The complete lack of historical knowledge and context is stunning. The last crusade was in 1291. The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. The crusades had nothing to do with the Turkish incursions into Europe in the 1600's.
"Minor Crusading efforts lingered into the 14thÂ century, and several Crusades were launched during the 14th and 15th centuries to counter the expansion of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans ... The end of the Crusading in terms of at least nominal efforts by Catholic Europe against Muslim incursion, came in the 16thÂ century" (Wikipedia, "Crusades")
* According to Benjamin Valentino in 2005, the number of non-combatants killed by Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[q][r] Citing Rummel and others, Valentino stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was up to 110 million".[q][s] * In his book Red Holocaust (2010), Steven Rosefielde said that Communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more. * In 2011, Matthew White published his rough total of 70 million "people died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", not counting those killed in wars.[t] * In 2016, the Dissident blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range "spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000" killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure.[u] * In 2017, Professor Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Communism killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."" (Wikipedia, "Mass killing under communist regimes")
A lot of the genocide was done in the name of christianity. Missions were responsible of millions of dead natives.
You forgot to mention the peace between previously warring tribes that Christianity brought. I recently watched an interview with an old native in PNG. He described life before Christianity came as never-ending battles with neighbouring tribes. "Now, we don't fight anymore, because we're all Christian brothers", he said. This "peace effect" is evident in many other cultures where the gospel has been preached and accepted.
Christians (the English) also eradicated many barbaric practices in India during the colonial era.
Did you notice how all the colonising nations were Christian? God used colonisation to spread the gospel. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - Matt 28:19. It's interesting that it was the Marxists (read: atheists) of the world who united to bring the colonial era to an end - sign of the times, I'm afraid.
Christian colonization did much more good than harm. How would like your daughter to be sacrificed to the Aztec sun god?
Are you blaming the disease that decimated the native americans on Christianity? You believe in the "Jesus germ" too?
Now that colonization has ended in Africa, hundreds of thousands of Africans risk their lives every year trying to enter Europe illegally. Why? Because their respective "liberated" nations have descended into chaos and they desperately want to live in the safe and prosperous nations of their former colonial masters. I recently heard that many of these fleeing Africans have begun entering the US via Mexico, instead of Europe.
Still trying to excuse the oceans of blood of slaughtered innocents murdered by your creed. And using other slaughters as a justification. Sick.
Just like the commies your legacy is war, torture and death. You should be treated in like manner, reviled by humanity, ostracized from society.
Well ranted, Little AntiChrist!
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ... Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." (Isaiah 5:20-24)
Prior to Europeans invading the Americas had a population of at least 100 million and latest scholarship points to over 140 million. What do you think happened to all of those people?
According to your Darwinist belief-system, the demise of the native Americans is an example of evolution in action. The unfit perish and the fit proliferate; the weak give way to the strong. Darwinism says this is a natural process that's been operating with great success for billions of years. So why are you complaining about and opposing the progress of nature? And why are you opposing your own belief-system? Are you a fake evolutionist?
He asked how most native's died. It was not from open warfare it was from pestilence. But it was an unintended consequence from European expansion. Europeans gave them Smallpox, Natives gave Europeans Syphilis.
Whatever. It was evolution - the survival of the fittest. You do believe in evolution, don't you? Maybe you ignore evolution when it comes into conflict with your religion - ie, cultural Marxism - more specifically, its infantile utopian fantasies about racial equality.
You know, your version of Christianity is suspiciously dressed up as Eurocentric racism. Probably 40% the continent of Africa identifies as "Christian" so if its not as prosperous as Europe, which is now predominantly secular, then you are in fact not making a compelling case for Christianity, its relevance, or its importance.
It's got nothing to do with religion. It about hordes of sub-saharan (ie,black) Africans fleeing the consequences of their homelands being "liberated" from colonialism - ie, corruption, choas, violence, poverty, hopelessness. In other words, sub-saharan Africa has returned to its natural state - and hundreds of thousands of its native inhabitants hate it so much they are willing to risk their lives trying to get to Europe to live with their former colonial masters.
I don't subscribe to anything Marxist, cultural or economic, but maybe you can explain what an "infantile utopian fantasy about racial equality" means. Flesh that out a little and we can discuss what I do or do not ascribe to.
You sound like you subscribe to infantile utopian fantasies about racial equality - which qualifies you as a cultural Marxist (even if you don't know what that term means).
Restrictions on freedom of speech prevent me from elaborating on what I mean by "infantile utopian fantasy about racial equality".