Jesus Christ vs. Muhammad

Evil existed long before the Nazis + USSR .

imo - Your god is the worse tyrant.

Go learn .

 

Oh - fer fux sake dont continue making a fool of yourself . , how the fuk can it be mentioned in the bible when there was no such people as Muslims/Moors etc. when your bible was supposed to have been written.
As I've shown Christians started killing Jews as soon as they became powerful enough to do so, and shortly after the Crusades , with succesive Pope's blessing to carry out a program to slaughter as many Jews and "heathens " as possible in the "Holy Land "

It didnt stop there , the Church fully approved of the slaughter of Jews + Moors in Spain , then continued the barbarism - in Jesus' name - in South america - nigh exterminating South America's native population.

I repeat _ " The Crusades, incited by a speech by Pope Urban II in 1095, led to the massacre of thousands of “infidel” Jews.

Go look up Pope UrbanII 's - 1095 speech .

....

 

The New Testament did not say anything about killing Jews in fact it is very clear "forgive them for they know not what they do" Yes, no Muslim before the Bible at the same time many Muslim wars after 600 AD against Christians and no Catholic Ecclesiastical doctrine or declaration officially calling all Christians to kill Jews or Muslims. But you will definitely see in Muslim Quran that commands Muslims to kill Jews and Christians.

Wow, talking about bigotry......are you really that prejudicial towards Christians? Where in the Bible or Catholic Ecclesiastical doctrines that ever officially calls Christians to kill Jews?? Even the Crusade was not mission to kill Jews it was to save the Holy Land, Christians and all to protect all pilgrims who want to travel to Jerusalem. What ever killings that was done in times of wars were committed by individuals under the circumstances that it was during that time and during wars in fact the Catholic church after hearing of atrocities being committed by some Christian military forces it condemns such practices.


AND THE REASON THE CRUSADE WAS CALLED UPON BECAUSE IT was deem to be the only solution to stop the horrific campaign of wars being wage by Muslim forces against Christians. Pope Urban II did what he had to do and that is called upon Catholic and Christians to unite against an evil force and what ever massacre that occur their blood rest upon the Muslims for starting the wars.

If Pope Urban incited Christians to defend themselves it was because Muslims incited Pope Urban "Allah Akbar!!....Christian counter that with "God wills it"

 

Ah, the glancing insult technigue, I bet I have one I can use. True, evil existed long before Marxist National Socialism and Communism. They are but examples of the most current manifestations. I concede that politicised religion, both Christianity in the Medival era and Islam in this current era, are disasterous. Both Politicised Catholocism and Islam exercise dogma as control features. But real Christianity is a far different practise. Though I suspect cognitive assembly of these subtle differences will fall outside your abilities, I just wanted to put it out there for your consideration.

 

Hummm, I detect the presence of practice that you accuse others of. Bigotry. You must be flying with conscience off.

 

Save the "Holy land " from what - there was no wholesale massacres being perpetrated against either Chritians residente nor Jews.


BS - The Christian Crusaders carried out a deliberate program to slaughter every Jews on their way to the so-called "Hoiy Land " and when they got there continued do so to Jews and Muslim s in Jerusalem .
Yes AFTER WW2 the German Govt. also "condemned Nazi atrocities , but what difference did that make. ?


"The preaching of the First Crusade inspired an outbreak of anti-Jewish violence. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home
On their way through Europe to the holy land, they massacred, tortured and plundered any Jew they could find. They stole and robbed whenever they felt like it. For those places who tried to defend themselves against this pillage, Peter's answer was war. In one such battle in Yugoslavia, the crusaders slaughtered 4,000 of the local residents who dared to fight back.

When the crusaders were attacking Antioch, they used the heads of slain Turks as ammunition for their primitive cannons. Apart from using the heads as ammunition, about three hundred head were placed on stakes in front of the city to demoralize the defenders of the city. The crusaders finally broke through and slaughtered the inhabitants.

Then another Muslim army arrived and besieged the now "Christian" city. After a long seige, something strange happened. Convinced that God was on their side (apparently one of the crusaders, enlightened by numerous visions, found the holy lance that pierced Jesus side during the crucifixion [John 19:34]), surged out from the city to kill the infidels. The Muslims, in panic, fled, leaving their tents and wives behind. The Muslim women were mercilessly exterminated by the victorious Christians. [6]

Their behavior was worse during the siege of Marra. The Christian army resorted to cannibalism; digging up corpses for their own consumption. When they finally entered the city, all adults were murdered, even those who had paid the Christian leader, Bohemond (c1052-1111), large sums of money to spare their lives. The children were sold to the slave market at Antioch. [7]

If Bohemond was cruel, Godfrey's conquest of Jerusalem was barbaric. The crusaders forced their way into Jerusalem on the 15th of July 1099. For the next two days there was ensued a continuous massacre by them of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, both Muslims and Jews. The carnage is preserved for posterity by many eye-witness account. Given below is one taken from Gesta Francorum (The Deeds of the Franks):

