Is George Bush really a Christian?

Momma Angel wrote:

What?! Who do you think the Christians were fighting in the Crusades? The Muslims! Both sides fighting for the same thing.

So, pachelbel, can you please explain to me why you would give the Muslims more of a benefit of a doubt than you would Christians? (That is what I gather from your post.)

I should have quoted this before I replied.

I will quote your sentence "Who do you think the Christians were fighting in the Crusades? The Muslims!"

History lesson: there were 8 crusades. The first one was organized by EUROPEAN powers to recover holy places from Palestine from the Muslims. Therefore, the first one was begun by non Muslims. Thousands of Muslims and Jews were slaughtered. The Second Crusade was led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. Their attack on Damascus failed because of mutual jealousy. The Muslims under Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1187, thus provoking the Third Crusade, led by the HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR Frederick I, Philip II of France and Richard I of England. They were unable to take Jerusalen. However, they did gain a truce allowing pilgrims access to Jerusalem. Fourth Crusade was diverted to Constantinople (now Istanbul) by Venetians and claimants to Byzantine throne from Egypt. Have I lost you yet, Momma? I'm trying to keep it simple. Anyway, the Crusaders (Christians) PILLAGED the city and set up the Latin empire of Constantinople. (Nice, and right Christian of them, I say?) Now, the Children's Crusade (1212) was a fiasco, some children died on the way, others were sold into slavery. Fifth Crusade against Eqypt, the center of Muslim power, was the last launched by a papal (Pope) legate. The invasion failed when the crusaders had to be evacuated from floodwaters near Cairo. (Was God NOT on their side, do you think?) The peaceable Sixth Crusade, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II claimed his title to Jerusalem and secured the title for the Christians, but it fell again to the Muslims. Seventh Crusade, Louis IX was captured at Mansura, he undertook the Eighth Crusade but died at Tunis. The last Christian city, Acre, fell to the Muslims in 1291 and there were no further large scale crusades. Although the crusades were a military failure, Western Europe was profoundly affected, and both culture and trade were stimulated.

You can look any of this up online or books; it's all there. But as for who started the fight, look at the Christians. Not the Muslims. It was a power play by Europe and they lost.

So, don't try and tell me how innocent the Christians are. They have plenty of blood on their hands and certainly have not followed Christ's command to 'love one another'. The Christians even manage to twist that one up to mean something else entirely.

You worship your God, and I'll worship mine. And they don't have to be in a church, either.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

What?! Who do you think the Christians were fighting in the Crusades? The Muslims! Both sides fighting for the same thing.

So, pachelbel, can you please explain to me why you would give the Muslims more of a benefit of a doubt than you would Christians? (That is what I gather from your post.)

I should have quoted this before I replied.

I will quote your sentence "Who do you think the Christians were fighting in the Crusades? The Muslims!"

History lesson: there were 8 crusades. The first one was organized by EUROPEAN powers [/B] to recover holy places from Palestine from the Muslims. Therefore, the first one was begun by non Muslims. Thousands of Muslims and Jews were slaughtered. The Second Crusade was led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. Their attack on Damascus failed because of mutual jealousy. The Muslims under Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1187, thus provoking the Third Crusade, led by the HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR Frederick I, Philip II of France and Richard I of England. They were unable to take Jerusalen. However, they did gain a truce allowing pilgrims access to Jerusalem. Fourth Crusade was diverted to Constantinople (now Istanbul) by Venetians and claimants to Byzantine throne from Egypt. Have I lost you yet, Momma? I'm trying to keep it simple. Anyway, the Crusaders (Christians) PILLAGED the city and set up the Latin empire of Constantinople. (Nice, and right Christian of them, I say?) Now, the Children's Crusade (1212) was a fiasco, some children died on the way, others were sold into slavery. Fifth Crusade against Eqypt, the center of Muslim power, was the last launched by a papal (Pope) legate. The invasion failed when the crusaders had to be evacuated from floodwaters near Cairo. (Was God NOT on their side, do you think?) The peaceable Sixth Crusade, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II claimed his title to Jerusalem and secured the title for the Christians, but it fell again to the Muslims. Seventh Crusade, Louis IX was captured at Mansura, he undertook the Eighth Crusade but died at Tunis. The last Christian city, Acre, fell to the Muslims in 1291 and there were no further large scale crusades. Although the crusades were a military failure, Western Europe was profoundly affected, and both culture and trade were stimulated.

