Are Textbooks Biased?

June 9, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment

Bias, politics distort kids’ history lessons
By Robert Holland, Columnist

MODERN textbooks often shy away from presenting a positive picture of Christianity and Judaism as important influences in molding the United States of America. But thanks to multicultural activism, that caution does not hold for the way many K-12 history textbooks now present non-Western religions, particularly Islam.

For instance, “History Alive: the Medieval World and Beyond,” a middle-school text adopted by California for statewide use, offers a decidedly unbalanced characterization of jihad, a concept that may be benign in individual uses but that is invoked by radical Islamists as a rationale for warring against Americans.

“Jihad represents the human struggle to overcome difficulties and to do things that would be pleasing to God,” the textbook asserts. “Muslims strive to respond positively to personal difficulties as well as worldly challenges. For instance, they might work to become better people, reform society, or correct injustice.”

That is no isolated sugar-coating of reality. The American Textbook Council, an independent organization that has studied social-studies textbooks since 1989, recently found that many political and religious groups seek to gain favorable treatment in textbooks, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are “uniquely disturbing.” (CLICK HERE TO READ MORE)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,

"Christian Jihad" – once an oxymoron

April 21, 2008 By admin 3 Comments

The first thing I’ll say is that this book was not an easy read.  Secondly, most of my review will be an analysis of various responses that have resulted from this controversial topic.  Emir & Ergun Caner, in my opinion, presented a rather unbiased, objective, historical representation of this dark age.  From the early formations of Augustine’s just war criteria to the Spanish Inquisition, they provide us with a comprehensive yet concise overview of “the Crusades and killing in the name of Christ.”  They highlight the abuses of the Papacy in manipulating the masses, taking advantage of their ignorance, and promising salvation to all worthy crusading participants.  Many of the accounts in this book are nauseating, at times causing you to tell yourself that “ignorance really is bliss.” 

The Crusades were tragic.  They attest to the depths of our self-deception, greed, lust for power, and utter depravity.  Moreover, they bear witness of the black shrouds of darkness present in the chambers of an unregenerate  human heart (notice the emphasis on unregenerate).  So we can ask:  Were the majority of the participants in these events authentic Christians who were regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit?  Whatever the case, a close examination (heck, even a brief perusal) of Scripture unequivocally demonstrates that Christ does not advocate the type of atrocities committed during this terrible epoch of church history.

Augustine of Hippo once said, “Never judge a philosophy by its abuse.”  But is it not human nature to judge the validity of a philosophy by the practice (or malpractice thereof) of that philosophy’s adherents?  ”Judge not, lest you be judged” has transformed into the obstinate fight song of our generation.  It’s as if those words grant us a license to live in moral degradation, rejecting any authority over us that demands higher ethical submission.  The fallacy present in choking out a particular religion because of its hypocritical following has become dominant in our postmodern world.  This ideology has pointedly honed in on and attacked the Christian faith, deeming this faith inadequate become of its abuse.  

However, the logical conclusion is apparent:  We do not judge a philosophy by its abuse, but by its truth.  And who do we follow but the very One who is the ultimate Truth? The One who looked at the masses and was moved with compassion.  The One to whom every knee will one day bow and every tongue one day confess.  You see, the One who wielded the very sword Pope Boniface claimed belonged to the papacy is the One who emptied Himself, becoming the slain Lamb who died for and redeemed those who hated Him.  Proposing to reject the Christian religion because of its history fails to carefully examine the validity of that  religion’s one true God. Yet we cannot help but wonder if there is a deeper underlying motivation to this adamant objection.  A rejection of true Christianity is a rejection of Christ.  Our Creator is not polluted by the sins of mankind, nor by the sins of Christ “professors.”

In the end, the glory of God will not be clouded by the depravity of man.


Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Fitna

March 30, 2008 By admin 3 Comments

On Wednesday we will be building upon our discussions of church & state, Islam, accuracy-honesty-understanding, & Christian Jihad and will be discussing the Crusades and the ethics of war.

I contemplated using the following video to start the discussion, but some of the images are very graphic and would be too much for some of you. I post it here because I think it adds a dimension to our discussion which we have not yet engaged, however, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU PRAYERFULLY CONSIDER NOT WATCHING IT if the sight of graphic violence would negatively affect you. Personally, watching this video made me physically ill for several hours.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Onward Christian Soldiers?

