What is Christianity? How can we understand it better? What don't we understand?

You know, VLM, all of the greatest movements in history were founded by door to door folk sharing their message.

 

Oh, if only that would work...

 

You know, VLM, all of the greatest movements in history were founded by door to door folk sharing their message.

I understand Hoover Vacuum Cleaners si quite grateful for it.

The only pamphlets I will accept under my winshield wipers are pictures of Scarlet Johannsen, Halle Berry, Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Alba, and the like.
If any of them came to my door to spread...um...their word...I would give that the ok as well.

 

I dunno, I'm more of an Aria Giovanni fan myself.

I'll gladly accept invites to parties under my windshield wipers. Party + drunken women = real heaven.

 

Aria's boobs look a little too big and sloppy too me. However, i am not totally against large boobage.

[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Persephonepic.jpg]

Now if there were any real evidence for a higher power, them boobies would be at the top of the list.

Whoa. The URL for the image has "666" in it.

 

To each their own, man.

Uhhh..back on-topic. Fight the real terrorists: Arrest Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

Grain, salt, Wiki:

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the world's religions and governments are instruments of Satan used to detract from the true worship of God. They believe that eventually, God will use the governments of the world to destroy these religions, which they teach to be the "harlot" riding on the back of the seven-headed beast (world governments) in the book of Revelation, and that in turn, God will then eliminate these governments at Armageddon. These beliefs, in addition to their opposition to belonging to a government party, saluting a national flag, or to take up arms in support of their country of residence has led to the consideration by governments of various political persuasions that the religion is a subversive organization, and sometimes even a threat to national security.

I don't see why they would be a threat to national security since they don't want to be involved in government. If this is the doctrine they believe then they just sit back and do nothing while everyone else is destroyed.

 

PPOR. And in so doing, please prove that not only me, but KK as well, are psychos and my only reason for spending two years in a third world country was so I could tell people when I came back how many people "I" converted when that is something I almost never do and nobody cares about anyways?

To be totally honest I don't care much for what Jehovah's Witnesses preach either. I have had my own bad experiences with their missionaries, to the point where I once told myself I would never let them into my home. Yet because I value free speech and an open marketplace of ideas, I respect their right to do what they do. Arresting someone for spreading ideas, now that's a "scientific" belief!

For somebody that rails so loudly against what he sees as illogical thinking, I find it amusing you have to resort to ad hominum attacks. You have no right to call anyone a terrorist, because labeling all religious people that seek to spread their belief psychotic is the same intolerance that drives Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

PPOR. And in so doing, please prove that not only me, but KK as well, are psychos and my only reason for spending two years in a third world country was so I could tell people when I came back how many people "I" converted when that is something I almost never do and nobody cares about anyways?

When I first read this I thought to myself?while smiling??I can?t possibly prove this without violating the TOS.? Then I read the last bit of your reply and came to a conclusion: That is the very definition of psychotic. Going somewhere to spread your cultural imperialism and having little to no results is psychotic. And I can prove it?s a numbers game easily. If it weren?t a numbers game you wouldn?t need to go to societies ignorant or intolerant of your ways.

To be totally honest I don't care much for what Jehovah's Witnesses preach either. I have had my own bad experiences with their missionaries, to the point where I once told myself I would never let them into my home. Yet because I value free speech and an open marketplace of ideas, I respect their right to do what they do. Arresting someone for spreading ideas, now that's a "scientific" belief!

You seem to have missed this part in your religious type fervor to defend your cultural imperialism. So let?s re-state this one more time and hope it sinks in. Now, read carefully or you may miss it, again.

You: Would you object if scientists who thought the world was catastrophically warming went around and knocked on your door to tell you so?

Me: Yes I would. No matter how well-intentioned anyone that tries to share their view with you while you unwittingly open your door or are approached by them is worthy of contempt. If you have to resort to such tactics your worldview isn't worth listening to.

This isn?t a free speech issue for me like it is for you. See, I don?t care who it is. Just don?t come up to me at a gas station or knock on my door at 8am to ?save? my soul. If I were at all remotely interested in olde tyme myths I?d go for Greek or Roman literature?which in my opinion?is far more interesting than anything a Christian could come up with.

