S
Salibi
Guest
What niceatheist said is true. The Arian churches did have more in common with Islam than with Chalcedonian Christianity.
As I and others have noted above, that’s not how the Islamic invasions often worked. In brief, Constantinople had treated Miaphysites like the Syriacs horribly. Save for brief periods of tolerance, the Byzantine Empire persecuted Syriac and other Miaphysite churches (and even groups like the Copts, who probably weren’t Miaphysite at all), so that when the Muslim invaders came along, they seemed like less an an enemy than the Emperors in Constantinople. The Muslim invaders were also tolerant of Christians and general (and probably didn’t care whether a Christian was Monophysite or Miaphysite). So long as the Jizya was paid, various Christian Churches were largely tolerated. So let’s put it bluntly, for those Eastern Churches like the Syriac Church, treatment was better under the Muslim invaders than it had been under the Byzantine Emperors.niceatheist:![]()
Its easy to find “theological affinity” with people threatening to behead you by force.The theory goes that many people in the Syriac churches found more theological affinity with the Muslim invaders
And the fact that Rome’s allies could pretty much wipe groups like the Cathars off the map, whereas even the worst the Byzantines could do did not wipe out the non-Chalcedonian Christians, demonstrates that for a long period of time, Latin Christianity, though politically disunited, was theologically unified.Albigensians
what’s the basis of “often” here? what percentage of time did they perform forced conversion? you’re discussing one specific case hardly proves that claimthat’s not how the Islamic invasions often worked
start a threadCare to discuss the number of pogroms against Jews that occurred in Christendom?
Definitely the worst way to get beheaded.Its easy to find “theological affinity” with people threatening to behead you by force.
Well, as an example, Coptic Christians were a majority of the populace of Egypt well into the 1300s. Whereas they were the victims of some pretty nasty persecutions when they were ruled by Constantinople, and doubtless if the Byzantine Emperors had had their way, every Copt in Egypt would have sworn allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon. The fact is that the Copts were more tolerated, by a very wide margin, by their Muslim overlords than when their fellow Christians in Constantinople were running the show.niceatheist:![]()
what’s the basis of “often” here? what percentage of time did they perform forced conversion? you’re discussing one specific case hardly proves that claimthat’s not how the Islamic invasions often worked
They are often in my prayers, both figuratively and literally. I think Sisi is somewhat sympathetic to their plight, at least.Thanks. I know the Copts were a peculiar group within the non-Chalcedon community. I think there has been growing affinity in the last century. It’s also useful to remember the Copts are descendants of one of the oldest Christian communities outside Roman Palestine. Their suffering right now, and the unwillingness of Western governments to hold Egypt to account for continued attacks on them as a grave injustice.
Why? You brought it up here. If you want to talk about the vile actions of Mohammed and the Islamic conquerors, then I think it’s fair game to talk about what Christians during that period were doing.niceatheist:![]()
start a threadCare to discuss the number of pogroms against Jews that occurred in Christendom?
The claim was general (“the Islamic invasions”), that requires some kind of citation to a general study , not discussing of 1-2 examples.Well, as an example,…
so now the Islamic invasions were “often” brutal? Lots of contradiction going on here…the armies of Islam were brutal
Forum rules require posts be based on the original post (how Islam became so popular). I don’t make the rules.Why?