You can look any of this up online or books; it's all there. But as for who started the fight, look at the Christians. Not the Muslims. It was a power play by Europe and they lost.

So, don't try and tell me how innocent the Christians are. They have plenty of blood on their hands and certainly have not followed Christ's command to 'love one another'. The Christians even manage to twist that one up to mean something else entirely.

You worship your God, and I'll worship mine. And they don't have to be in a church, either.

0 Replies

pachelbell,

Whoa! I didn't mean to imply anything. I only stated that the Crusades were both Christians and Muslims.

Have I done something somewhere along the line to offend you?

0 Replies

You did imply that the Christians were fighting the Muslims. No where did you infer that the Christians began the Crusades, a crucial point and one not to be overlooked.

You should worry less about offending people and pay more attention to what the person is saying. I cannot quite believe that you are so ignorant that you are unaware of the origins of the Crusades. I hope you now understand.

0 Replies

Of course I am not unaware of the origins of the Crusades. I just think it's a pretty equally violent past for both religions.

0 Replies

Yes, a violent past.......begun by the CHRISTIANS.

0 Replies

I get it already!

I have to go to bed. I have to get up and slaughter a couple thousand tomorrow. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Hahaha!!!

0 Replies

betya can't slaughter as many as I can. :wink:

oh bother...

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm sorry but do you have some evidence that Bush doesn't believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, since he attends Christian churches, one would have to assume that he is.

Attending church makes ona a Christian huh?

You know who believes and knows the teachings of Christ better than anyone besides God the Father? Satan. Is he a Christian?

No, I didn't say that attending church makes one a Christian. I said that if someone attends Church, and if, further, one has no evidence that he doesn't believe in the Church tenets, then, logically, one would have to accept that the person is Christian, until there is some evidence that he is not. Why am I doomed to debate people who at least behave as though they have the IQ of a turnip?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why am I doomed to debate people who at least behave as though they have the IQ of a turnip?

Because that makes it a fair fight.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

Of course, one only hears about the Wahabbi, which started in Saudi Arabia. They are the violent element of the Muslim world. Most Muslims condemn violence.

Actually, 'one' doesn't hear about anything 'one' doesn't particularly wish to pay attention to. Just like 'one' hears what 'one' wants to hear, regardless of if it was said or not. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

pachelbel wrote:
Of course, one only hears about the Wahabbi, which started in Saudi Arabia. They are the violent element of the Muslim world. Most Muslims condemn violence.

Actually, 'one' doesn't hear about anything 'one' doesn't particularly wish to pay attention to. Just like 'one' hears what 'one' wants to hear, regardless of if it was said or not.

If people are going to condemn an entire group of people, in this case the Muslims, they should understand that that group consists of many different factions. Wahabi is just one of them. Reading an excellent book, which I am sure none of you will read as it might disrupt your notions of what a Muslim IS, the book is called House of Saud.

What do you think of the Wahabi's? What is your understanding of who they are? Or do you even know or care?

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

Questioner wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Of course, one only hears about the Wahabbi, which started in Saudi Arabia. They are the violent element of the Muslim world. Most Muslims condemn violence.

Actually, 'one' doesn't hear about anything 'one' doesn't particularly wish to pay attention to. Just like 'one' hears what 'one' wants to hear, regardless of if it was said or not.

If people are going to condemn an entire group of people, in this case the Muslims, they should understand that that group consists of many different factions. Wahabi is just one of them. Reading an excellent book, which I am sure none of you will read as it might disrupt your notions of what a Muslim IS, the book is called House of Saud.

What do you think of the Wahabi's? What is your understanding of who they are? Or do you even know or care?