For somebody that rails so loudly against what he sees as illogical thinking, I find it amusing you have to resort to ad hominum attacks. You have no right to call anyone a terrorist, because labeling all religious people that seek to spread their belief psychotic is the same intolerance that drives Islamic Fundamentalists.

Sure I can. See, Islamic fundamentalists want to spread their religion through terrorism or dominance through terrorism. Christian denominations (not all) wish to spread their faith through fear (see: terrorism) that you will go to hell or your soul will not be worthy or anything if you join their cult. So you see, they?re really the same thing with different methods. One spreads their faith with death. The other spreads their faith through fear of death. Therefore they should both be stopped, but the problem is one is more socially acceptable than the other in our society.

 

Editing time wore out but this is supposed to be: that you will go to hell or your soul will not be worthy or anything if you don't join their cult

 

Whilst I probably wouldn't go that far, you've certainly opened an interest avenue of exploration FIDo.

We rarely talk about the violent, negative history of Christianity - some going so far as to deny Hitler was Christian and most of his Nazi hierarchy Catholic - because of the uncomfortable "guilt by association" factor attached.

It's of course ridiculous when you make it so open, but why is it we don't call Christian fundamentalists who murder abortion clinic doctors or bomb abortion clinics terrorists, but Islamic fundamentalists who murder and kill are?

(Vice versa, I suppose, depending on what the predominant faith in your country is).

Is it "othering" - making others so different we can't relate to them? Or is it an issue of comfort, or accruacy, or hypocrisy?

I think Islam and Christianity - two sibling faiths, with lots in common and a fairly decent message - are sullied by such extremists but I wonder if the discomfort many Christians have labelling their co-faith actors as terrorists is the same thing which muzzles the Islamic world on terrorism...

Meditate upon this, I will...

E_S

 

First you critisize missionaries that "go after numbers" and then you critisize them for "having little to no results." Make up your mind. If knocking doors wasn't effective with some people, missionaries wouldn't do it, because they aren't psychotic any more than any other group of people. Again I have to sort of disclaim myself because in my 2 years as a missionary I hated knocking doors and doing most any proselyting before 4 in the afternoon because it wasn't very effective. But just because I was doing things that I thought would actually help people to change their lives doesn't mean I was doing it for another notch on my belt. I know I helped the people I taught not only "not go to hell" as you put it, but change their lives here and now for the better.

Me: Yes I would. No matter how well-intentioned anyone that tries to share their view with you while you unwittingly open your door or are approached by them is worthy of contempt. If you have to resort to such tactics your worldview isn't worth listening to.

If it isn't worth listening to, don't listen to it. No Mormon missionaries knock on your door before 9:30 in the morning. Any tactic that is legal for a business to use should be open to other messages as well. Perhaps you want to ban all forms of door to door solicitation, but to single out religion because you don't like it is intolerant.


The other spreads their faith through fear of death.

So anything that tries to get you to do something out of fear of some future event is terrorism? Jenny Craig, Online Dating, Voting, Eating, Education, Sports, and Rogaine =terrorists!

Therefore they should both be stopped, but the problem is one is more socially acceptable than the other in our society.

You aren't much of a libertarian are you? I don't know how you can seriously equate killing people to spread a certain viewpoint and spreading a viewpoint through non-violent peaceful means. Your desire to forceibly silence 90% of the population because you claim they are psychotic has a lot more in common with terrorists than 90% of Christians.

We don't talk about the negative history of Christianity because those ideals have been thoroughly rejected by Christians. You don't see Christians advocate anything in support of Hitler, nor do you see mainstream Christians defend abortion clinic bombers. Most Christians are very willing and vocal to decry those that do terrorism in the name of Christianity. My problem with Islam is that they do a much worse job of denouncing their extremists than Christians do. I do not deny American Christianity has it's crazies, but 98% of Christians do not agree with Pat Robertson, while in the Muslim world a far larger percentage of the population supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-qaida.