The defenders fled along the walls and through the city, and our men pursued them killing and cutting them down as far as Solomon's Temple, where there was such a massacre that our men were wading ankle deep in blood ... Then the crusaders rushed around the whole city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and looting the housing that were full of costly things. Then, rejoicing and weeping from excess of happiness, they all came to worship and give thanks at the sepulchre of our saviour Jesus. Next morning, they went cautiously up the temple roof and attacked the Saracens, both men and women [who had taken refuge there], cutting off their heads with drawn swords ... Our leaders then gave orders that all the Saracen corpses should be thrown outside the city because of the stench, for almost the whole city was full of dead bodies ... such a slaughter of pagans had never been seen or heard of, for they were burned in pyres like pyramids, and none save God alone knows how many they were. [8]


Another eyewitness account, by Raymond of Aguiles, not only corroborates the above account but conveys a sense of his own religious ecstasy at experiencing such a complete and total Christian victory

======

THat was the First Crusade - , the second , third and fourth followed accordingly ..

 

Ah, the ruminations of one who does not understand history, much less historical context.

 

The Jews claimed the crucifixion, Maimonides said it was a great achievement for the Jews to dispose of the Nazarene heretic.

I would like to ask what people think about the book of Judas? There are a couple of things... Judas at the last supper claims that Jesus is the avatar of Seth, the little known third son of Adam. He claims Jesus is from Barbelo. And Jesus takes him to one side to give him a mission - to orchestrate the destruction of his flesh, to denounce him in order that he be crucified. Which makes much more sense than Judas being forever cursed for being implicit in something which had to happen. Jesus had to die... someone had to kill him, so why so much hatred towards Judas and the Jews for, if anything, simply fulfilling a prophecy. They should be praised.

And also, according to Luke the birth of Christ took place in a year when Cesar Augusto ordered a census for the purpose of taxation. Herod resigned from Judea, and Quirinius was emperor of Syria.

Yet there is no record of any taxation at this time from any Roman historian, though there is mention of one by Jewish Chronicler Josephus who mentions one did occur around 6 years after the birth. But more importantly Herod died four years BC.

Care to explain?

 

But love IS the real world. It is really the only thing that is real to us and is what makes us tick. To know a person all you have to do is determine who and what it is they love.

I don't ignore the fact that some come to God through fear and devoid of love, but those that do are miserable. Clearly Jesus did not give us that example so those that chose it chose it without his example.

 

There is a story in which a Canaanite woman's daughter asks Jesus for an exorcism... to which he refuses and replies "it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs." He was a prejudiced man, which is pretty much understandable... being that he was just a man. He says things like "he who is not with me, is against me." - this isn't unconditional love, it's hubris.

 

Never left - also never right .- consistently wrong . LOL


"History is often a study of lies, because no witness ever recalls events with total accuracy, not even eyewitnesses." - Pickard


How many pens were e broken, how many ink bottles consumed, to write about things that have never happened. Talmud


Read my siggy about god + historians


tatty-byeeee.

 

History is the study of state violence and social brutality, hatred, prejudice, violence, anamosity, and a whole host of human injustice. Only the feminized progressive leftists judge history through the lens of political correctness, and that includes current events, the rest of us see history through the lens of reality.

 

BS the only reality you'll ever know is when the Grim Reaper comes for you.

tatty - byeeee.

 

The very reason why we are having lots of discussion about the West, about Christianity, about Catholicism, about the Crusades is because we recognize free and open discussion the history of the West has been well documented that include all the good and bad unlike Muslim history you will hardly hear and see any discussion about their history the only thing you will hear is the all the bias one side good stuff not the wars, not the atrocities, not the massacres none of that Muslim leadership have successfully put an iron blanket around their followers.

The Catholic church has been open to admit their wrongs and sins at the same time they have also admit that wars, the crusades was the only answer to stop Muslim aggression. And it is very clear here that you refuse to accept that, the crusade did not just appear from no where it came about after 400 years of none stop Muslims aggression.

What ever massacres that happen where the result of the wars and the personal judgement and characters of men at war not the official policy of the Catholic church. Unlike, Muslim policy which is very clear it is their official policy to destroy Christianity, we the Christian are just responding and reacting to that aggression. Your prejudiced towards the west and Christianity is sadly very unapproachable.

I know you have no time to read real history, still here is a link that also covers Islam, Mohammed. Koran etc.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Crusades
Crusades. —The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century, the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character,

As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstadt, took seven years (722-29) and furnishes an idea of the varied and severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, I, 241-283). After their conquest of the West, the Carlovingians endeavored to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin the Short entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on November 30, 800, the very day on which Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics (Einhard, "Annales", ad an. 800, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of the Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built at Charlemagne's expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808 ("Commemoratio de Casis Dei" in "Itiner. Hieros.", I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrim-age of Bernard the Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantly proved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when the political and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotion and a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eye-witness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epo pee byzantine", II, 442.)

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Assizes_of_Jerusalem



Again, you can not produce any documents to proof that the Catholic church officially order to kill Jews or the Bible has any revelation that calls to kill Jews.

