Pope Francis makes 800 new saints in one day

  • Thread starter Thread starter Logikon
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 30
  • Views Views 5K
Logikon

Logikon

Esteemed Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Religion
Other
I'm sure I would do the same if a non-Muslim with an axe tried to make me convert to a different religion.
 
Logikon said:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...o-a-diplomatic-headache-for-pope-francis?lite


http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-names-800-saints-one-235904106.html


.....most of the 800 new saints are 15th-century martyrs......

Benedict XVI's unfinished business put the new pontiff in a delicate position. The 813 "Martyrs of Otranto" were beheaded by Ottoman soldiers for refusing to convert to Islam.


They did not give up their faith. God must be pleased with them.
Click to expand...

That story is a fake and refuted by historians... and in fact not in concert with Islamic nature, let's face it, up to the 21s C. christians were practicing genocide just look at Rawanda and the halocaust before that while in the 1100's Salahdin captured Jerusalem giving full rights and showing mercy to the Jews & christians.
The problem with you folks is you know nothing of history so you make it up and others jump on the bandwagon because you quote yahoo without investigating historical accuracy!
 
العنود;1584934 said:
That story is a fake and refuted by historians...
Click to expand...
'Disputed' yes, 'refuted' no. It may have been less than 800 in this final stand. However, it excludes the estimated 12,000 people mostly civilians who had already been slaughtered in the city and the 5,000 survivors sold into slavery.

العنود;1584934 said:
not in concert with Islamic nature,
Click to expand...
Both Christians and Muslims don't always live up to the ideals of their religions.

العنود;1584934 said:
in the 1100's Salahdin captured Jerusalem giving full rights and showing mercy to the Jews & christians.
Click to expand...
It is now known that Salahdin himself wanted to storm the city and put the inhabitants to the sword (according to the rules of war at that time, just as the Crusaders had done). But the Christian defenders threatened to kill Muslim captives and destroy the city if they weren't granted safe passage. Salahdin's advisers persuaded him to agree to clemency - and so was born a powerful legend. Salahdin was undoubtedly a noble man by the standards of his time but he isn't the man of legend either.

One man who certainly showed the utmost brutality in completing the job that Salahdin could not was Sultan Baibars of Egypt. In the siege of Antioch he promised clemency to the defenders if they surrendered. He broke his promise, massacred the soldiers and sold everyone else into slavery. A tactic he repeated at a number of other cities. He boasts about this in his own words, sent to the absent Christian governor of Antioch, gloating about his success:

'Death came among the besieged from all sides and by all roads: we killed all that thou hadst appointed to guard the city or defend its approaches. If thou hadst seen thy knights trampled under the feet of the horses, thy provinces given up to pillage, thy riches distributed by measures full, the wives of thy subjects put to public sale; if thou hadst seen the pulpits and crosses overturned, the leaves of the Gospel torn and cast to the winds, and the sepulchres of thy patriarchs profaned; if thou hadst seen thy enemies, the Mussulmans trampling upon the tabernacle, and immolating in the sanctuary, monk, priest and deacon; in short, if thou hadst seen thy palaces given up to the flames, the dead devoured by the fire of this world, the Church of St Paul and that of St Peter completely and entirely destroyed, certes, thou wouldst have cried out "Would to Heaven that I were become dust!" '.

العنود;1584934 said:
The problem with you folks is you know nothing of history
Click to expand...
You know the bits that suit you, and nothing else.
 
Greetings,

Independent said:
One man who certainly showed the utmost brutality in completing the job that Salahdin could not was Sultan Baibars of Egypt
Click to expand...
Was this account something taken from wikipedia? It is certainly no secret, as I've mentioned before on the forum, that Muslims have been at the centre of a campaign of slander and propaganda, being depicted as barbaric and inferior. That is why it is all the more important to verify the sources being used, and I doubt wikipedia is a very accurate or reliable one for this purpose. It is interesting that the Crusades have been mentioned, because that was a prime example of how a distorted, negative image of the Muslim foe was built so as to help accomplish the objectives pursued by the Christian West.
 
It isn't worthy to dignify made up history, those who lie in part lie in sum per his own admission (although not in so many words). They can rewrite history any which way they want.
What is most amusing here is that he proclaims that I am selective about the history to which I subscribe, I'd say even if it were true it is better still than a plagiarizer whose knowledge of any topic is an instant google search which isn't properly sourced!

:w:
 
Muhammad said:
Was this account something taken from wikipedia?
Click to expand...
The Baibars quote is on wiki, the general account of his brutal methods is common to every book I've read on the subject - I don't know if any historians have tried to rehabilitate him. Baibars was hugely effective as a military leader. It was he, not Salahdin, who ended Outremer forever.

The account of Salahdin's takeover of Jerusalem is a recent discovery from Muslim sources. I'm presently out of the country so I can't give you a better reference right now.
 
Independent said:
The Baibars quote is on wiki, the general account of his brutal methods is common to every book I've read on the subject
Click to expand...
It is not surprising, considering the fact that the Turks were viewed throughout the centuries as cruel oppressors, barbarians and being hostile to learning and science. Chroniclers and European 'humanists' dwelt on Turkish atrocities and accepted whatever sensational reports of violence and savagery came their way. Their successes caused an outburst of emotions and their threat to Christian civilisation was vividly portrayed to obtain much needed assistance against them. Even on wikipedia:

Sultan Baibars was reviled in the Christian world of the time for his seemingly unending victorious campaigns. A Templar knight who fought in the Seventh Crusade lamented:
Rage and sorrow are seated in my heart...so firmly that I scarce dare to stay alive. It seems that God wishes to support the Turks to our loss...ah, lord God...alas, the realm of the East has lost so much that it will never be able to rise up again. They will make a Mosque of Holy Mary's convent, and since the theft pleases her Son, who should weep at this, we are forced to comply as well...Anyone who wishes to fight the Turks is mad, for Jesus Christ does not fight them any more. They have conquered, they will conquer. For every day they drive us down, knowing that God, who was awake, sleeps now, and Muhammad waxes powerful.[SUP][23][/SUP]​
Click to expand...
 
Muhammad said:
It is not surprising, considering the fact that the Turks were viewed throughout the centuries as cruel oppressors, barbarians and being hostile to learning and science.
Click to expand...
In fairness, this is hardly exclusive to Christians - everyone tends to exaggerate the wickedness of their enemies. Which is what makes some of those postwar unions between, say a Japanese and a British WW2 soldier, quite moving - as they discover they are all just humans after all.

The quote I gave about Baibars is contemporary and from his own secretary and chronicler, who was of course a Muslim and about as far as you could get from being a critic. Amazing as it may seem today, he wrote that bloodthirsty account because he thought it placed his master in a good light. When you place it in parallel with some of the accounts of the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders it is hard to tell the difference.

It's one of the things that makes looking at the past difficult - our morality, our standards have changed enormously. 'Might' was 'right' - ie if you were strong enough to conquer your enemy, that made it right.
 
Independent said:
Definitely in one direction - the Nazis invented a threat from the Jews.

The Holocaust wasn't a war, it was just an execution of prisoners.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you have addressed my question. I will rephrase my question.

You said before everyone exaggerates the wickedness of their enemies. We have many mass killings in the past like the Holocaust, Mai Lai massacre, Bosnia massacres, Armenian Genocide and so on. Now I'm referring to a very specific relationship between the Jews and Nazis in Germany.

Now I'm saying do you think the Jews may have exaggerated their mistreatment from the Nazis? Is this possible? I'm really eager to hear your response. A yes or no response will suffice.
 
Big deal. Does it matter whether the incident actually happened or not?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top