Black Orchid
Death Incarnate
Once I saw the title to the thread, I was like, "Oh no, it's going to be another one of those 'Imperials vs Stormcloaks' debates..." (eek face says run like hell)
*smells zealotry *
Actually, he didn't want a different way, he wanted the Father's way. He posed his will, but accepted the inevitability of the Creator's plan.Didn't Jesus also say "the father and I are one?" I always thought it was strange though that Jesus knew he was the all father but still asked the all father to find another way.
I don't know why you would single out Muslims and associate them with the Thalmor either. Islam no more considers it blasphemy to worship Christ than the Catholic Church considers it blasphemy and heresy to worship any other god than the Christian god. Catholicism and Christianity has a far more entrenched history of intolerance, persecution and violence than Islam even to the point of persecuting different factions of Christianity. I also don't know where you got you're distorted view of history about the Crusades but the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors and invaders against long held Muslim territories which had previously co-existed peacefully with their Christian neighbors before there were several changes in power among the Christian nations in Europe. The Crusaders also massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews in a campaign of antisemitism, bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They had far more in common with the Thalmor that the Muslims did.
Those lands didn't belong to the Byzantine Empire anymore than they did to the subsequent Muslim conquerors. Most of the territory of the preceding Roman Empire was acquired by conquest as well. The areas held by it and its successor Byzantine Empire which the Muslims conquered were held for only a little over a century longer than the Sultanates approximate four century reign over the same territory up until the time of the First Crusade. With the exception of Gaul (Spain), none of the land was in Europe and most of it was in Asia Minor. Gaul was taken from its Muslim rulers by the Reconquista, not the Crusades.
The Crusades were a series of invasions into Asia Minor long after the Byzantine Empire lost the territories to the Muslims ending over four centuries of peace, trade and commerce between the Sultanate and the Empire . Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the Crusades as anything but a campaign of conquest and religious intolerance is nothing more than fabrication.
Anton Volkihar said: ↑
radical muslims mirror the thalmor greatly in skyrim from their theology and philosophy to their tactics in taking the empireThe Arab Muslims that ruled over Asia Minor at the time weren't radical Muslims. Much of the time the area was ruled with great tolerance (certainly greater tolerance than the Christians behind the Crusades). Christians were allowed to conduct pilgrimages to various holy sites and live and openly worship within the Sultanate. It a was a time of peace and a time marked by tolerance by the Sultanate of its Christian neighbors and subjects which is why any comparison between the Muslims of the Sultanate and the Aldmeri Dominion are completely inappropriate while comparisons between the Crusaders and the Thalmor are far more on point.
Didn't Jesus also say "the father and I are one?" I always thought it was strange though that Jesus knew he was the all father but still asked the all father to find another way.
The Crusades were a series of invasions into Asia Minor long after the Byzantine Empire lost the territories to the Muslims ending over four centuries of peace, trade and commerce between the Sultanate and the Empire . Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the Crusades as anything but a campaign of conquest and religious intolerance is nothing more than fabrication.
In August 1071, the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenese led out a powerful army in an attempt to roll back Seljuk Turkish incursions into the Anatolian heartland of the Empire. Outmaneuvered by the Turkish sultan, Alp Arslan, Romanus was forced to give battle with only half his troops near Manzikert. By the end of that fateful day much of the Byzantine army was dead, the rest scattered in flight and the Emperor himself a captive. As a result, the Anatolian heart was torn out of the empire and it was critically weakened, while Turkish power expanded rapidly, eventually leading to Byzantine appeals for help from the west.
I disagree with you here. Sure the Muslims were kind and tolerant towards the beginning *with Christians and Jews* but toward the Umayyad Dynasty, plenty of intolerence sparked not only with "The people of the book" but with recent converts to Islam as well.No, just no.
Apotheosis is common to many myths. The apotheosis of Heracles, for example, long predates that of Jesus Christ. Jesus was a pacifist while Talos waged countless wars to unify Tamriel under the Third Empire. They're about as far apart from each other as one could get in terms of subject figures of apotheosis.
