc and let slip the dogs.

Though as a rule the Christians are getting better press these days. Except for that "GOD HATES FAGS" schmuck. He rarely gets anyhting but bad press.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Johnny come lately here... just noticed the thread.

But at almost a thousand posts deep I'm going to set the over/under on how many times people have defended Islam of today, by directly or indirectly comparing it to Christianity a thousand years ago, at roughly 477.

Do you really beleive all teh christians of today are hippy flower in your hair types?

Look at some of the posts here and you see some who are slavering to cry havoc and let slip the dogs.

Though as a rule the Christians are getting better press these days. Except for that "GOD HATES FAGS" schmuck. He rarely gets anyhting but bad press.

Name one people other then Muslims, who want to conquer and enslave or destroy Christians and Christianity, that Christians want to let sleep the Dogs of war against.

 

[Gideonprime]

Johnny come lately here... just noticed the thread.

But at almost a thousand posts deep I'm going to set the over/under on how many times people have defended Islam of today, by directly or indirectly comparing it to Christianity a thousand years ago, at roughly 477.

Do you really beleive all teh christians of today are hippy flower in your hair types?

Look at some of the posts here and you see some who are slavering to cry havoc and let slip the dogs.

Though as a rule the Christians are getting better press these days. Except for that "GOD HATES FAGS" schmuck. He rarely gets anyhting but bad press.

Name one people other then Muslims, who want to conquer and enslave or destroy Christians and Christianity, that Christians want to let sleep the Dogs of war against.

Gays & Athiests primarily.

See there you go lumping all Muslims into the same group. They are not all hell bent terrorists. Much as you might wish it were so.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Do you really beleive all teh christians of today are hippy flower in your hair types?

Look at some of the posts here and you see some who are slavering to cry havoc and let slip the dogs.

Though as a rule the Christians are getting better press these days. Except for that "GOD HATES FAGS" schmuck. He rarely gets anyhting but bad press.

Name one people other then Muslims, who want to conquer and enslave or destroy Christians and Christianity, that Christians want to let sleep the Dogs of war against.

Gays & Athiests primarily.

See there you go lumping all Muslims into the same group. They are not all hell bent terrorists. Much as you might wish it were so.

Well, it might just be me but i don't see Christians killing Gays and Atheist on a daily basis. Christians, Gays and Atheists all just have different beliefs, so you can't compare this to actual war.

 

[Gideonprime]

Name one people other then Muslims, who want to conquer and enslave or destroy Christians and Christianity, that Christians want to let sleep the Dogs of war against.

Gays & Athiests primarily.

See there you go lumping all Muslims into the same group. They are not all hell bent terrorists. Much as you might wish it were so.

Well, it might just be me but i don't see Christians killing Gays and Atheist on a daily basis. Christians, Gays and Atheists all just have different beliefs, so you can't compare this to actual war.

I can actually.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Gays & Athiests primarily.

See there you go lumping all Muslims into the same group. They are not all hell bent terrorists. Much as you might wish it were so.

Well, it might just be me but i don't see Christians killing Gays and Atheist on a daily basis. Christians, Gays and Atheists all just have different beliefs, so you can't compare this to actual war.

I can actually.

You can't seriously be saying that Christians not wanting Gays to marry is the same as war

 

[Gideonprime]

Well, it might just be me but i don't see Christians killing Gays and Atheist on a daily basis. Christians, Gays and Atheists all just have different beliefs, so you can't compare this to actual war.

I can actually.

You can't seriously be saying that Christians not wanting Gays to marry is the same as war

Oh god no. It goes far deeper than that. You surely know that.

Iam not saying all christians are bad folks or anything. I am saying that by and large they want everyone to live by there rules . . . if they agree with those rules or not.

Trying to make someone live by a set of rules they don't believe . . . well that is as bad as Muslim Extremists trying to force Sharia law on the rest of the world.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You dumbass that was a tactical move any military leader would have beheaded the Saxons, it had nothing to do with Religion.

Prove it.

I proved you wrong with your own link so you have to post something from another that i can't read? my point stands everything Charlemagne did was tactical you don't allow an army like the Saxons thats right on your step to get any kind of idea that they might win, so you make an example (head chopping) and demoralize (Ban there Gods etc) them and assimilate them into your own society so they can no longer cause trouble (sending them Missionaries). The Saxons weren't just "any" people they were a highly successful pillaging Warrior race that pludered everyone they came upon and Charlemagne deported 10,000 of them to Neustria rather then kill them, also Guess what Charlemagne also made their leaders into Kings and the Saxons agreed to convert.

Charlemagnes biographer writes

"The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people."

Remember the Saxons started this war Charlemagne just finished it in a way that would ensure peace

Conversion was a tactic as well. How many did Charlemagne convert to Christianity at the point of a sword?

Conversion was one of his goals.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Prove it.

I proved you wrong with your own link so you have to post something from another that i can't read? my point stands everything Charlemagne did was tactical you don't allow an army like the Saxons thats right on your step to get any kind of idea that they might win, so you make an example (head chopping) and demoralize (Ban there Gods etc) them and assimilate them into your own society so they can no longer cause trouble (sending them Missionaries). The Saxons weren't just "any" people they were a highly successful pillaging Warrior race that pludered everyone they came upon and Charlemagne deported 10,000 of them to Neustria rather then kill them, also Guess what Charlemagne also made their leaders into Kings and the Saxons agreed to convert.

Charlemagnes biographer writes

"The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people."

Remember the Saxons started this war Charlemagne just finished it in a way that would ensure peace

Conversion was a tactic as well. How many did Charlemagne convert to Christianity at the point of a sword?

Conversion was one of his goals.