March 26, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment

Christian Jihad was a book on the Christian perspective on the relationship between the Church, State and Warfare. The authors, Ergun Caner and Emir Caner, are two former Muslims who converted to Christianity. They provide an eclectic perspective of Islam, Christianity and their relationship now and during the Crusades. The Caner brothers dealt with the age old question, “Is it right for a Christian to kill another person during battle?” This has been asked by countless Christians especially recently with America currently participating in a war. In addition to this they show the relationship that existed between the Church and State throughout history. Beginning with the reign of Emperor Constantine, the Church has been in constant struggle over what its relationship should be with the government. This book was very insightful and helpful in answering some of the more difficult questions of the Christian faith.

The Caner brothers began their address of Christianity and Warfare by defining a word that has been mostly linked with terrorism in this present day, Jihad or Holy War. They discuss the similarities between the ideas of Pope Urban II and Usamah Bin Ladin on the subject of declaring “Holy War” on a different religious group in the name of god. Both Bin Laden and Pope Urban promised salvation as the reward of those “Holy Warriors” who died or killed for a “Holy Cause”. The “Warrior” would be obligated to kill others and die for the glorious “Cause”. Holy Martyrdom was best achieved if one took as many people with him as possible. Pope Urban declared this Jihad against the Muslims in direct contradiction to the direct teachings of Jesus. The Caner Brother’s point in this comparison was to show that there really was no difference in the declaration of Jihad by the Christians of the first and second century to that of the Muslims on Jews, Christians and everyone else who was not Muslim. The conclusion was- any war that was and is fought in the name of or political gain of a deity or person is not grounds for a just war and clearly Christians should not participate in such a campaign.

Apparent Pacifism in scripture was one of the reasons that the Caners used for Christians not participating in warfare. They showed that Christ was adamant in His followers “Turning the other cheek” when wronged. Even the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian especially believed that it was problematic for a Christian to serve in the military because violence rebels against the principles of the Christian life. Tertullian went even further and asks if a Christian could in good conscience swear oaths to a master other than Christ, imprison anyone, guard pagan temples, fly the banner of a regime that persecutes Christians or even be buried in an unchristian manner? Tertullian deemed such acts as possible expressions of denial of Christ’s power and control over His Creation. The Church Fathers were adamant in their beliefs about not shedding blood and being empathetic towards the hunted or persecuted. Up until the reign of Emperor Constantine, the Church was mercilessly persecuted by the government and the conversion of Constantine heralded in a new era of some freedom of religion. Sadly this new relationship between the Church and State would produce an unhealthy society in the future. The Caners showed the progression of this exceedingly unhealthy relationship in their book Christian Jihad.

From the time of Constantine to the Fall of Rome in 410 AD the Church was the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome was constantly gaining power and precedence over the other Bishops in the Empire and after Rome fell, the people looked to the Bishop of Rome for political as well as spiritual guidance. This led into the elevation of the Roman Bishop or the Pope as the head of the Church. With the coronation of Charlemagne by Emperor Leo the III exhibited the fact that the Church was the one who “Wielded the Sword of power” in the Empire. Charlemagne made certain that his son would not be subjected to the same type of political slight and did not invite the Pope to his son’s coronation. During the dark ages and crusades the powers at be were always in constant struggle as to who would control the empire, the Church or State. This struggle would come to fruition during the Protestant Reformation.

The Caner brothers described the Protestant Reformation in a rather “shady light”. They portrayed the Anabaptists as the only group that was hunted down and persecuted during the time of the Reformation. While they may have been persecuted by the Roman Catholics and the Reformers unjustifiably, there were other groups who were persecuted as well. The Caner brothers only looked at one particular group and portrayed everyone else (Catholics and Reformers) as being the enemy when in reality they were all followers of Christ. If the Caner brother’s main thesis was granting religious freedom to all, then shouldn’t the same luxury be afforded the Catholics and the Reformers? Now granted, there was evil and all sorts of injustices that were committed during that time. The ends did not justify the means in any way. But does portraying an entirely biased opinion on the subject justify the end? The discussion heated when they began discussing the relationship between the Church and State.