I don't know why you would single out Muslims and associate them with the Thalmor either. Islam no more considers it blasphemy to worship Christ than the Catholic Church considers it blasphemy and heresy to worship any other god than the Christian god. Catholicism and Christianity has a far more entrenched history of intolerance, persecution and violence than Islam even to the point of persecuting different factions of Christianity. I also don't know where you got you're distorted view of history about the Crusades but the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors and invaders against long held Muslim territories which had previously co-existed peacefully with their Christian neighbors before there were several changes in power among the Christian nations in Europe. The Crusaders also massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews in a campaign of antisemitism, bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They had far more in common with the Thalmor that the Muslims did.
No, just no.
Apotheosis is common to many myths. The apotheosis of Heracles, for example, long predates that of Jesus Christ. Jesus was a pacifist while Talos waged countless wars to unify Tamriel under the Third Empire. They're about as far apart from each other as one could get in terms of subject figures of apotheosis.
I don't know why you would single out Muslims and associate them with the Thalmor either. Islam no more considers it blasphemy to worship Christ than the Catholic Church considers it blasphemy and heresy to worship any other god than the Christian god. Catholicism and Christianity has a far more entrenched history of intolerance, persecution and violence than Islam even to the point of persecuting different factions of Christianity. I also don't know where you got you're distorted view of history about the Crusades but the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors and invaders against long held Muslim territories which had previously co-existed peacefully with their Christian neighbors before there were several changes in power among the Christian nations in Europe. The Crusaders also massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews in a campaign of antisemitism, bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They had far more in common with the Thalmor that the Muslims did.
No, you're wrong on this one, our Savior was GOD in the flesh, the scriptures give reference after reference to this, as its written "And the word became flesh" "He dwelled in the world which He Himself had formed yet the world knew Him not" i could literally post hundreds of these references but i won't. The most basic example of this is understanding what the name "Jesus" actually means, in Hebrew its pronounced "Emmanuel" and in Hebrew it literally means "GOD with us". There are many religions which believe what you're saying but they're far from biblical and consist mostly of traditions and i don't know about you but i prefer to listen to what the actual scriptures teach, not man.I don't know if this has been said yet, but as far as I know. Jesus didn't become God. God and Jesus are two separate entities. You do realize that you just insulted two major religions at the same time don't you?
I'm not gonna argue this with you btw nor will i respond to anything on this thread as its wayyyy too heated, i was just letting you know.. if you don't believe me look it up yourself.
I don't know why you would single out Muslims and associate them with the Thalmor either. Islam no more considers it blasphemy to worship Christ than the Catholic Church considers it blasphemy and heresy to worship any other god than the Christian god. Catholicism and Christianity has a far more entrenched history of intolerance, persecution and violence than Islam even to the point of persecuting different factions of Christianity. I also don't know where you got you're distorted view of history about the Crusades but the Christian Crusaders were the aggressors and invaders against long held Muslim territories which had previously co-existed peacefully with their Christian neighbors before there were several changes in power among the Christian nations in Europe. The Crusaders also massacred thousands upon thousands of Jews in a campaign of antisemitism, bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They had far more in common with the Thalmor that the Muslims did.
Those lands didn't belong to the Byzantine Empire anymore than they did to the subsequent Muslim conquerors. Most of the territory of the preceding Roman Empire was acquired by conquest as well. The areas held by it and its successor Byzantine Empire which the Muslims conquered were held for only a little over a century longer than the Sultanates approximate four century reign over the same territory up until the time of the First Crusade. With the exception of Gaul (Spain), none of the land was in Europe and most of it was in Asia Minor. Gaul was taken from its Muslim rulers by the Reconquista, not the Crusades.
The Crusades were a series of invasions into Asia Minor long after the Byzantine Empire lost the territories to the Muslims ending over four centuries of peace, trade and commerce between the Sultanate and the Empire . Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the Crusades as anything but a campaign of conquest and religious intolerance is nothing more than fabrication.
Anton Volkihar said: ↑
radical muslims mirror the thalmor greatly in skyrim from their theology and philosophy to their tactics in taking the empireThe Arab Muslims that ruled over Asia Minor at the time weren't radical Muslims. Much of the time the area was ruled with great tolerance (certainly greater tolerance than the Christians behind the Crusades). Christians were allowed to conduct pilgrimages to various holy sites and live and openly worship within the Sultanate. It a was a time of peace and a time marked by tolerance by the Sultanate of its Christian neighbors and subjects which is why any comparison between the Muslims of the Sultanate and the Aldmeri Dominion are completely inappropriate while comparisons between the Crusaders and the Thalmor are far more on point.
