Opinions of Evolution by Religious types

[OzmO]

All those documents go on about "recovery of jerusalem".

Recovering it from the muslim invaders.

Fact.

Read em,  they massacred jews too.

They invaded.  plain and simple.  The weren't returning anything to the jews they were "reclaiming" the holy land for christians.

[Nordic Superman]

Yes, the Christians were wrong for killing anybody.

But there intentions were to reclaim the holy land for Christianity after the muslim invaders took it.

This is all in your own articles.

You might want to try these too:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades.htm

[OzmO]

Yes, the Christians were wrong for killing anybody.

But there intentions were to reclaim the holy land for Christianity after the muslim invaders took it.

This is all in your own articles.

You might want to try these too:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades.htm

I know what their intentions were.  My problem is the way they went about it.

when i have time i'll do some strong research.  Right now i can't.

[OzmO]

Here ya go....  REad it, it's sounds familiar of today's islamic terrorist rhetoric

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm

[Nordic Superman]

Bias website.

I could pull up numerous citations from pro-crusade websites that will divulge historic evidence supporting the need for the crusades.

[OzmO]

the issue here is not about the need.

The issue is about the terrible acts. 

Don't tell me you are claim any site that has terrible acts by the crusaders is a bias site..  Because then we should end this debate here.

The massacres  the crusaders did down there is well accepted history. (in the first sites i mentioned also) Maybe not in england becuase it makes them look bad, but for sure in the rest of the world.   

[Nordic Superman]

Don't tell me you are claim any site that has terrible acts by the crusaders is a bias site..  Because then we should end this debate here.

The massacres  the crusaders did down there is well accepted history. (in the first sites i mentioned also) Maybe not in england becuase it makes them look bad, but for sure in the rest of the world.   

I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.

Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth"

[a_joker10]

The First crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29

Richard the Lionheart

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

Anti-Semitic violence

When Richard was crowned King of England, he barred all Jews and women from the ceremony (this was apparently a concession to the fact that his coronation was not merely one of a king but of a crusader), but some Jewish leaders showed up anyway to present gifts for the new king. According to Ralph of Diceto, Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged the Jews, then flung them out of court. When a rumor spread that Richard had ordered all Jews to be killed, the people of London joined in to persecute the Jews, and a massacre began. Many Jews were beaten to death, robbed, and burnt alive. Many Jewish homes were burned down and several Jews were forcibly baptised. Some sought sanctuary in the Tower of London, and others managed to escape. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, widely regarded as one of the most learned of the age.

However other chroniclers such as Benedict of Peterborough tell a different story; the rioting was started by the jealous and bigoted citizens of London. Richard is said to have punished the perpetrators and allowed a forcibly converted Jew to return to Judaism. Archbishop of Canterbury Baldwin of Exeter reacted by remarking, "If the King is not God's man, he had better be the devil's," a reference to the supposedly infernal blood in the Angevin line.

In either case, realizing that the assaults could destabilize his realm at the time of his imminent departure for the Holy Land, Richard ordered the execution of those responsible for the most egregious murders and persecutions (most of those who were hanged were the rioters who had accidentally burnt down Christian homes). Further, he distributed a royal writ demanding that the Jews be left alone. However, the edict was loosely enforced, as the following March there was a renewed outbreak of violence, including a massacre at York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1190

1190 March 16 - Massacre and mass-suicide of the Jews of York, England prompted by Crusaders and Richard Malebys kill 150-500 Jews in Clifford's Tower

[OzmO]

I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.

Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth"

Well that's real spiffy talking but it whether its a liberal web site or not, (which to me it isn't) it doesn't change the facts.  Facts are facts.  England in it's history has had no problem massacring non-christians...  Even acclaimed BRITISH author Bernard Cornwell has detailed these things in his books of Richard Sharpe in India.   

Let's not be sooooooo stuffed up that we are ignorant to our own coutries faults. 

Makes you look like an ignorant-conny 

[Nordic Superman]

Joker,

It clearly states King Richard had open heart surgery to transplant a lions heart. That's where he gets his name from right?

Isn't there atleast a minute possability he began behave like a lion afterwards, so we can blame this on the massacre of the Jews?

[Hedgehog]

I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.

Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth"

Actually, you're doing a bit of that with haider.

Putting words in his mouth and attributing values and opinions he's never vented.

YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

Actually, you're doing a bit of that with haider.

Putting words in his mouth and attributing values and opinions he's never vented.

YIP
Zack

Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.

I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.

[Hedgehog]

Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.

I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.

Haha, good comeback.

I think challenging haider and asking him if he believes in certain things that are written in the Quran is one thing, and definitely fair play. If he doesn't wants to answer, it's up to him.

So why don't you ask him and put him to the test on issues of Islamic Faith instead of accusing him of everything and anything? That will lead to jack squat IMO.

A question for haider could be something like:

This law is in the Quran "---------------------(enter the law or passage in question)----"

What do you think about this law?


My guess is that such an approach would have much higher chance of getting you guys anywhere.

And I have a question for you NS:

What are your religion?


YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

And I have a question for you NS:

What are your religion?

I have no religion. Man is a biological organism evolving over years upon years.

[OzmO]

Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.

I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.

Well DAH!   Christians, Buddists, Hindus, etc... all hammer their values and ideology into their kids at birth.

"that's like saying Muslim's think the sky is blue and you'll deny that too of course"

Earth Shattering revelation there! 

[Camel Jockey]

Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.

I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.

Okay, you're just talking out of your ass now. I'll admit, that muslim parents do tend to mold their kids to have an ideal mindset, but it's not that EXTREME. If it were, then you wouldn't have people like toxic and I.

[Nordic Superman]

Okay, you're just talking out of your ass now. I'll admit, that muslim parents do tend to mold their kids to have an ideal mindset, but it's not that EXTREME. If it were, then you wouldn't have people like toxic and I.

You're saying i am wrong and right? Logical fallacy.

[haider]

You're saying i am wrong and right? Logical fallacy.

No, he's saying that you're talking out of your ass. Simple. You're exagerrating. No logical fallacy there.

[Nordic Superman]

No, he's saying that you're talking out of your ass. Simple. You're exagerrating. No logical fallacy there.

He's says i'm talking out of my ass, yet contradicts himself by saying muslim parents do do this (maybe to a lesser degree than I say).

So, in conclusion, you're a muslim, your prophet was a pedo, and may slabs of pig "meat" be inserted in his anus.

[OzmO]

It's a stupid point.  Muslims and christians start ramming basic values (which are very similar to each other) down their children's mouths right from birth to different degrees depending on each family's value in that regard.

That's why your point originates from you ass.  Cause it's a dumb point.

[Nordic Superman]

It's a stupid point.  Muslims and christians start ramming basic values (which are very similar to each other) down their children's mouths right from birth to different degrees depending on each family's value in that regard.

That's why your point originates from you ass.  Cause it's a dumb point.

Why are you mentioning Christians? I was commenting on muslims.

Liberal apologist.

[OzmO]

Why are you mentioning Christians? I was commenting on muslims.

Liberal apologist.

Weak. Again,  in your "stupid point"  you are only stating the obvious which carries no wieght becuase every other family does the same thing with other religions

So then what do you do?  You result to insults.  Lame.

Get a real arguement and not something you pull straight out of your ass and have to defend by resorting to insults.

[Nordic Superman]

I'm stating facts.

YOU "OzmO" ARE A "liberal", WITH "apologetic" TENDANCIES.

True or false?

I'm not trying to "insult" you. I labelling you from the information I get from your posts. Deal with it instead of taking offence.

[OzmO]

I'm stating facts.

YOU "OzmO" ARE A "liberal", WITH "apologetic" TENDANCIES.

True or false?

I'm not trying to "insult" you. I labelling you from the information I get from your posts. Deal with it instead of taking offence.

You stating Obvious facts as a bases for a stupid point.    And then when someone points it out you indirectly try and insult them like a dumb ass. 

Does that sound apologetic enough?

[Nordic Superman]

Hmm, your message formatting is reminiscent of Jag...

Over use of message text formatting in a vain attempt to emphasise point of view: CHECK

Constant libby apologetic tone of posts... CHECK

Love for "man seed" drinks... CHECK

Conclusion:
OzmO is either a gimmick account of Jag OR OzmO is a raging homosexual liberal apologist.