The Caner brothers also looked at the relationship between the Church and the State at the time. However they only looked at it from the view of the Roman Catholics, the Reformers and the Anabaptists. The Catholics believed that the Church should be closely tied with the government and in some cases have power over the government. While the Reformers took two different approaches following Calvin and Luther mainly. Calvin believed that the believer was a citizen of the State and the Church, that the State gains it’s authority directly from God and that the Church is to renovate the world including the State while the State is to help the Church with evangelism. Luther basically held the same beliefs as Calvin except that the Church should not impose it’s precepts onto a lost world. The Anabaptists believed that there was a distinct separation between the Church and State and that neither one should impose on the other’s rights. They believed that believers belonged to the church while the non-believers belonged to the state. What the Caner brothers failed to bring into the discussion was the thoughts of Spurgeon who lived only a short while after these other men. Spurgeon takes a nice medium between the extremes. While scripture supports more of Spurgeon’s beliefs, the Caner Brothers did not make a very just case. Everyone brings their own pre-suppositions to any conflict, granted. But perhaps a more thorough look at all the parties involved would have provided better insight on the subject.

Overall, the Caners took a very interesting and perhaps untouched view of the Crusades in Christian Jihad. They proved that no one country, religious group or person is without some guilt for past or current grievances. They showed that the Crusades, Reformation and current times have not occurred with out people, even professing Christians, have behaved in a very “Un-Christ like” manner. The Caners left the reader challenged to right the wrongs of the past, and to prayerfully not repeat them.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Christian Jihad

March 26, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment

A lot of times we Christians look at the violent Martyr deaths of Muslims. We forget, however, that people, who called themselves Christians, used to do likewise and maybe even worse. Ergun and Emir Caner are trying to convey the truth about a dark chapter in the history of the church. Their book “Christian Jihad” informs us about the crusades and other horrible slaughters made in the name of Christ.

The authors start with the pacifistic mindset of the Early Church Fathers and about the change that took place about this issue when Christianity became a religion under Constantine. He also arranged a marriage between the state and the church, which will turn out to be bad. The moment when Pope Urban, as the head of the church and therefore also head of the state, challenged Christians to conquer the Holy Land from the Muslims, is considered to be the low point for Christianity. The time of Invasions, murders and slaughters started and resulted in more than three crusades in the beginning of the second millennium. Later the church even justified the death of heretics. Opponents of the church were not tolerated at all. Instead the most happened consequence for holding different views than the Catholic Church would end in a death by burning at the stake. The authors also describe the relationship of the church to the Jews and notice that it also was not free of violence and maledictions. “Christian Jihad” wants to challenge us to have a critical view on our mostly not known history and warns of the consequences of the question on separation of church and state.

How could such horrible things like the killing of so many people in the name of Jesus Christ happen? This is an often asked question that I want to answer, based on the Research the authors have done.

The most important reason is the situation Christianity and Christian people were at that time. Before the first millennium ended people in Europe were pretty desperate. After a time of moderate conditions for Europeans, it was much easier to find something to look forward to. People were not satisfied with their situation at all; they did not really have purpose they would like to die for. This is the first condition to start something like the crusades. Pope Urban knew very well to take advantage of this situation. He mobilized almost all of Europe to recapture the Holy Land together. He promised them forgiveness of their sins and the assertion of eternal life. Of course, Pope Urban had in mind also the reaffirmation of the papacy, which had lost a little bit of reputation.

As a German, I would like to compare this initial situation of the crusades with the situation in Germany which led to the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The German people around the thirties were as well a very desperate people. Branded by the consequences of World War 1, the economic crisis, and a political mess people were looking for somebody to put the blame on. Hitler, who was a great orator and like Pope Urban, could unify and mobilize people. They both used their talent to abuse people for their own ideals and motivations. At this point it is important to state that I do not want to trivialize either of these occurrences. However, it could be important for us to see what exactly caused people to join such a cruelty.

It is our responsibility to learn from our past. As Christians we ought to live accordingly in every part of our life.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

"Killing for Christ" – Christian Jihad Book Report

March 26, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment


Christian Jihad, written by Ergun and Emir Caner, brings focus to a subject that many post-modern Christians turn away from. Within the book, the Caner’s take the reader through a dark history of the Christian church and take a deeper look at the church’s stance on violence. Drawing from historical documents, Christian Jihad paints a picture of the Crusades and the church that killed “in the name of Christ.”

The book begins by addressing the pacifistic views held by the early church in comparison to modern pacifist ideologies . These views set forth a foundation for the church on how they should address conflicts of the world. In accordance with these views, the early Christians felt that their lives should be solely devoted to the preparation for the Lord’s return and felt that the work of the kingdom left no room for their participation in earthly warfare. Even when faced with heavy persecution, these Christians would have nothing to do with violence. Believing that killing was contradictory to the Lord’s command to love unconditionally, the early church applied this view to their interactions and relationships with all people in all circumstances.

