Does Pope Francis have a fantasy-prone personality disorder?

[abaris]

I'm more interested what our historian friend has to say about this stuff.

It's a strategic point to control trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was also the goal of some of Mehmed's ancestors to capture Byzanz. He succeeded where they did not. Byzanz was more or less an island in 1453 with the Ottomans already having captured most of it's territory. What made it possible for Mehmed was his modern artillery being able to breach the walls. The Ottomans had the upper hand when it came to fire power in the ensuing two centuries. Only after they had failed to capture Vienna in 1683, they were pushed back. And that only because of a freak accident of the weather, not allowing their heavy artillery being brought at the gates of the city.

And again, the siege and capture of Constantinople was in accordance with the law of the time. There are several incidents where armies did the same. Not least of all the plunder of Magdeburg, a protestant city, captured by Tilly during the 30 years war. Three days plunder ensued. The offer for any city was not being plundered if they surrendered. If they didn't, the army was free to take what they wanted for three days. In the Middle Ages, see 1204 and the sackking of Constantinople by the Venetians/Crusaders, as well as in the 30 years war.

Fact is, that the Ottomans extended their religious tolerance after the capture of the city. For a price, since everyone not being muslim had to pay increased taxes to excercise their religion. But more than any of the christian realms did. In fact, the Ottomans did extend the Roman policy of not forcing their state religion on anyone.

[Jehanne]

I'm more interested what our historian friend has to say about this stuff.

Fact is, that the Ottomans extended their religious tolerance after the capture of the city. For a price, since everyone not being muslim had to pay increased taxes to excercise their religion. But more than any of the christian realms did. In fact, the Ottomans did extend the Roman policy of not forcing their state religion on anyone.

No more worshiping in the Hagia Sophia.

[account_inactive]

I'm more interested what our historian friend has to say about this stuff.

It's a strategic point to control trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was also the goal of some of Mehmed's ancestors to capture Byzanz. He succeeded where they did not. Byzanz was more or less an island in 1453 with the Ottomans already having captured most of it's territory. What made it possible for Mehmed was his modern artillery being able to breach the walls. The Ottomans had the upper hand when it came to fire power in the ensuing two centuries. Only after they had failed to capture Vienna in 1683, they were pushed back. And that only because of a freak accident of the weather, not allowing their heavy artillery being brought at the gates of the city.

And again, the siege and capture of Constantinople was in accordance with the law of the time. There are several incidents where armies did the same. Not least of all the plunder of Magdeburg, a protestant city, captured by Tilly during the 30 years war. Three days plunder ensued. The offer for any city was not being plundered if they surrendered. If they didn't, the army was free to take what they wanted for three days. In the Middle Ages, see 1204 and the sackking of Constantinople by the Venetians/Crusaders, as well as in the 30 years war.

Fact is, that the Ottomans extended their religious tolerance after the capture of the city. For a price, since everyone not being muslim had to pay increased taxes to excercise their religion. But more than any of the christian realms did. In fact, the Ottomans did extend the Roman policy of not forcing their state religion on anyone.

Appreciate you taking the time to type all that.  

Thank you!

[rexbeccarox]

I arriveed at these standards before beng an atheist. I was brought up looking at these standards. But they are not what make or break me.

The scientific method, a stance, leads to atheism.  This is why most leading scientists are atheist:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/natali...od-problem

Really? Did you ask them?

You say you're getting it, but you really aren't.

[Excited Penguin]

Abaris is an atheist? I thought he was agnostic.

[abaris]

No more worshiping in the Hagia Sophia.

Oh, well, yes, move the goal posts to one particular church. Which by the way also was the symbol of secular power of the Byzantine empire. Great, you nailed it.

[Jehanne]

The scientific method, a stance, leads to atheism.  This is why most leading scientists are atheist:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/natali...od-problem

Really? Did you ask them?

You say you're getting it, but you really aren't.

No, but others have:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

P.S.  I may not be "getting it"; but, does that matter?  (Answer:  no)

[Jehanne]

No more worshiping in the Hagia Sophia.

Oh, well, yes, move the goal posts to one particular church. Which by the way also was the symbol of secular power of the Byzantine empire. Great, you nailed it.

If you believe with Pope Francis that "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence...", I have some real-estate that I want to sell you.

P.S. It's even located in the UK!

P.P.S. The Hagia Sophia was hardly just some "particular church".

P.P.P.S. Are you really an historian?

[Jehanne]

It's a strategic point to control trade between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was also the goal of some of Mehmed's ancestors to capture Byzanz. He succeeded where they did not. Byzanz was more or less an island in 1453 with the Ottomans already having captured most of it's territory. What made it possible for Mehmed was his modern artillery being able to breach the walls. The Ottomans had the upper hand when it came to fire power in the ensuing two centuries. Only after they had failed to capture Vienna in 1683, they were pushed back. And that only because of a freak accident of the weather, not allowing their heavy artillery being brought at the gates of the city.

And again, the siege and capture of Constantinople was in accordance with the law of the time. There are several incidents where armies did the same. Not least of all the plunder of Magdeburg, a protestant city, captured by Tilly during the 30 years war. Three days plunder ensued. The offer for any city was not being plundered if they surrendered. If they didn't, the army was free to take what they wanted for three days. In the Middle Ages, see 1204 and the sackking of Constantinople by the Venetians/Crusaders, as well as in the 30 years war.

Fact is, that the Ottomans extended their religious tolerance after the capture of the city. For a price, since everyone not being muslim had to pay increased taxes to excercise their religion. But more than any of the christian realms did. In fact, the Ottomans did extend the Roman policy of not forcing their state religion on anyone.

Appreciate you taking the time to type all that.  

Thank you!

First of all, there was no "law of the times", as there was no worldwide body to enforce such "a law".  There was only custom, which could be broken on a whim.  Of course, our dear historian forgot to mention all of the little kiddos that the invading Muslims kidnapped from their Christian parents, hauling them off to Islamic lands to be raised as Muslim.

I may sound like a Christian, but I am not!  Medieval Catholicism was just as violent as were their Islamic counterparts, but as with Islam, the Crusaders were motivated by their religion (Catholicism) just as much as they were motivated by greed and prospects of plunder.

[rexbeccarox]

Really? Did you ask them?

You say you're getting it, but you really aren't.

No, but others have:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

P.S.  I may not be "getting it"; but, does that matter?  (Answer:  no)

By answering a question you've asked me without waiting for an answer, you're doing exactly what offends me.

Yes, it does matter. Why? Because you're saying that atheists have a stance. You're putting words into the mouths and thoughts into the brains of many atheists who don't have things in common that you're attributing to them. I have a big problem with that. I do not give you permission to attribute things to me that I don't necessarily agree with. The only thing you know about me, as an atheist, is that I lack belief in deities. I could think the Earth is made up of green fondant, mozzarella cheese, and tulips dyed blue; you don't know.