"Guilt by association" is not fair when you blame all Lebanese for Hezbollah, so why would it be fair to condemn Christians because Hitler was a Christian, especially when it was fellow Christians that took him out (and Russia)?

My problem

 

Well, Espalp, as I think I showed with the Danish cartoon incident, when Muslims do decry the violence in their religion, as they did vis-a-vis the reaction to the cartoons, it's almost intentionally unreported.

E_S

 

What I saw from the Danish Cartoons was the fact that they had no problem showing their displeasure and anger at those that would mock and insult their religion. They took to the streets against the Canish cartoon, but when, be it 9/11 or most any other terrorist activity, it is more likely the Arab street will be out there supporting it in a mass demonstration than be out in the street against it. I guess what I saw was that they protested the stupid cartoon depicting Islam as violent more than other Muslims actually using Islam for violence.

Perhaps I don't see it because I don't read enough of the Economist and watch too much CNN, but I would like to know if any Arab countries boycotted extremists with the same vigor they did Danish dairy products.

Back to the point, I can disagree with Islam without resorting to calling it the Church of the Devil. Of course they happen to share FIDo's opinion of Christian missionaries, equating us with those Crusaders, while getting upset about pictures instead of acts, so it is a good thing I think they teach mostly great principles.

I guess a lot of my frustration is that I think even athiest secular humanists should be able to see that in the course of history every large world religion has generally helped the society and people that followed it be better than they would have otherwise been. Sure there have been some black spots, but what organizations that have as lasted as long are spotless? Comparing modern day Christianity to the Crusades isn't like comparing Neo-Nazis to Hitler, it is more like blamming Merkel for the Holocaust.

 

First you critisize missionaries that "go after numbers" and then you critisize them for "having little to no results." Make up your mind. If knocking doors wasn't effective with some people, missionaries wouldn't do it, because they aren't psychotic any more than any other group of people.

I?m not criticizing it for not being effective. I criticize it for being harassment. And it?s not as if you?re consciously ?going after numbers?, but what else is door-to-door spreading of your faith? Oh I know, ?To save their soul and improve their life,? but really having to take a really big dump improves their life more than any religion does; unless you consider having the faith that they can make it to the toilet on time a religion. That may improve their lives as well. Selling your faith door-to-door is no different than trying to get more sales for a product by selling it door-to-door, hence it?s a numbers game.

Again I have to sort of disclaim myself because in my 2 years as a missionary I hated knocking doors and doing most any proselyting before 4 in the afternoon because it wasn't very effective. But just because I was doing things that I thought would actually help people to change their lives doesn't mean I was doing it for another notch on my belt. I know I helped the people I taught not only "not go to hell" as you put it, but change their lives here and now for the better.

As I said before; it?s not a conscious act. But it is to get more followers into your faith and serves no other purpose. Or at least according to me, your church may say something differently while patting you on the back for getting more converts like, ?It?ll help your soul,? if you questioned it or some such. It?s the most convenient of lies to get people to do it.

If it isn't worth listening to, don't listen to it. No Mormon missionaries knock on your door before 9:30 in the morning. Any tactic that is legal for a business to use should be open to other messages as well. Perhaps you want to ban all forms of door to door solicitation, but to single out religion because you don't like it is intolerant.

Yes, I hate those people as well, but as this is a religious thread?you know?keeping on-topic. I could write out whole rants about those people (usually insurance salesmen) but it wouldn?t be on-topic in any way. Except I believe those that do go door-to-door are terrorists in their own right. A subtle form of terrorism, but terrorism no less.

So anything that tries to get you to do something out of fear of some future event is terrorism? Jenny Craig, Online Dating, Voting, Eating, Education, Sports, and Rogaine =terrorists!

Exactly! See, these companies use fear to propagate their message. If you have to use fear to get someone to do something it?s a subtler form of terrorism. Sure, it?s different than blowing up a building of people to get your worldview across, but the effect is just the same: fear. And fear of the future to get you to subscribe to their views/products.


You aren't much of a libertarian are you? I don't know how you can seriously equate killing people to spread a certain viewpoint and spreading a viewpoint through non-violent peaceful means. Your desire to forceibly silence 90% of the population because you claim they are psychotic has a lot more in common with terrorists than 90% of Christians.