Moving forward in history, the book addresses a dark period when the aforementioned pacifism diminished and the Christian church would take the offense. Slowly, the Christians became involved in the military; engaging the wars that they once spoke against. This shift occurred around A.D. 173-175. Thus, the gradual softening of the church’s position had begun and history shows how the church and the state began coinciding with one another. Christian military involvement soon became commonplace and the “fusion” of church and state grew stronger. The Caner’s craft the word “Christian Jihad” to explain how this merging led to the belief that Christianity could accomplish God’s will through warfare.

Examining one of the lowest moments in Christian history, the Caner’s go on to point out painful truths about the murder and vicious pillages of the Christian church. The pacifism and love shown by the early church had been dismissed. The “gospel message” was found at the end of a sword. These Crusades prove to the church that “Christendom” can easily sway the wrong way when meshed with a world of sin. The Caner’s stress this point to challenge the reader to examine the mistakes of the past and prepare for the future.

This can not happen again.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

"God Wills It?"

March 25, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment

Christian Jihad – “God wills it!”

Christian Jihad was written by two former Muslims, Ergun and Emir Caner, who are now disciples of Jesus Christ. It is an interesting but unpleasant history book for Christians to show the depth of people’s darkened heart and desire in religion. Christian Jihad describes the insights and awareness of the real Crusades and the cruel Christian history. It is not difficult to picture naive people who were promised salvation if they fight for the Christ; however, it is pretty hard to picture that people brutally killed thousands of innocent children, brothers and sisters while shouting “It is will of God!” The history of the Crusades has many different points of view, and it is important to observe from not only one side but as many sides of view as possible. When one (like me) has been learning that what the Crusade did was necessary and good, it is hard to read through this book without being depressed and shocked.

Wasn’t the blood of Jesus Christ enough? It was enough to cover all people’s salvation if they believe in Him. It was enough to give peace to all if they accept the message. It was enough to have everyone going to the Kingdom of Heaven if everyone takes it by faith. Instead, people chose to spill extra blood to fulfill their greed and desire which is never satisfied. It is, indeed, due to a false interpretation of God’s will and a human ego that desires to get personal benefits out of power and authority.
Christians began to join the military around A.D. 175 during the reign of Constantine although some of the early Church leaders did not approve it. The soldiers considered them as pacifist and later they even called themselves as “the army of God.” The battle of the church and the states empowered both of them, and between powers and beliefs, Christian soldiers began to believe that it was their fate in the military force to do God’s work. Under the Holy Roman Empire, soldiers were ready to submit under authorities and scarify themselves for their faith. In 1095, Pope Urban II launched the Crusades by declaring this war theme, “God wills it.” Pope Urban II wanted to bring the Holy Land of Jerusalem back because he believed that the Holy land should be belonging to the Church, not owned by pagan Muslims. He thought it is believers’ duty to get rid of Muslims so that he announced to people to receive salvation by fighting their enemy. They were brave enough to fight for God and to use the name of God, and brave enough to take God’s position by judging others’ life and beliefs. Christian jihad targeted Jews with the threat, “Embrace the cross or die.”

Did God really will it? If one really wants to know the will of God, one must have a good relationship with God and be able to demonstrate the Word of God. After the first incident, the eight more stories of attacking and killing by “Crusade” continued, and finally ended in the late thirteen century. This is the shameful history of Christianity. God is love and asks His people to forgive each other. The need for apology by Christians is not an option.

Under God’s name people have performed all kind of unpleasant things. As Christians, we must be able to see from God’s point of view. It is essential to try to understand what God is thinking and how God sees it.

Again, the blood of Jesus is enough!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Book Report: Christian Jihad – Two Former Muslims Look at the Crusades

March 15, 2008 By admin Leave a Comment

Authors: Ergun Mehmet Caner & Emir Fethi Caner

Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 2004


“How was the Church at Rome able to rally the Warriors, gather the leaders, and then justify the slaughter? How did the papacy justify the first “Christian army” in history? How was the pope able to declare and legitimize a “Christian Jihad?” (Christian Jihad, 104).


The main argument in the book is the refutation of a Christian army and the ungodly acts that took place during the Crusades which was provoked under false pretense by a promise of salvation to the Soldiers. Also, the endorsement of Christians serving in the army for the purpose of combating injustice and the protection against the vulnerability of the State and its Citizens (Just War Criteria).


