ADVERTISEMENT

Texas Shoots Back At Muslim Terrorists

More people have died because of religious beliefs than all wars combined.
 
Wkycatfan and Pikespeak think the Crusades started because of a rise of Islam. Not true. Islam didn't even start till early 600s. Wkycat, you mentioned Constantine. That was in the 300s. No, Roman Christian problem was middle easterners. Turks, Persians, etc... The West had been battling the middle east for centuries before Islam became a player. So I'm pretty sure it didn't take much of a European rally cry to shit on Islam before it even spread. Then you throw in Charlemagne's narcissistic bastardardization of being the holy king in the 800s and you start to paint a picture of what exactly was starting to happen with European Christianity. Oh Not to mention Ghengis Kahn wiped out 75% of the Persians. so, no. The Crusades had a different agenda and it wasn't revenge.

Love the Megadeth verse. Holy Wars.........
 
The Roman Catholic Church admitted that they had killed more than 40 million, yes 40 million
non catholic people. Muslims, Jews, whatever didn't claim to be catholic. I was stunned that the number was that high.
I would have guessed 10 million but on tv they reportedly apologized for killing 40 million.
Wither or not that number is correct I don't know, the exact total is unknown.

They slaughtered the old baptist people, for the crime of not baptizing
their little children, and thus allowing them to go to hell for not being baptized. A letter found from a soldier said something like this about the old baptists. "they are more christ-like in their actions and dress than we are, but because they don't believe in baptizing their children they are heretics, who should be punished"

"Trail of Blood" is an interesting read if church history is of interest to you
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
I think I read that the only Nazi excommunicated by the Vatican was Goebbels, and that was only because he married a non-catholic.

The church was a huge reservoir of support for early 20th century fascism. I believe they recognized Hitler's birthday up until the very end.
 
Willy, the crusades were in 1103 give or take a little, they began in retaliation for the Muslim advance into Europe, now, did the crusader leaders take advantage of a situation, possibly I don't know the answer to that, and since it was close to 1000 years ago I doubt we ever will. In the end it doesn't really matter as it was 1000 years ago, and doesn't matter at all about what's taking place today. Just follow the timeline
 
Jamo, being occupied by Germany might've played a role in that, or the desire to stay neutral. I don't know, i thought Goebbels was married before the war?
 
Willy, the crusades were in 1103 give or take a little, they began in retaliation for the Muslim advance into Europe, now, did the crusader leaders take advantage of a situation, possibly I don't know the answer to that, and since it was close to 1000 years ago I doubt we ever will. In the end it doesn't really matter as it was 1000 years ago, and doesn't matter at all about what's taking place today. Just follow the timeline
Bill keep in mind. Persians were thriving then. Genghis Kahn killed 75% of them. Why I brought up Charlemagne is because European Christianity was growing in global power (military) looooong before the threat of Islam. The better way to explain it is. "Non-practicing Muslims have been a major problem in the West's growth and it gave further fuel to the fire with the birth of Islam" Buddy, the church wasn't Islam before the 600s. They were fighting middle easterners. Non-Muslims.
 
even then Bill, there was no-concept of Non-Practicing Muslims. So I have that wrong. My apologies. They had no idea of Islam. Remmebr, Mohammed was the prophet
 
Jamo, being occupied by Germany might've played a role in that, or the desire to stay neutral. I don't know, i thought Goebbels was married before the war?
Meh. The papacy worked hand-in-hand with Mussolini on pretty much every issue except when he tried to strip Italian Jews of their citizenship.

Mussolini granted the Vatican their current territory, made Catholicism the state religion, and tried to ban both divorce and contraception
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
Willy, the battle of tours which was one by Charlemagnes father was fought in France and considered the turning point of Islams push into Europe. It was fought in the late 700's, and that was Islam.
Im sure Christians were fighting middle easterners before that, probably what brought about Mohammed's rise. But as for the Crusades, they came about because of Islams rise and threat.
 
More than likely it was Mussolini trying to gain popularity with the italian citizens which were overwhelmingly catholic. To try and link the Vatican to the axis powers is a stretch in my opinion, and I'm not catholic.
 
If I recall correctly, it was illegal in most states to burn a flag. Then some guy decided he wanted to burn a flag outside a Republican convention in TEXAS. No one was injured. No one died. The guy who burned the flag was arrested. That case went to the Supreme Court and flag burning prohibitions were ruled unconstitutional.

So yeah, there's documented precedent for burning a flag in Texas with no one being hurt or killed. As opposed to mohammed (sp?) drawing contests.
 
I think I read that the only Nazi excommunicated by the Vatican was Goebbels, and that was only because he married a non-catholic.

The church was a huge reservoir of support for early 20th century fascism. I believe they recognized Hitler's birthday up until the very end.

Not this guy.