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I proved you wrong with your own link so you have to post something from another that i can't read? my point stands everything Charlemagne did was tactical you don't allow an army like the Saxons thats right on your step to get any kind of idea that they might win, so you make an example (head chopping) and demoralize (Ban there Gods etc) them and assimilate them into your own society so they can no longer cause trouble (sending them Missionaries). The Saxons weren't just "any" people they were a highly successful pillaging Warrior race that pludered everyone they came upon and Charlemagne deported 10,000 of them to Neustria rather then kill them, also Guess what Charlemagne also made their leaders into Kings and the Saxons agreed to convert.

Charlemagnes biographer writes




Remember the Saxons started this war Charlemagne just finished it in a way that would ensure peace

Conversion was a tactic as well. How many did Charlemagne convert to Christianity at the point of a sword?

Conversion was one of his goals.

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

Really? So sure of what a historical figure would or would not have done?

Interesting.

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html

When Charlemagne took the throne in 771, he immediately implemented two policies. The first policy was one of expansion. Charlemagne's goal was to unite all Germanic people into one kingdom. The second policy was religious in that Charlemagne wanted to convert all of the Frankish kingdom, and those lands he conquered, to Christianity. As a result, Charlemagne's reign was marked by almost continual warfare.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Conversion was a tactic as well. How many did Charlemagne convert to Christianity at the point of a sword?

Conversion was one of his goals.

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

Really? So sure of what a historical figure would or would not have done?

Interesting.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

Really? So sure of what a historical figure would or would not have done?

Interesting.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

Lecture 20: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance

When Charlemagne took the throne in 771, he immediately implemented two policies. The first policy was one of expansion. Charlemagne's goal was to unite all Germanic people into one kingdom. The second policy was religious in that Charlemagne wanted to convert all of the Frankish kingdom, and those lands he conquered, to Christianity. As a result, Charlemagne's reign was marked by almost continual warfare.

Guess he wasn't competent.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Really? So sure of what a historical figure would or would not have done?

Interesting.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

Lecture 20: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance

When Charlemagne took the throne in 771, he immediately implemented two policies. The first policy was one of expansion. Charlemagne's goal was to unite all Germanic people into one kingdom. The second policy was religious in that Charlemagne wanted to convert all of the Frankish kingdom, and those lands he conquered, to Christianity. As a result, Charlemagne's reign was marked by almost continual warfare.

Guess he wasn't competent.

So your saying making the Saxons rich giving them land to live on and making their leaders Kings was a bad thing and Charlemagne came to power in 742 but he didn't come up with that policy until 771 and i don't think you know what competent means.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

Lecture 20: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance

When Charlemagne took the throne in 771, he immediately implemented two policies. The first policy was one of expansion. Charlemagne's goal was to unite all Germanic people into one kingdom. The second policy was religious in that Charlemagne wanted to convert all of the Frankish kingdom, and those lands he conquered, to Christianity. As a result, Charlemagne's reign was marked by almost continual warfare.

Guess he wasn't competent.

So your saying making the Saxons rich giving them land to live on and making their leaders Kings was a bad thing? Also i don't think you know what competent means

He was born in 742 and took the throne in 771

You said:

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

You don't get sarcasm do you?

Let me explain:

You said if he was competent that he would have started converting people at the start of his reign. By saying this you implied Charlemagne was not a competent military leader.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

You obviously didn't know that conversion was his second highest priority and actually was implemented at the start of his reign.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Lecture 20: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Renaissance



Guess he wasn't competent.

So your saying making the Saxons rich giving them land to live on and making their leaders Kings was a bad thing? Also i don't think you know what competent means

You said:

No, Conversion was just a way to pacify the aggressive Saxons hordes, if he had wanted to forcibly convert them he would have done so 30 years before at the start of his reign.

You don't get sarcasm do you?

Let me explain:

You said if he was competent that he would have started converting people at the start of his reign. By saying this you implied Charlemagne was not a competent military leader.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

You obviously didn't know that conversion was his second highest priority and actually was implemented at the start of his reign.

You took what i said entirely out of context and sometimes believe it or not its hard to sense sarcasm over the internet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So your saying making the Saxons rich giving them land to live on and making their leaders Kings was a bad thing? Also i don't think you know what competent means

You said:



You don't get sarcasm do you?

Let me explain:

You said if he was competent that he would have started converting people at the start of his reign. By saying this you implied Charlemagne was not a competent military leader.

No i just know what a competent military leader would have done.

You obviously didn't know that conversion was his second highest priority and actually was implemented at the start of his reign.

You took what i said entirely out of context and sometimes believe it or not its hard to sense sarcasm over the internet.

You're the one who thought Charlemagne took the throne as an infant. Hard to take your dates out of context

 

[NeoTemplar]

You said:



You don't get sarcasm do you?

Let me explain:

You said if he was competent that he would have started converting people at the start of his reign. By saying this you implied Charlemagne was not a competent military leader.


You obviously didn't know that conversion was his second highest priority and actually was implemented at the start of his reign.

You took what i said entirely out of context and sometimes believe it or not its hard to sense sarcasm over the internet.

You're the one who thought Charlemagne took the throne as an infant. Hard to take your dates out of context

Ah my apologies, i got the dates of his birth and coronation mixed up he took power in 768 thats still 3 years before the uprising.

 

[Buford]

I can actually.

You can't seriously be saying that Christians not wanting Gays to marry is the same as war

Oh god no. It goes far deeper than that. You surely know that.

Iam not saying all christians are bad folks or anything. I am saying that by and large they want everyone to live by there rules . . . if they agree with those rules or not.

Trying to make someone live by a set of rules they don't believe . . . well that is as bad as Muslim Extremists trying to force Sharia law on the rest of the world.

What rules have Christians tried to force you to live under?