MOD EDIT: This thread has been split off from the GOD thread.

Good point. But that would suggest that everything the church has done is completely what God wanted and that the bible is not slightly flawed even though it was written by men. Were the crusades right? No more than Jihads, but it is justified because christians did it, right? Not to say that God isn't a guy, but I imagine more of a force. I think God is who you imagine. A lot of people imagine him as the wise man with a big white beard, but some imagine her as a loving mother. Then again, WTF do I know?

Yes. They were essentially the medieval version of World War II.
(http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/featu...yths_feb05.asp)

Also, why should God be a she anymore than a he?

Actually, no; I think you'll have a hard time convincing any Christian that the Crusades were justafied. Don'y confuse the actions of man with the actions of God. You can start a war in God's name, but that doesn't immediately make God agree that what you're doing is right.

I still stand by my original point. God made MAN (not hermathrodite) in his own image.
Also, the Bible says no man can look upon the face of God and live, but it tells us Jesus' face is identicle to God's (possibly plus the expected wear-and-tear of normal life). Jesus was a man.


(And this is where people start saying Jesus was a girl just to annoy me)

I think the Crusades were perfectly justified, and I'm a moderate Catholic. Many people have a mistaken picture of them as being violent conflicts by evil Christians against peaceful Muslims living in tolerance and harmony. In reality, it was a reaction against violent, totalitarian theocracy creeping into Europe and conquering it. Christians and Jews lived under the state of the dhimma, that of second class, second rate citizenship (think the state of blacks in segregation era America). Also, Saladin was not the angel he was portrayed as in Kingdom of Heaven and other works of fiction. Saladin was quite brutal, gleefully decapitating prisoners and only relenting from killing all of the Christians in a city because the other side threatened to kill all the Muslims.

Where does the Bible say Jesus' face=God's face?

What about the Crusaders massacring the infidel living peacefully in Europe? What about the Jews of York?

I meant it sarcastically. Crusades were NOT justified. Crusades were not any better. Muslims did nothing in catholic lands but tried to live. You can't blame one group of people if they both did the same thing. Nate has a perfect point of what they did to muslims in europe. Plus, on the way to some of the crusades, the pilgrims would kill jewish villagers. If that can be justified, please do so. Just because muslims do the same thing catholics do, but your catholic, doesn't make it any better.

What? Nate was talking about massacres of Jews, not Muslims. That was not sanctioned by the church in any case. The Muslims were NOT wanting to live in peace with the unbelievers. The Muslims, as their prophet commanded, wanted to violently convert all non Muslims to their religion or have them live as second or third class citizens.
(http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ic_crusad.html)
(http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/6981/defense.htm)
(http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm)

Be that as it may, even if you count the several centuries of Muslim occupation which were ignored previous to the first crusade (Jerusalem was conquered, what, 500 years before?) as provocation, that really doesn't justify the scale of the response or the actions of the crusaders.

In particular, I'm talking about the massacres of innocent civilians, both in the Holy Land and both Muslim and Jew in Europe. Just because they weren't sanctioned by the church, doesn't mean the slate is clean.

Crusades were basically a religious excuse to conquer and opress more people.

Anarchy! Woohoo!

But one thing good did come out of it. The Knights Templar. They became the de facto bankers and shock troops of Old Europe.

Wow. Did you not read a single post of what I just said?

Blaming nonchurch sanctioned actions on the Crusades is like blaming the kids killed in the Berlin bombings on WW2.

What's your point? The kids killed from 1939-45 in Berlin would have lived if it hadn't been for WW2. Seems like a pretty fair cop to blame the war for their deaths.

Unless you as a Jew are suggesting WW2 was bad, that still doesn't mean jack to the morality of WW2 or the Crusades.

Nope.

Now we're even.

I think I see your point; you're saying that the inadvertent bombing of innocent Berliners is justified as part of the war effort of the Allies, who were merely responding to the German's aggression?