Oh... boy. Should I? Should I go there... yeah let's go there.
Ok, first of all, you're giving waayyyy TOO MUCH credit to the Muslims, every bit of this is very PC.
When Constantinople fell, the Greeks were ENSLAVED for 500 years. Christians could not walk on the same side of the street as Muslims, Christians were pressed into front-line Military Service, Christians had to pay the Jiza? tax, if a Turk male wished to marry a Greek woman, he ORDERED HER FAMILY to make it happen. They had no say in it. She was forced to convert to Islam and her children were Islamic, just like let's say if you were a slave and had children then they would remain slaves under Islamic law.
I have had several Greek friends in the past and I've heard the horror stories. Also, the Turks did CRACK DOWN on Orthodoxy, they tried several times to purge it from their new Empire, out of Istanbul. Greeks had to worship "in the cellar" or "in the mountains" for fear of what the Turks might do if they were caught. The Greeks(Any Non-Muslim) also had to pay a special tax - Just for not being Muslims, refusing to convert.
Greek cities/settlements in North Africa/Anatloia were repeatedly and under-handedly invaded/conquered by the Muslims in any way possible. The Muslims made it their mission to conquer the Christian world, because that is what the Koran instructs them to do. Just like, "Don't make Christians and Jews your friends". That's straight out of their holy book.
Not to mention all the people the Muslims PUT TO THE SWORD because they refused to convert ie... Persia II, Jews, Greeks, Aremenians.
The Byzantine Empire served to protect Europe from these locusts. They whittled them down little by little. Eventually, the Turks conquered most of Anatolia and Christians now found themselves traveling thru, "Muslim Lands". So, then the Turks started harassing them. Some were thrown into dens of ravenous wolves, others had their daughters and wives taken and sold as slaves. Some the Turks just killed, murdered them. Not to mention the oppression the Christians in their conquered cities were having to endure from the Turks.
Then The Byzantine Empire cried out for help from the west, which was too busy fighting over trade routes and land to give a damn otherwise. So the pope intervened and the Crusades began against primarily THE TURKS, who started this by murdering/raping Christian civilians. Several Jewish cities had their males executed in front of their families by Muhammad's thugs because these cities had good agriculture and the Muslims wanted it for themselves. This is just ONE time this happened. The women were CLAIMED as SLAVES, same methodology was utilized when the Turks made their way to the Hagia Sophia. There was no MERCY, no uhh REASONING. The Muslims were doing what their prophet had instructed them to do. The Turks burst opened the doors to the Hagia Sophia gunned-down, butchered the Christians who were praying inside, seeking shelter. A few they left to be enslaved, but they killed many in their rage.
During the "Armenian Genocide" ARMENIANS, GREEKS AND SYRIANS who had lived in ANATOLIA for thousands? of years were forced to leave their ANCESTRAL HOMES. By the Muslim radical sect of the then Turkish Gov't. They did this because these people were not 'Muslims'. Non-Muslims are considered "pigs" to them in the very same way jews look down upon "gentiles". So the never mind the Eastern Roman Empire (which was ruled by the Greeks), Greeks and many others had been living in Anatolia for A VERY LONG TIME before the Muslims/Turks showed up. And to say something like, "Those lands didn't belong to the Byzantine Empire anymore than they did to the subsequent Muslim conquerors" shows you have NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The simple fact is the Greeks thought of themselves as ROMANS, not the Hellenic Greek City States you read about in school history books. Seeing how almost everyone was Christian or Hellenized, the Eastern Roman Empire was a big deal for them. Rome conquered the lands organized by Alexander the Great's Generals, the Seleucids some call them although they go by other names as well. So, for hundreds of years the people in ANATOLIA (Modern day Turkey), PARTHIA, LEBANON, EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA were all Hellenized and many were Christian before the Muslims invaded.
The Muslims FORCED these people including PERSIA II which had fallen beforehand, to convert to Islam. The Islamic Caliphate would sometimes give people a choice, or else the people's conversion was decided by the sword. But either way ~ By choosing to NOT Convert to Islam, the conquered people's lives were HELL. The Muslims even went so far as to try and "Destroy the Pyramids", but were only able to permanently scar one side of a Pyramid in Egypt.