Of course I am. I consider door-to-door sales folk to be terrorists invading your home/space with their junk. But no one will stop it unless you make it illegal to do. Otherwise they?d keep going. If I don?t like the government telling me to do I sure as hell don?t like religions doing it?albeit in a nicer vocabulary. And hey, since there?s so many Christians in government supporting Christian causes and such I have even more of a right to complain since they?ve become an arm of the government in their own way. Except Jehovah?s Witnesses. Boy, I?d like for them to witness something?my Louisville Slugger.

We don't talk about the negative history of Christianity becaus

 

If you are going to pull out every historical greivance against Christianity in general and expect modern Christians to take responsibility for that, will you accept responsibility for Stalin's purges? For Mao's slaughter?

The big giveaway of your ignorance is your claim about Christianity "caused some of the most bloody conflicts in history". Care to name those conflicts? Would you care to then demonstrate with historical evidence that it was caused by Christianity itself (i.e. by the doctrines of Christianity), rather than Christianity being an excuse painted over other motivations (such as land, money, power, etc)?

At the same time you talk up the "ugly history", you ignore the good history. Wide distribution of the Bible was the largest motivating factor behind the development of hte printing press (how much good has come out of the scientific advancement alone?). Missionary efforts (among other things) were one of the major selling points for many colonial explorers. You neglect also the many Christians and Christian organizations over the years that have rendered selfless service to others (think Mother Theresa).

Not only that, but some of your points are blown widely out of proportion. For example, the Inquisition. There were actually two Inquisitions, and between them a total of about 2000-3000 people were executed. (One inquisition occurred around AD 1000 while the other is the Spanish one that occured around AD 1400.) While those deaths shouldn't be trivialized, they are hardly staggering numbers.

Over the time period fron about 1430 to 1780, in Europe, there were about 40,000 executions for witchcraft (historians have actually been decreasing the estimate as they find new records or develop better social modelling techniques), most of them by hanging or drowning, not by burning. However, the example that most people use (the Salem Witch Trials) only resulted in 19 executions, all by hanging (no burning at the stake there).

Let's examine your "most bloody conflicts in history" claim again. Do you know what the bloodiest conflicts in history are, and how many people were killed in each? The bloodiest so far was WWII, followed by WWI. In fact, according to many estimates, those two wars on their own killed more people than all of the documented wars from the previous two thousand years put together. Even if you add the wars described in the Old Testament (which you don't seem to be holding against the Jews, only against the Christians), you don't significantly increase the number. Remember, in ancient times, armies were numbered on the scale of hundreds to thousands. Ten thousand soldiers was considered huge. The US Civil War dealt with armies (plural) on the scale of hundreds of thousands. Today, many nations have armies with around one million (or more) people.

Were WWI, WWII, the Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, or most of the other wars of the past 200 years caused by Christianity? Those are the bloodiest wars in history.

Yes, there were an estimated 9 million* deaths due to the Crusades (about half of those deaths were Christians), but Christians didn't start all of the Crusades. Several of them (especially the eraly ones) were started by the Turks launching invasions and the Pope (who happened to command a decent sized army) being asked for aid. To bolster his forces, the Pope often asked other European rulers for additional forces. Go read the history of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades and you can see that exact pattern in action. When you consider that the estimated 9 million d

 

I'll get back to you.

 

If FID doesn't mind...

French Wars of Religion (the title does give it away) and the Serb-Bosnian War are good examples of wars fought purely for religious doctrinal reasons. Both were very bloody (but bloody to me means barbarity in war and not just the number of guys lying in a field).

To paint over the religious dimension of past wars with something else is erroneous as well as revisionist. It is either applying a modern perspective influenced by separation of church and state, literacy and a world in which technological advances have decreased the knowledge gap between the top and bottom levels of society, or it's an attempt to whitewash history by claiming that these weren't 'real' Christians and that there must have been some other motivation. Neither of these perspectives are manifested in contemporary commentatory.

