Were Christians in the Middle Ages more fanatic and brutal than Muslims?

nice protestant propaganda you got there

>Were Christians in the Middle Ages more fanatic and brutal than Muslims?

They're all savages...

youtube.com/watch?v=R2HDbeGHsWg

The entire “Reformation” only happened because some Christians wanted to get into the usury business without becoming Jews.

>Were Christians in the Middle Ages more fanatic and brutal than Muslims?

What's important is putting it in context; back then, everybody was brutal but nowadays, the Muslims continue to behave like medieval savages.

When you consider the atrocities committed during the Crusades, witchhunts, and Inquisitions, not to mention the Church's support for the Enabling Act of 1933 which essentially handed Hitler a dictatorship,the papal Roman Catholic Church is one of, of not the most hideous, vile, disgusting and evil organisation that has been holding back society since Roman times.

This is such a normalfag board.

> When you consider the atrocities committed during the Crusades,

Fighting the Muslim invaders and trying to regain formerly Christian lands is not an “atrocity”.

> witchhunts, and Inquisitions,

The Protestants and their random kook pastors killed FAR more witches and heretics then the Inquisition.

> not to mention the Church's support for the Enabling Act of 1933 which essentially handed Hitler a dictatorship

Hitler was carried to power on the back of Protestant Germans.

> holding back society since Roman times.

It is in fact Protestants and their greed that has brought Western Civilization to the state it’s in today.

>Waldensian Christians

>Waldensian
>Christians

They had women pastors. That isn't Biblical. They weren't Christians. They weren't martyrs. They were heretics.

Lies. the Waldensians taught a life of poverty, in an imitation of Christ, their theology was all biblical, which is more than you can say for the catholic church

They had women pastors.

politicaltheology.com/blog/waldensians-women-and-preaching-as-a-political-act/

The last surviving Waldensians churches just ratified Sodomite pseudomarriage in 2016.

They're false Christians and always have been. They're heretics.

Stop associating with them.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
-Galatians 3:28

If you think women belong in pastoral positions then you're a heretic. If you think that that verse supports that heresy then you have buasphemed God's word. Read the rest of the Bible instead of ripping a single verse out of it and inverting what it means. A woman in a pastoral position is not one in Christ with anyone because she is not in Christ at all.

I wouldn't waste your time arguing with this dude.

That's just talking about salvation, that God doesn't discriminate by ethnicity or gender when it comes to salvation. Do you even basic theology?

>Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
>1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Will you please stop posting your weird schizophrenic videos and stick to relevant content? Or take it to /x/ or something?

This. If you consider being proven wrong a waste of time, go do something else. You've already been proven wrong on the original premise that you insisted that the Waldensians had no female pastors and had to retreat into denying that female pastorship is not of God, so you've wasted enough of your time already.

Ignoring the arguing Christfags, are there any writings or musings on why minor differences in religious dogma would lead to such staggering acts of brutality back then? Is there any justification or is it Machiavellian or popular anger/fear?

And Christians sacked Rome more than once. Not an argument.

>Were Christians in the Middle Ages more fanatic and brutal than Muslims?
Mate, by the standards of the 21st century West literally everyone in the Middle Ages was ''literally worse than ISIS''. Nobody back then gave a damn about what you consider ''objective values''.

>minor differences in religious dogma would lead to such staggering acts of brutality back then
Here's the thing. Whether or not salvation was received by faith alone or good works+faith was literally the difference between a eternity in heaven or hellfire.

I'm not saying I sympathise with religious fanactics, I'm just pointing out that if the stakes are that high, then people will be brutal to achieve their aims.

There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam

You know shit about the crusades, it's quite sad christcucks always try to defend them. If anything you should condemn them because they frequently killed middle eastern christians who they mistook for muslims, and severley weakened the byzantine empire allowing the Ottomans a much easier time getting into Europe and infiltrating Christendom.

It's going to be one of these threads again, isn't it

Quieten yourself heretic.

Muslims had their own heretic hunting too m8.

Also to this day you could be executed for "Sorcery" in shite Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

this seems like a level headed approach,I can dig it

there were a few periods of mass hysteria caused by plague, ergotism and lead poisoning

>were the people near sand less violent than everyone else in the world because of sand

Christians sacked their own holy sites, including, famously, Rome and Jerusalem.

>weird as fuck Zoroastrian LARPers do the standard utopian thing and kill a bunch of people in a holy place
>literally all non-snowflake Muslims are understandable pissed
>"This example is surely relevant to OP's question"

>Fighting the Muslim invaders and trying to regain formerly Christian lands is not an “atrocity”.
Of course it is. It may have been, in the long view, a retaking rather than a totally unprovoked conquest, but it was certainly not defensive, and therefore unjustified.

Western civilisation is pretty good on any metric other than "is it totally Catholic".

Ethnic and economic tensions were usually bound up with religion, so that you see each one of these things propping up the other. I don't mean that religion wasn't a driving cause in its own right; I mean that religion was not the scalpeled-out thing we see it in today's secular society. Bear in mind most such massacres were carried out by the lower classes, who were laymen and usually had a superficial understanding of their own religion (this is not a hard rule -- see Protestantism).
Idealistic nonsense.

That's really hard to gauge. Christians did x, Muslims did y, but z is the reason. But wait, the average Christian was just a and the average Muslim was just b. What a pointless question.