@Volkihar
Don't worry dude, I don't think you're wrong. Dagmar does this sort of stuff all the time and everyone just folds and nobody ever questions it... except me She has this way of making you look stupid but that's a tactic. Kinda like how a scorpion stings you, you get the sting and the venom. I guess I've been uhh bit, slashed, ripped open and stung so many times I've grown virtually immune.
She acts like, "Oh well the Eastern Empire just rode in there and conquered those poor people and uhh" The FACTS in history speak otherwise. The Greeks esp liked being part of the Empire. There were TWO CIVS who didn't ~ Israel and the Persians. These two fought Hellenism profusely and violently. Not the case in most "Provinces" however AND the Jews, like many other cities opened their gates to Rome in the beginning. The Kingdom of Illyria was left willed to Rome among a few others.
The history of the Med is DEEP STUFF and as many Civs wanted to be a part of the Roman Empire as those who didn't. Imperialism was NOT universally resisted. And Islam CONQUERED Free Nations BY FORCE *BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-MUSLIM*. Christian or otherwise. Dagmar sounds like an Islamic apologist, just like Obama and the US Gov. Well, I think there's been enough apologizing. Did the Muslims ever apologize to the infidels they conquered?
Furthermore, about Christ (and I am a non-Denom Christian) I think of Jebus as being more like MARTIN. Not Talos. Marton or Pelinal. Someone who fought HARD and gave their lives so that men and even mer, might be saved and pardoned from their due fate.
Didn't Jesus also say "the father and I are one?" I always thought it was strange though that Jesus knew he was the all father but still asked the all father to find another way.
Jebus was someone who was close to God, he is referenced as being 'the word' at the time of creation in the book of Genesis. Jebus was the son of God, because he knew God, loved God and was willing to follow God without reservation, like Isaac was to be sacrificed by his father and Isaac still obeyed Abraham. Because of this strong bond, Jebus is the same as God himself, however even he understands the will of the father comes before ANYTHING ELSE he might want or think. That's one of several reasons why Jebus was sent to us... he follows God out of love and reverence ~ even to a horrible, bloody, nasty death being crucified as a mortal, innocent man on a cross. He knew the will of the father thru the spirit and did not rely on rigid, sophisticated religious practices to 'convince' people he was something special. Because Jebus conquered DEATH and the power Satan holds over us in this world by rising from his grave and ascending OF HIS OWN FREE-WILL, Jebus took the keys to the salvation of our souls from being accountable unto sin before God. If one man can break the world thru sinning against God then...
The Crusades were a series of invasions into Asia Minor long after the Byzantine Empire lost the territories to the Muslims ending over four centuries of peace, trade and commerce between the Sultanate and the Empire . Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the Crusades as anything but a campaign of conquest and religious intolerance is nothing more than fabrication.
Dagmar ~ are you really a Stormcloak perhaps? Because only Stormcloaks show such disregard for the Timeline in Elder so... This is wrong, just wrong. The first Crusade began (1096) BECAUSE THE BYZ EMPIRE was losing Anataloia to the Muslims Turks from the disaster which befell them at Manzikert (1071). This is a difference of 25 yrs (1096)-(1071) = 25. These were not lands "long held by Muslims". The Crusades were Europe's last stand against an in-human Muslim Caliphate bent on conquering everyone out of an unquenchable Religious fervor.
In August 1071, the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenese led out a powerful army in an attempt to roll back Seljuk Turkish incursions into the Anatolian heartland of the Empire. Outmaneuvered by the Turkish sultan, Alp Arslan, Romanus was forced to give battle with only half his troops near Manzikert. By the end of that fateful day much of the Byzantine army was dead, the rest scattered in flight and the Emperor himself a captive. As a result, the Anatolian heart was torn out of the empire and it was critically weakened, while Turkish power expanded rapidly, eventually leading to Byzantine appeals for help from the west.
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Manzikert-Byzantine-Islamic-527-1071/dp/1848842155
So once again Dagmar, you are NOT REPRESENTING THE FACTS, you're trying to summarize everything to justify some means of, maliciously defeating your opponents entire argument by NOT STATING THE FACTS just summarizing events into counter points irregardless of date/culture/context...
Stormcloaks did this sort of thing all the time when I was fighting against them. Context is very important, it's perhaps even more important than what actually happened.
What's more important, that something happened, or why it happened in the first place?