So your arguments don't really take into account the effect of the religious belief on the everyday workings of daily life in the past, and ignore the influence that the institutions of the Church have brought to bear on social and political developments: an influence leading from the explicit endorsement of causes on religious grounds to the strengthening of conviction in battlefield rituals by imbuing soldiers with the blessing of god.

Moreover, whilst you might be able to paint over the religious undertones of some of the Crusades' instigators with accusations of greed, you still don't adequately explain how men in their thousands marched across half the known world to fight a foe very few had even seen.

You can find good in any group's history so it's hardly a convincing counterpoint to the 'bad'. Scandinavians who participated in viking raids were still great explorers and traders in their downtime, connecting cultures and their goods with others that they would never have otherwise encountered on their own.

The numbers may not seem staggering to us now, since we live in a world where that number barely makes a dent in the population of a small country. But just how many need to die before it becomes 'bad' enough? You must put such numbers into their proper historical context as well.

What's more, you're factually incorrect regarding the number of Inquisitions. There was the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s), the Papal Inquisition (1230s) prior to the Spanish one, that you neglect to point out extended to Mexico and South America and lasted into the 17th century (and beyond under smaller guises). Then further inquisitions were set up in Portugal in 1536 and Italy with the Roman Inquisition in 1542 that were indicative of the counter-reformation and the counter to science.

Furthermore, your estimate

 

So, when the facts don't fit, you redefine the terminology so that it does? For most people, "bloody" when applied to wars refers to the number of casualties (i.e. the amount of blood spilt), not the proportion of casualties.

Why they marched to war has nothing to do with what FID said:

He accused Christianity of causing the crusades, something that is historically wrong. The first crusade was caused by the Turks when they invaded the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Alexis I then turned to the Pope for military aid, and the Pope used his influence to raise an army.

You mention two wars, the French Wars of Religion and the Serb-Bosnian War, but you do not prove what FID claimed that Christianity caused them. Remember, his claim wasn't the usual atheist's claim that "religion is the cause of most wars". He specifically laid claim for "caus[ing] some of the most bloody conflicts in history" at Christianity's feet, not at the feet of religion in general.

You could use the Iran-Iraq war as another example of a religious war, but that would do nothing to prove FID's point that Christianity caused it.

My point is that FID is basing his arguments on false stereotypes and inaccurate information. Essentially, he has taken to repeating distored propaganda instead of basing his beliefs on accurate data. If he is basing his views on that set of distorted data, then what other propaganda has he unquestioningly accepted?

Actually, they are all (with the excpetion of the Civil War) wars involving multinational forces. WWI and WWII was global in scale (hence their names). Korea was a UN peacekeeping mission. Vietname also included China, Australia, and New Zealand (among others).

Additionally, as FID and I are both Americans, it's perfectly valid for me to point out some of the bloodiest wars th

 

i'm not a historian. i've been reading this with some interest here, because i hope i can learn something.

The first crusade was caused by the Turks when they invaded the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Alexis I then turned to the Pope for military aid, and the Pope used his influence to raise an army.

this might prove your point about the christians not directly causing the crusades, but seriously, without people having to fight a supposed enemy (muslims or something) and having to fulfill that ego need, would there have been any war at all?

going by the christian compassion, i have virtually nothing to say to someone to defends christianity on the grounds that the pope only raised an army only after the turks attacked. what kind of defense is that?

what kind of business does the pope have with turks elsewhere in his peaceful reign? how was he justified in his doing?

not at all. (except if he was self-righteously believing that it is indeed the task of the christians to fight muslims, which i have never believed for a second, and which makes absolutely no sense with christ)

 

Man is an ambitious creature. He is driven by the need to have more, whether that be knowledge and information, material goods, emotional relationships etc...

It is man that has used religion as an excuse to gain more. Ambitious politicians within society including the "Christian" church used their belief system and the faith of the masses to further their ambitions of power, wealth and influence. The "christian" doctrine has, in the past, been used to further individual's and groups thirst for more (in whaterver guise).

The masses, like most "herd" creatures look for and respond to strong leadership - whether that be political, religious or as in the past political AND religious.

