No. It just took centuries for Christianity to spread to the wrong people.
Christianity wasn't an entirely new concept at the time of the Crusades. As I suggested earlier, people were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem prior to the Crusades. Neither was Pope Urban II the first Pope or Christianity a brand new religion. Even if
Christianity was an entirely new concept to the people involved in the Crusades, previous Popes would have been aware of the signifiance of Jerusalem.
The fact that you can suggest that there are actually wrong people to spread Christianity to in some ways supports MagickLorelai's arguement. The idea that if there was no religion, at least they would be forced to admit guilt is an assumption. The government of China is a good example of a non-religious institution who is perfectly happy with not acknowledging guilt.
Of course, no one knows. Its called an educated guess.
Because that wasn't the point.
My responses are getting short because you ignore the sentences where I make a point against you. This is why we're debating the little things that don't matter now.
I group these points together because my response will address both.
If you were making educated guesses, then I wouldn't have had any problems with them. But you weren't. You're making fantastic leaps of assumptions that ignores everything that isn't convenient to you. That's not an educated guess but a selective one. You're willing to suggest that if religion was taken out of the equation, then there would be two less historical events...but you're not willing to entertain the other possible side effects of taking religion out of the equation. You just dismiss them as not being the point (even though they do have an effect on whether or not it would help in making the world a better place.)
I ignore your points because I feel like arguing with you about them will go nowhere. I do not feel that you fully grasp what I'm saying and to be honest, I don't feel like you really want to anyway. I get the feeling that you simply feel I'm ignorant so you keep repeating yourself. The fact is, I have read your post. I simply disagree and I don't feel I'm illogical in my reasoning. And I feel that me sticking to the Bible points earlier on has proved that I'm not afraid to stick to an arguement...if I feel it's going somewhere.
If you can't understand that history is complex and that you can't just simply treat chunks of it as if it has no relation to other things, then this conversation will go nowhere. If you're going to pick and choose what you feel is and isn't the point, then unless something fresh comes up, I'm just going to cease participating in this thread..: Black Kitty :.