About Mohammed and Islam

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mohammed_and_Mohammedanism#II._THE_SYSTEM

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Koran

From the Muslim perspective, the lasting effects of the Crusades on the Islamic Middle East were fairly negligible. To many Muslims, they were just episodes in a long running clash with Christians. In fact, as Carole Hillenbrand notes, it is only in the recent past that Muslims have taken an interest in the Crusades as a discreet set of historical events: modern Arabic terms for "the Cross wars" (al-salibiyya) or "the war of the Cross" (harb al-salib) were not introduced into the language until the nineteenth century. However, as Thomas Madden points out, the crusading movement did have some negative effects on the Muslim world, including slowing the conquest of Islam. The mere presence of European Christians in the region distracted Muslims and prevented the local populations from forming into a unified Islamic state. It is possible that by diverting Muslim energy and material resources, the Crusades may have bought Europe time to prepare itself for the threats that the Turks would pose to the continent in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries.

The consequences of the early crusades for the Jews of Western Europe were dramatic. As Robert Chazan notes, a great paradox of the Crusades is that, although numerous high churchmen condemned violence against Jews, they also initiated undertakings that led to the persecutions that some later tried to suppress. Long embedded in the European psyche was the notion of Jews as the enemies of Christ. The year 1096 was a notably devastating one for German Jews. Whereas John, bishop of the German city of Speyer, was willing and able to protect the Jews of his diocese,

The Second Crusade brought more attacks upon the Jews of Europe, although none were as severe as those of 1096. The Jews, the Church, and secular governments took precautions as the crusade was called. Indeed, one of the most vocal protectors of the Jews was the preacher of the crusade, Bernard of Clairvaux. The Third Crusade, which came on the heels of the coronation of King Richard I of England, inflamed anti-Jewish passions once again. Riots broke out in London in 1189, followed by others in the kingdom which destroyed a number of Jewish communities. Clearly, then, the Crusades had disastrous social and cultural consequences for Europe's Jews. They had highly negative economic consequences as well, because anti-Jewish violence was not only a religious instrument, it was also a financial one that could be used to force Jews to forgive the debts of the Christian populace.

Muslims believed force might be used to bring all people under the sway of Islam; Western knights believed that they were called not only to defend but "exalt" Christianity and that attacks on its enemies could be holy and meritorious. The Byzantines believed that war was neither good nor holy, but was evil and could be justified only in certain conditions that centered on the defense of the empire and its faith. They were convinced that they were defending Christianity itself and the Christian people, as indeed they were (Laiou and Mottahedeh, 2001, p. 39 ).

 

Wanren , all you're offering are the standard excuses I've heard many times before . The Jesuits are masters of deception .. I spent two year at St.Ignatuis , - didnt pay much attention to Bible studies ( I switched off.) (truth is I played Rugby for them , we had the best team ) .

The fact remains that the "Holy Church had the authority , at THAT TIME to make its rulings known and command an end to the Crusaders barbarism, the church failed to do so , it remained SILENT , just as it did for 2 thousand years, of anti-semitism in Europe up untill AFTER the horrendous facts of the Holocaust was condemned Worldwide.

 

Again, you are denying the fact what happen and what transpired that lead to the calling of the crusades. Let us look at it this way, base on the situation, circumstances and way of life during that time what will you do given only three choices:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Do not convert and accept to live as a second class citizen and pay jiyza (Muslim tax imposed on the conquered people)
3. Resist and fight
4. Do you think there was a 4th choice? Not that I am aware of. Mohammed was very clear, convert, pay tax or die.

I am assuming base on your presentation you would either convert to Islam or accept to live as a second class citizen. Me, it will either be # 2 live as a second class citizen will never convert to Islam or # 3 resist fight join the crusades and die fighting for my freedom.

You can argue all you want as to how evil the Europeans, Crusades and the Catholic church is and at the same time ignore the same about Muslims the facts still remain that the crusades was the result of Muslim tyranny, aggression and unstoppable appetite for world conquest. I know you did not bother to read the site I have share with you that testify that one and I repeat one of the reason for the crusade was because Christians were threaten and persecuted, Christian Holy site such as the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed. I don't know why you would skip this and just jump right into the atrocities of the Christian armies committed years after the effects of war on human psychic. You see for Muslims they have less problems in committing atrocities because Mohammed clearly exonerated them and allowed them in fact command them that it is okay to commit atrocities against enemies of Islam "find them where ever they are hiding and kill them". On the other hand Christians struggle to commit such atrocities because it goes against Jesus Christ teachings. Christians commit atrocities because they got carry away or lose control not because it was commanded by God.

That is why up to this day Muslims still will never accept any responsibility of any atrocities committed they will always blame it on the other side for insulting Islam and or Mohammed and for that they have the right to respond in "self defence".

 

Jesus was saying that he was first sent to the Jewish people, as foretold by prophesy. Then he was to spread the word to the Gentile, as also foretold by prophesy. There is also a message here about persistance. The woman would not take no for an answer, which he knew beforehand and the child was delivered.

And yes, if Christ came to restore God to humanity then those that are not with him are not helping his cause.