Historically, there is no denying that religious leaders in the West i.e. the Christian Church used this to their advantage to gain more. There is no denying that those who got in the way or questioned the Church were labelled as heretics and in most cases destroyed. Conveniently, Christianity is a "supernatiural" relgion. The political and religious leaders have used this to great effect on their opponents.

To blindly follow doctrine, like the masses in the past did, or adhere to the rules without questionning them leaves the leadership to do whatever they may. Throughout history we have seen those who do ask the questions and stand up to the establishment - at times, they have persihed or been punished. At other times they have challenged the "herd" to follow them resluting in a shift in the balance of power. This has caused bloodshed because the establishment was unwilling to loosen the strings of power but the pretenders to the throne were pushing the boundaries and "enlightening" the ignorant herd. This has led to a gradual (over centuries) change in policy from the established religious and political leaders.

To blame today's "Christians" on blood spilled in the past is ridiculous. Are today's "Christians" as ignorant as the masses were in the past? Many are - because they are unwilling to move beyond what they are told is the correct path. Many are not and wouldn't blindy follow a Pope or King into war.

To hold today's "Christianity" responsible for the terrors of the past that involved past "Christians" as key players is the same as blaming today's Americans for the disgusting inhumane treatment of the Native American tribes in the 19th century; or today's Britons for Empire building last century; Or the people of Germany for the Holocaust.

Today, we (the herd) have the ability to ask questions of our leaders. We've always had the ability but we have lacked the social and cultual conditions to do so. If we were indeed created by a divine power then we were given a brain capable of asking questions and seeking truth. It is those who do not use this gift but make excuses or blindly follow their version of events or doctrine that do this "creator" an injustice. It is these people that still have the mentality of those who followed their leaders to war or excectued those who were different or shouted down those who asked questions.

Relgion has been and still is used as an excuse to commit crimes against our fellow man. It will continue to do so until the "herd" fully turns away from blind faith and is willing to recognise that history, society and belief are not black and white but consist of degrees of shades of grey - many of which are compatible with each other.

 

Your argument ignores one critical thing.

Your reasoning is akin to saying that the US had no business going to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq invaded in 1990. Except that Kuwait was one of our allies, and they asked for our aid.

In the same way, Alexis I asked the Pope for aid in repelling an invasion. The Byzantine Empire was a political ally of the Roman Church, which gave the Church all of the reason it needed to get involved. (Remember, even today, the Church is still a political entity in addition to a religious one. The Pope is the Chief of State for the independent nation of Vatican City.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

well, i have my own problems with the US rushing into wars because they get asked.

that aside: christianity isn't a political movement for me, so they *have* no business going to war. they make it political, they make it about territory, they make it about the number of converts and whatever else.

christianity to me, when it becomes about that, nullifies itself.

if your faith and turning the other cheek and all that, really means something to you, why go to war?

by that reasoning i find that the motivations for the crusades alone cannot be faith, but a need for dominance over others which isn't what faith is about.

so, i cannot very well blame a true believer for past atrocities much like i cannot blame myself for nazi crimes, but i can recognize the exact same pattern behind these actions. and i can recognize that true faith doesn't automatically lead to war.

if i can recognize my own divinity and my own self as divine (i'm getting there ) why does this exclude others from feeling that as well, under another label? and why does it seem to be so hard to allow others for paths their cultures have laid out for them, which lead to the exact same thing that christ provided for us? that's the stuff that doesn't get into my head, i'm afraid.

the tolerance and undying love for people that i reckon christians ought to practise, even if we are limited and horribly incomplete, just doesn't seriously show when they go to war because they get asked.

sorry.

i'm still wondering why it seems such a huge leap to say, er, no, sorry, but we are not about that, we refuse to participate.

 

Here's the thing, you are not differentiating between the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. There is a big difference.

The Roman Catholic Church is both a religious entity and a political one. The Pope wears many hats (figuratively), and one of them is as the Head of State of a nation. During the time of the crusades, it wasn't quite as clear cut as it is today (Vatican City was made into an independent nation in 1920, but there were similar arrangements going back hundreds, if not thousands, of years), but the Pope still acted as both a political and as a religious leader.

However, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same thing as Christianity as a whole. I'm not saying that Catholics aren't Christians, but that not all Christians are Catholics, not even during the crusades. There were still the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Coptics, both independent from the Catholics at the same time period.

Christianity itself wasn't a political movement at that time (nor is it today). Individual churches or denominations may weild a certain amount of political power (at times greater than others), but that doesn't mean that all of Christianity is or was a political movement. There is a significant difference between an individual church and Christianity in general.

Honestly, most of the time when people start talking about how "Christianity is responsible for x, y, and z" from a historical perspective, what they should be saying is "The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for x, y, and z", because it was the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that had power in western Europe (which is where most people tend to focus for their criticism).

I'm not trying to bash on the Roman Catholic Church here. I am simply pointing out that virtually every one of the complaints about Christianity as a whole derives from the actions of that one Church (and in some cases, from actions that carried over into a few groups that broke off from that church). Look back at FID's list of complaints about Christianity (which covers all of the usual complaints), and almost every single one of them derives from the actions of only one branch of Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church.

But, most of that is really off-topic for proving my point that blaming Christianity for the crusades is akin to blaming the US for the Gulf War, because we were asked to give aid to an ally that was invaded. Shouldn't blame for causing such an incident lie with the party that actually initiated the actions?

Because you can't just sum up the beliefs of Christianity on any topic into a single catch phrase. For example, within the Catholic Church, there is a whole host of writings on the concept of a "just war", primarily because it isn't as cut-and-dried as "turning the other cheek".

As an example, within my own church (I'm LDS, also a Christian denomination), there is a scripture (from the Book of Mormon) demonstrating times when it is appropriate to fight, as opposed to "turning the other cheek". It's often referred to as the "Title of Liberty" (the name given to the banner it was written upon in the Book of Mormon).

Within the Book of Mormon, Captain Moroni raised the Title of Liberty as another nation was moving to invade and force all of his people into slavery, in large part over their religious beliefs.

Essentially, my point is that it's not as cler-cut as you want to make it out. Christianity doesn't have to conform to what you think it should, a

 

I'm hardly redefining terminology, the bloodiest war isn't set by any strict measure of quantification as defined by a dictionary, and 'most people' would likely give different wars as it essentially boils down to opinion, and what they are aware of at the time. Personally, if the defining criteria for the bloodiest war is a figure, then past conflicts are supplanted for no other reason than more people participate in the new ones. And I find that demeans earlier wars too much.

Ignoring the context of past casualty figures is like using numbers from a untitled table - it's meaningless. You wouldn't use BO gross from Gone with the Wind and something like Universal Soldier in an argument that claims the latter to have made more money. So don't do it here.

You forget that comment was tied into what you said... that Christianity played no part in wars, and that it was rather the painted excuse. My counterpoint to that is to ask for an explanation of why ordinary men marched so many miles to fight the saracens.

You're also being quite selective in your historical choice of evidence. FID mentions the Crusades, not just the First Crusade. And what's more, you fail to take into account that the First Crusaders went not just to Byzantium (who for many was not their ally at all), but ended up in the Holy Land and there sacked Jerusalem and took up residence there. The US-led force that aided Kuwait didn't get bored and go off to Iran instead, so it's a flawed analogy.
Furthermore, you're ignoring the social context. The Pope didn't just use his political power to pressure Christians from Europe to go to war, he did so applying scriptural encouragement. Later, the Popes would advocate that killing infidels would forgive one's sins.

And that doesn't even touch upon the numerous crusades that had no Islamic invasion to use as a pretext.

I'm sorry how did Christianity not cause those two wars? I thought the title of the former would clue you in - are you aware of these conflicts? You challenged FID to back up his claims, and I helped him by naming two particularly bloody wars caused by, or as a result of, Christian doctrine.
And your mention of the Iran-Iraq war is but an obtuse example to fudge over the mention of these above Christian wars - I'll emphasises again that they are not just religious wars, but cleanly Christian ones with little blurring by other factors.