I think that's fair but not entirely relevant. Aside from the bombing of Dresden (which is widely regarded as totally unnecessary, immoral and basically just a huge cock-up), the Allies didn't target innocent civilians. That they were caught in the crossfire is unfortunate but very different to the crusaders who did intentionally massacre thousands of Jewish and Muslim civilians.

(http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/006071.php)

That is very questionable history, based on a careful selection of references taken out of context. The best example that I can mention is the Maimonides quote which, as far as I can tell, is referring to the Almohades dynasty who conquered Spain then forced the Jewish residents to either convert or leave (they later relented and welcomed the Jews back). It certainly isn't referring to Saladin.

What's more, in Maimonides' works there are numerous positive mentions of Islam and the similarity between the religion and philosophy of both Islam and Judaism.

All of which doesn't change my point. Yes, I agree the Muslim leaders did terrible things. All I'm saying is that that doesn't justify the actions of the crusaders.

The Crusaders were blatantly using their Religion to justify their hate and ignorance.

It's funny, because The Phelps family seem to be the most hated family and one that is infamous, yet they don't do anything genuinely extreme. Okay, they picket about Fags and outside Funeral's, but i know a lot of Christians would beat up/kill people who don't believe in what they do, and have done. Whereas the Phelps family, from what i understand, are against violence.

People have different beliefs, so, there for, they fight. Humans don’t like ‘difference’ in others; just read a history book and you’ll see. I reckon God’s female…Dunno why, just do. Even though many things say God is a male, but look at history! Eve and that apple, and Pandora and that darn box…Where men are in power, who better to blame for evil then women?

Not to be a misogynist, but it was women who, in Christian theology, caused original sin and virtually all ills. Satan offered the apple, Eve (il?) took it and corrupted Adam. Though if you like female deities, join Wicca. They have a God and Goddess. Don't know of any monotheistic religions with a female deity though. Allah is close, as it is totally immaterial. Unfortunately though, Allah doesn't exist and Islam is misogynistic.

Also, provide evidence of the Crusaders motives being hating other religions.

Allah is the Abrahamic God, the same one as that of Christianity and Judaism.

Interesting that you would endorse Wicca and then completely denounced Islam. Yes...

Islam is a religion founded by a murderous pedophile that promotes warfare, hatred, and misogyny. Wicca is a peaceful, esoteric religion founded by an eccentric that promotes peace, respect for Terra, and freedom.

I'm not a Wiccan. I consider the Wiccan God/dess equally as fictional as Allah. I'm an atheist in all but one God, as Richard Dawkins would put it.

Allah is not (Bible) God;

Quran 25:2 He unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, He hath chosen no son nor hath He any partner in the Sovereignty. He hath created everything and hath meted out for it a measure.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I see that I'll make better headway preaching that black is white and that zebra crossings are evil than getting a horse past this knee-jerk spawned Trojan wall.

Though that last point isn't about a difference in Gods, but merely highlights that Muslims deny Jesus' divinity and see him as one of the Lord's many prophets, one of the few Muslim aspects that I can subscribe to, after effect.

When the fuck did you come back?

We missed you:(

I come back when i've finished failing University in a repeated and stylish manner. I'll be gone by September.

...like a ring of smoke in the encroaching Fog.

Due to the fact that the Christian God has a son and Allah does not, they are not the same god. I suppose since Luciferians worship a singlular deity you think they worship the Christian deity? Moreover, there are more differences between Allah and BibleGod, such as the amorality of Allah, the universal commands to kill unbelievers, and the total lack of corporation for Allah.

Well, as BM said, Muslim people deny Jesus' divinity and claim he was merely a prophet, like Mohammed. That would still enable the gods to be the same as Jesus would then not be the son of God.

In any case, have you actually read much of the Old Testament? There's plenty of smiting and wiping out there also.

Yep, but it's God/Group X goes after group Y. Not like Allah ordering ALL unbelievers to be killed or converted/made to live as dhimmis.

Given that the Torah is a consistent element in all Abrahamic religions and that God is used to describe the same entity in any and all extra sacred texts as in the Torah, I'm going to conclude that it is the same God worshipped by different religions.