Anyone reading Christian Jihad should be compelled to really take a serious look at the rationale behind war. The early Christians were known to be pacifists, they were unwaveringly anti-violence and this was evident in the way they endured persecutions; there was hardly if ever any retaliation on their part. They were taught, and practice humility, temperance, and tolerance, as what they endured was done so in the name of Christ, knowing that they would receive their reward in heaven. Their main emphasis of tolerance was based on the fact that they through suffering had tasted in the suffering that Jesus experienced while here on earth. The persecution that was being levied on Christians seemed to foster even more pacifism, as they were also cognizant of the fact that their offenders too would one day receive their just reward. It did not remain this way; the offended soon became the offender. The third century saw a change in the way Christians viewed war and soon Christians were allowed to join the military; in the fourth century there was even a Christian presence in military combat. The body of the Christ whose duty it is to go and make disciples was now joining and participating in what they formally spoke out against; they had become the army of the Lord. At one point in history, the army consisted of only Christians; all the pagan soldiers were discharged. Within the book Christian Jihad the authors gave information of the Christian persecution under various Emperors, that of Diocletian being the worst persecution ever experienced by the Christians. This was just a fanatical time, even known pagans who were converted to Christianity were often murdered; the more Christians were killed the more Christianity spread.

Certain of the early Church leaders did not approve of Christians joining the military. One such leader was Justin who thought that such a decision was not only defiant to Scripture, but was even considered a decision that did not engender sufficient thought, as when one swear such an oath, there is nothing that the country can give that has any perpetual value attached to it. Another such leader was Irenaeus whose contention it was that the main reason for God sending his Son Jesus was to suspend war and violence; he did not think that God approved of such matters. There were a number of other church leaders who stood opposed to war, some of whom took the view that the duty of Christians as far war is concerned had to do with prayer (engaging in spiritual battles) a much higher calling than that of a solider. The early church fathers did not think that the idea of Christians taking part in war was of any benefit to the work of the Lord, and that participation in warfare would only bring spiritual disgrace to the church and the Christian faith. The idea of Christians participating in war all came about following Constantine’s legalization of Christianity, and the close relationship that ensued between Church and State, referred to this as an unholy marriage, where the church became the mistress of the Roman Empire (pg 21).


It was revealed that Agustin in an attempt to formulate a just war criteria, with the contribution from other theologians including Thomas Aquinas came up with the following: Just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of Success, probability of violence, the principle of last resort. (pg 68) In summing all these up, the Christian was not to take part in war unless it was warranted.

During the Crusade, Christians mercilessly butchered their brothers and sisters. On page 47 there is a report of the conquest of Jerusalem, concerning the Muslims murdered. It cites, “Before we attacked the city, the bishops and priests, by preaching and exhortation, ordered everyone to hold a procession in honor of God all around the city and arranged for prayers, alms giving and fasting…Soon our men were running all around the city, seizing gold and silver…Rejoicing and weeping for joy, our people came to the sepulcher of Jesus our Savior to worship and pay their debt. At dawn our men cautiously went up to the roof of the Temple and attacked the Saracen (Muslim) men and women, beheading them with naked swords…” They were taught that they were doing the will of God, and that as a reward for slaughtering their brothers and sisters they would inherit eternal salvation. As a matter of fact, joining the army was an automatic promise of salvation. The passion displayed in their butchering of their victims shows that they really believed in the possibility of being rewarded with salvation as a prize for successfully annihilating the Muslims. They had become obsessed with the idea of war. What transpired there in Jerusalem at the break of dawn that morning resulted in Muslims being driven to hate those who professed faith in Christ.

Following the battle at Jerusalem an eyewitness gave this account, regarding the men and women that were slain, “Indeed it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. At nightfall the Crusaders’ hands were still bloody when they folded them in prayer and knelt at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, sobbing for excess joy” (100). Muslims were beheaded, thrown to the flames, or shot with arrows; it is said that the Christian soldiers during this massacre were up to their knees (while riding on their horses) in the blood of the Muslims. It gives a very disturbing picture of just how many Muslims were slain; this the Christians claimed was sanctified slaughter.

an style="line-height:115%;">

Like a blast from the past, the more contemporary call from leaders with immoral agendas seems to parallel the clarion call of Pope Urban to come together and combat the outside forces that seek to defy the will of God. Constantine in his defense of Christians taking part in war was that of referencing back to “Old Testament armies which operated as a killing force for God’s purposes.” (61). “Constantine, as Pope Urban II later, ignores the moral implications of the teachings of Jesus Christ and simply uses Old Testament anecdotal evidence to justify the “warring church”(61).