DBStatementimage2.png
 
Willy, the battle of tours which was one by Charlemagnes father was fought in France and considered the turning point of Islams push into Europe. It was fought in the late 700's, and that was Islam.
Im sure Christians were fighting middle easterners before that, probably what brought about Mohammed's rise. But as for the Crusades, they came about because of Islams rise and threat.
I agree with you. But I think it simplifies the situation. Islam was little over 100+ old when in the 700s. The wars with the middle east go back to the City-Nation times of the Greek. Over a 1000 years of bad blood. Islam was a means to an end as the church was grabbing up more and more power. I have no doubt in my mind that Crusades weren't about Islam suppression as much as it was about globalizing Christianity. Charlemagne took it to a new level with his self-righteousness.
 
I agree with you. But I think it simplifies the situation. Islam was little over 100+ old when in the 700s. The wars with the middle east go back to the City-Nation times of the Greek. Over a 1000 years of bad blood. Islam was a means to an end as the church was grabbing up more and more power. I have no doubt in my mind that Crusades weren't about Islam suppression as much as it was about globalizing Christianity. Charlemagne took it to a new level with his self-righteousness.

Willy, I've read 4 books on the Crusades, and this is simply false.
 
Willy, I've read 4 books on the Crusades, and this is simply false.
I'm sure you have read a lot. But if you think the West's problem began with the middle east over Islam and without taking the considerations of the church's rise in power to globalize Christianity, then you are undermining the intensity of middle east/the West pre-Islam. So no, it's not a "false".
 
There have been many falacies written and touted out as fact by people that just simply are not true. One of which states that more wars are fought over religion than anything else. Below is an excerpt debunking that.

"In his hilarious analysis of The 10 Commandments, George Carlin said to loud applause, "More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason," and many take this idea as an historical fact. When I hear someone state that religion has caused most wars, though, I will often and ask the person to name these wars. The response is typically, "Come on! The Crusades, The Inquisition, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11. Need I name more?"
Well, yes, we do need to name more, because while clearly there were wars that had religion as the prime cause, an objective look at history reveals that those killed in the name of religion have, in fact, been a tiny fraction in the bloody history of human conflict. In their recently published book, "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.
History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion. These wars were for territorial conquest, to control borders, secure trade routes, or respond to an internal challenge to political authority. In fact, the ancient conquerors, whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman, openly welcomed the religious beliefs of those they conquered, and often added the new gods to their own pantheon.
Medieval and Renaissance wars were also typically about control and wealth as city-states vied for power, often with the support, but rarely instigation, of the Church. And the Mongol Asian rampage, which is thought to have killed nearly 30 million people, had no religious component whatsoever."
 
Constantine may have had that as a goal, but the Crusades were 'primarily' about stopping Islam. I have always viewed Constantine as both good and bad for Christianity at the same time. He stop the persecutions of Christians by the Roman government, but as the same time, probably turned Christianity in to something it was not meant to be.

The first 300 years of Christianity are often overlooked and was making its mark on humanity without the aid of Constantine, Charlemagne, or the Crusades.
 
When the Muslims come out with the New Testament of the Koran, everything will be peace, love and loaves.

I know this isn't PC, but I like the fact that this fished some terrorists out of hiding and ended them. But we are just lucky that they were stopped before inflicting serious damage.

What if they had decided to make a car bomb instead of going in with assault rifles?
 
Constantine may have had that as a goal, but the Crusades were 'primarily' about stopping Islam. I have always viewed Constantine as both good and bad for Christianity at the same time. He stop the persecutions of Christians by the Roman government, but as the same time, probably turned Christianity in to something it was not meant to be.

The first 300 years of Christianity are often overlooked and was making its mark on humanity without the aid of Constantine, Charlemagne, or the Crusades.

Of course that was Constantine's goal. He had a dream. Primarily stopping? The middle east problem was a problem before they did the Crusades. Which basically means, that the problem was always there. They West had been trying to primarily stop the middle east expansion for over a thousand years
 
So we should just sit back and do nothing?

It's a lose/lose situation. I wasn't really advocating. I'm just saying, when Americans were killed by terrorists on 9/11, our whole country demanded retaliation. We bombed the hell out of the Middle East. We were blood thirsty and wanted revenge. And rightfully so. Imagine if any one of us lost someone we loved to a terrorist. We'd be on the warpath, and would kill in return, by hand if necessary.

So my point is that we often fail to realize there are consequences to our actions. When we kill innocent women and children by mistake, it has a ripple effect. It creates new generations of people that want to harm the United States in return.

Do I think we need to be the World Police? No, I don't. Do I think we should intervene if there is a direct threat to the United States? I absolutely do.
 
Comparing America (and the 9/11 murders) to middle eastern countries like Yemen or Pakistan (and collateral killings) is moronic. The left just loves to make these imperialistic comps, as if we are building an empire instead of just losing trillions of dollars. Learn justifications, learn who the world comes to when they need help. We have different rules for some pretty GD good reasons.

I would agree that drones are overused and lack oversight. Just telling though that liberals wanted the former leadership jailed over waterboarding and yawn at 5-7 fold increase in drone usage under Obama.
 
Comparing America (and the 9/11 murders) to middle eastern countries like Yemen or Pakistan (and collateral killings) is moronic. The left just loves to make these imperialistic comps, as if we are building an empire instead of just losing trillions of dollars. Learn justifications, learn who the world comes to when they need help. We have different rules for some pretty GD good reasons.

