Posted on 02/06/2015 9:59:27 PM PST by SkyPilot
It obviously was tacit rather than explicit, but the claim that Jesus’ church is as immoral (by its own lights) as ISIS is (by Christian lights) boils down to an attack on Jesus.Acts Chapter 9
- And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
- And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
- And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
- And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
- And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
- And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Likely has has, given his spiteful nature, but, off hand, I can’t cite an example.
Oh wow! GOOD reasoning and thinking!
I agree with you!
I expect no less from the anti Christ.
No doubt battles like this one contribute to the idea that Muslims often attacked Europe (because they did)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Malta
and these enemies were Persian, Ottoman Turks, Tunisians etc etc
The Battle of Tours took place centuries before the 1st Crusade.
Various Crusaders took land in the Levant. They invaded Egypt and Tunisia, unsuccessfully. Richard Lionheart conquered Cyprus. The Fourth Crusade took Constantinople and most of the Byzantine Empire.
Depending on what you consider a crusade, Spain, Portugal, Prussia and the Baltic lands were all conquered and held by crusaders.
I agree that Obama’s equating of actions by Christians 800 years ago and actions this week by Muslims is a truly classic example of false moral equivalence.
Crusades were used very often indeed by the Popes. If I remember correctly, the Armada aimed at Elizabeth was proclaimed as a Crusade.
When the 1st Crusade was launched, the Holy Land had been in the hands of Islam for more than 450 years. That’s a good bit longer than since the English started their colonization of North America.
If Indian tribes were to launch an attack to regain the land DC is built on today, I doubt you’d agree their attack was purely defensive in nature. You’d say title had lapsed in this period of over 400 years.
You may, I guess, claim that the Crusades were a response to Muslim invasions, but a response delayed 459 years kind of loses the whole defensive character.
More accurately, I think, the Crusades were a long-delayed counterattack. They were precipitated not by Muslim conquest as such, but by mistreatment of pilgrims by certain more barbaric Muslim groups that had recently moved into the Levant. And by Byzantine pleas for help against Turkish groups.
Sorry, but the Crusaders explicitly did wage war for Christ. Their battle-cry was “Deus vult,” or God wills it. They certainly believed they were waging war for Jesus.
Obama’s point is hypocritical. If he’s saying it was wrong in the past, then it’s also wrong now. But today’s Christians didn’t do it, so they are not to blame. The only proper thing to do, by his own reasoning, is denounce Islam for what it is doing and teaching now - today.
But then, he’s not trying to be reasonable. In fact, at this event, his sole intent was to distract from ISIS burning that Jordanian pilot alive. He didn’t want Islam to answer for that, so, he attacked.
It’s called kicking over the table when you have a bad hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.