you are obviously not getting the point whatsoever. i'm very well aware that the romans would never back down from persecuting christians and many other people. i have no idea why you think i'm suggesting that they would. what i'm saying is purely hypothetical, since you can't seem to grasp that on your own.

for the third time, don't you think it would have been a much better idea to put aside differences and compromise to find a peaceful solution?

i think you need to work on your history, first of all. there were a few crusades that were not directed towards recapturing "the holy land," but most of them were. some of them were not commissioned by the papacy, either.

besides that, what is your point? the church didn't go and fight, the grunts did. the majority of those who fought and died in the crusades believed they were serving their god. what difference does it make what the motives of the church were? what you said was that millions of people have died for what they believe in - explain how that is not the case with the crusades?

dying for what you believe in can be noble. but it is not always a "strong" thing, as you assert. as i have been saying, there's much better things we could be doing with our lives and time than fighting each other and sacrificing ourselves for our religions. that would be much stronger than the waste of human life that you are ascribing to "strength"