[PetroniusMaximus]

***The Crusades were
a violent solution to the Muslim
control of the Holy Land. ***

The Crusades, in their agressive form, have no support in the New Testament and represent an aberration of Christianity.

I know this does not exactly address your point, but there in no basis for violence in any form in the New Testament.

Strictly speaking, Christianity has not "developed beyond" violence. Whenever Christians have enganged in violence they have fallen from the ideals of the New Testament and are in disobedience to the Lord they claim to follow.

[BikerNYC]

Whenever Christians have engaged in violence they have fallen from the ideals of the New Testament and are in disobedience to the Lord they claim to follow.

Do you really intend the meaning of this sentence to be as expansive as it sounds?

[johnb838]

The Crusades are over. This discussion is of the here and now. They muzzies love to pull the Crusades into the argument. It is a false argument.

[Bushbacker]

this does not exactly address your point, but there in no basis for violence in any form in the New Testament.

___"The Bible is One," you can't
make a radical break between the
two "testaments."

There was plenty of violence in the Bible and much of it "justified" by invoking God.

O think we should stop Islam-bashing and concentrate on defeating the actual jihadists.