And just how do you validate the assumption that you have any concept at all of what my notions of Muslims are? Did I make some proclamation about them as a group? Did I condemn them?

Explain your rationale.

0 Replies

'Actually, 'one' doesn't hear about anything 'one' doesn't particularly wish to pay attention to. Just like 'one' hears what 'one' wants to hear, regardless of if it was said or not.'

Your quote, Questionr. And by that, I validate the assumption that you 'don't particularly wish to pay attention to" who I was referring to was Muslims. Who else was I talking about in my post, above, that you quoted? Only Muslims. So, if you don't care about them, that condemns them as not worth taking note of, being indifferent to them, whatever. If you don't condemn them, then make your case plain. I've got better things to do than play mind games.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

'Actually, 'one' doesn't hear about anything 'one' doesn't particularly wish to pay attention to. Just like 'one' hears what 'one' wants to hear, regardless of if it was said or not.'

Your quote, Questionr. And by that, I validate the assumption that you 'don't particularly wish to pay attention to" who I was referring to was Muslims. Who else was I talking about in my post, above, that you quoted? Only Muslims. So, if you don't care about them, that condemns them as not worth taking note of, being indifferent to them, whatever. If you don't condemn them, then make your case plain. I've got better things to do than play mind games.

Actually, that quote was directed at you. Your entire rant is stemming from the comment I made:

Quote:

Right, because they have no outside factions that display violent tendancies.

You apparently don't know the definition of the word 'factions'. You assumed by my statement that I lumped all Muslims together in one group. You were wrong.

And as for you having better things to do than playing 'mind games', if you attribute your lack of ability to read and digest posts to me playing 'mind games' then you're correct, you shouldn't be wasting time here anymore. You should be either seeing a psychologist or be getting back to your third-grade primer.

0 Replies

The quote you made- 'Right, because they have no factions that display violent tendancies" is not a sarcastic comment upon Muslims? You did not bother, in that comment, to differentiate between the different factions did you? I know what a faction is, question is; do you know what a Wahabi is? You still haven't answered that and are throwing out red herrings. Maybe I'll check back in a few days after you've had your shrink appt.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

The quote you made- 'Right, because they have no factions that display violent tendancies" is not a sarcastic comment upon Muslims? You did not bother, in that comment, to differentiate between the different factions did you? I know what a faction is, question is; do you know what a Wahabi is? You still haven't answered that and are throwing out red herrings. Maybe I'll check back in a few days after you've had your shrink appt.

Your sarcastic tone is noted, yet despite your efforts you still fail to make sense. It is not upon me to qualify my comment with exact distinctions between the factions. Just as you labeled Bush a "christian" and left it at that (not noting if he was Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, whatever.)

I am perfectly aware of what a Wahabi is. And if you wish to see what an example of a Red Herring looks like, check your original response to me, for it smacks of it. Your allusion that the Christian faith is full of violence and idiocy based upon the ramblings of 1 man is laughable. Then to allude that checking into the muslim faith would be any better (knowing full well that many radical islamists are currently blowing themselves up, killing numerous civilians in the process, in order to prove a point) is also laughable.

Your case reeks, your strawman doesn't stand up, and you should be ashamed of your pitiful attempts to state otherwise.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm sorry but do you have some evidence that Bush doesn't believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, since he attends Christian churches, one would have to assume that he is.

Attending church makes ona a Christian huh?

You know who believes and knows the teachings of Christ better than anyone besides God the Father? Satan. Is he a Christian?

No, I didn't say that attending church makes one a Christian. I said that if someone attends Church, and if, further, one has no evidence that he doesn't believe in the Church tenets, then, logically, one would have to accept that the person is Christian, until there is some evidence that he is not. Why am I doomed to debate people who at least behave as though they have the IQ of a turnip?

just stumbled across this pathetic attenpt at a snappy comeback. Thanks for the grin.

0 Replies

The snappy comeback was the one that followed it.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Why am I doomed to debate people who at least behave as though they have the IQ of a turnip?

Because that makes it a fair fight.

0 Replies

Is George Bush really a Christian?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know