I would agree that drones are overused and lack oversight. Just telling though that liberals wanted the former leadership jailed over waterboarding and yawn at 5-7 fold increase in drone usage under Obama.

I'm not "the left". And please quit writing when you have sand in your vagina. It makes you cranky and kind of nutty.
 
Willy, It doesn't matter how old Islam was at the time, by the 700's it had already made a heavy push by force into Europe, that is an undeniable fact. The Christian Armies eventually pushed it all the way out.
What the hell are we even arguing about? Something that happened 1000 years ago somehow being relevant to today? It's not relevant, its ridiculous to somehow try to justify whats happening in the world today to what happened then.
 
I cant believe how ridiculous some of you are. Simply put, blaming the organizers of the event for what transpired is like blaming a rape victim for being raped. People lampoon Christianity all the time. Irreverency is part of the national fabric.
And stop bringing up the touching Crusades. Has nothing to do with any of this.
 
Willy, It doesn't matter how old Islam was at the time, by the 700's it had already made a heavy push by force into Europe, that is an undeniable fact. The Christian Armies eventually pushed it all the way out.
What the hell are we even arguing about? Something that happened 1000 years ago somehow being relevant to today? It's not relevant, its ridiculous to somehow try to justify whats happening in the world today to what happened then.
Not trying to be nit picky Bill, but middle eastern expansion had already pushed itself into Europe waaaay before Islam. Islam was just another piece of trash added to a sky-high size of growing garbage.
 
I'm not "the left". And please quit writing when you have sand in your vagina. It makes you cranky and kind of nutty.
You're the idiot making these comps and yes you are. You only post on making excuses for muslims and hating Reagan, nothing else. Go sell that shitty "not a liberal" elsewhere, you have a decade of evidence against you.
Saying America has different standing than Yemen makes me "nutty" huh...great argument, keep them coming. Absolutely no idea about the sandy vagina thing but goes well with your normal awful takes.
 
Last edited:
Actually, true. There's shit that's older than the world according to the Bible.

I mean literally shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite

With all due respect Pope, there is nothing in the bible that contradicts the existence of fossils being many thousands or millions of years old.

When you say "according to the bible", how old do you think the bible says the earth is?
 
I have always viewed Constantine as both good and bad for Christianity at the same time.

I'd say Constantine was one of the worst things to ever happen to Christianity. He was a pagan that knew virtually nothing about Christian doctrine. He only knew that there was great division within his empire and he needed to solidify it. He did this by helping to fuse pagan rituals, rites and images into Christianity (starting with his Council of Nicea) in order to try and make everyone happy. This door stayed open over the centuries and the bastardization continued with Greek myth and philosophy also being incorporated.

So what you get now is nothing like the Christianity practiced in the first century, and Constantine opened the door for it to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
I'd say Constantine was one of the worst things to ever happen to Christianity. He was a pagan that knew virtually nothing about Christian doctrine. He only knew that there was great division within his empire and he needed to solidify it. He did this by helping to fuse pagan rituals, rites and images into Christianity (starting with his Council of Nicea) in order to try and make everyone happy. This door stayed open over the centuries and the bastardization continued with Greek myth and philosophy also being incorporated.

So what you get now is nothing like the Christianity practiced in the first century, and Constantine opened the door for it to happen.
One example, Saturnalia moves as a pagan holiday to "Merry Christmas"
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUJO_1970
So what you get now is nothing like the Christianity practiced in the first century, and Constantine opened the door for it to happen.

There have always been (and still are) individuals and groups who made good faith efforts to live a true Christian life since its inception. The reformation turned that into a full-fledged movement. Those people just don't get much attention, and I'm sure they aren't looking for any. I just like to refute the claim that the only reason Christianity spread was because of Constantine. Revisionist and agenda-driven IMO.

I agree that the first 3 centuries of Christianity were a very good model, and there are still those type of people today, especially in other countries (middle east, Africa), where it takes real courage to live for Christ, and I greatly admire those people.
 
I get what you're saying Willy, but whether it's the right date or not we're still celebrating the birth of Christ. At least thats the way I look at it.

I imagine the Roman leadership changed to take advantage of the spreading Christianity.
 
With all due respect Pope, there is nothing in the bible that contradicts the existence of fossils being many thousands or millions of years old.

When you say "according to the bible", how old do you think the bible says the earth is?
Adam was there from the beginning, correct? 6,000 years or so was determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
 
Adam was there from the beginning, correct? 6,000 years or so was determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

No sir, Adam came along much later. (The earth had been there a long time before Adam showed up.)

The creative "days" in Genesis do not refer to literal 24 hour days. The word "day" as translated from Hebrew and Greek express units of time of varying length, and is used in reference to a literal 24 hour period of time all the way up to thousands of years (or more), depending on the context.

For example: In Hebrews, Paul says the 7th "day" (the day of rest) was continuing in his generation - and that was thousands of years later. So in the context of the creative days in Genesis, each one of them were _at least_ thousands of years in length. (We don't know exactly how long they were)

So with your example of fossilized poop or a T-rex skeleton - there is nothing biblical to contradict that those things are many thousands (or millions) of years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stonewall12
ADVERTISEMENT