As the Caners puts it, “the darkest day in Christian history – the day Christianity declared a jihad….Christians had taken on as much guilt as Muslims who declared a jihad. The just war criteria had been replaced by a theology of retribution. Christians no longer had mere permission to serve in the army. The army was now explicitly Christian.”

Nowhere in God’s Word has He ever given instructions for Christians to enter into warfare on His behalf. He has long ago sent his only begotten Son Jesus whose blood was shed for all of humanity, there is no reason the shedding of the blood of another.


As disclosed, “In 1996, about 150 Christians attempted to build bridges into the lives of Muslims and Jews by tracing the steps of the crusaders and publicly apologizing for the acts of carnage performed in Jesus Christ’s name.” An apology that came nine hundred years after the gruesome slaying though late was accepted in the towns visited by the group, but today there is still tension between Christians and Muslims.

Can two work together unless they agree? The Roman Empire had inflicted great persecution on the Christians of the Early Church; the reason for this being that the Church had set a standard by which to judge the government. Christians refused to participate in pagan worship held by the state. This persecution by the State and refusal to worship pagan gods by the Christians was because the two sides had nothing in common. But years later the Church became the Mistress of the State, and their allegiance to God became allegiance to the government, an unholy marriage indeed. Christians at this stage were popular and preferred by the government; therefore, they forsook their early teachings in the way of Christ and allowed the state to govern the church, even to the extent of telling them how to treat their fellowmen. The power the State had invested in the Church had caused them to become disoriented with pride; what they did not realize at the time was that the power they possessed was only temporary. Today, because of what transpired there in Jerusalem between Christians and Muslims we have a massive work on our hands as it relates to witnessing and making disciples of a people who have been wronged by those who were suppose to care about the eternality of souls. We have a long way to go as far as making peace with these our Muslim brothers and sisters as we do all we can to show the love of God. This is a difficult feet but not an impossible one; with God on our side we can accomplish great things for the advancement of His Kingdom.

I enjoyed reading Christian Jihad, it clarified for me a number of issues as it relates to why the Crusades took place. It just does not seem rational that Christians would consider blood shed as an answer to any grievance. This is the way the world thinks; to inflict pain, hurt and devastation as a means of solving societal ills. From a personal perspective, I view war as a senseless act of brutality, an absurd compromise and desecration of precious lives and really wish it did not have to be a part every day life, but when the well being of a country and its citizens are at risk there must be some sort of mechanism in place to defend and protect.

Sad but factual, like Saul who persecuted the church years prior, the Christians were certain that that were doing God’s bidding. The mass slaughter of Muslims by Christians during the Crusade was unjustified.

My compliments to the Caners who through freedom of expression have meticulously examined and divulged the naked truth concerning the dark side of Christian history as it relates to Christian Jihad. Bravo guys!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Book Report: Christian Jihad

March 13, 2008 By admin 1 Comment

“The taste of blood always made him pray.”  This quote is the opening line to Ergun and Emir Caner’s, Christian Jihad. The quote stated above holds a great description and foreshadowing of the book’s contents.  Christian Jihad is a book based on the insights and knowledge of the Crusades and the historical background of Christian pacifism.  It is intended to reveal the entirety of Christian history in regards to Christians killing in the name of God, spilling blood of infidels, and promising salvation to those who fought under the banner of Christ.  This book exposes the unspoken truth of the blood spilt of Muslims and Jews in the name of Jesus Christ, by the hands of Christians, introducing Christian Jihad. 

The first Christians were stringent pacifist in which believed it to be a sin to engage in any form of conflict, particularly military warfare.  Eventually over the years the authoritarian guidelines of military engagement loosened after increments of time. Christian military history can be broken down into four groups.  The first group, the Hunted, resided between 30 and 175 A.D, it was during this time the church was persecuted and therefore, Christians were not allowed in any military involvement.  It was not until 175 A.D. that Christians began joining military forces during the reign of Constantine.  This second group, the Courtship, resided during 175 and 324 A.D. and considered themselves as soldiers in the army of God.  The third group during the years 324 and 1000 A.D. were said to be of an unholy matrimony.   It was during this period that the church and state became equally partnered.  Soldiers came to believe that in order to do God’s work they must be on the battlefield.  It was during this time that Charlemagne was anointed as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Christian’s were commanding the army under temporal kings.  However, the Christians took a sudden change in their viewpoint of military engagement. Between 1000 and 1300 A.D. the Christian church was known as a mistress.  The church became inebriated on temporal authority and assumed it had complete control of the state.  However, the secular leaders of the time would use the church for their personal benefits and would end all connections between the two when finished.  It was due to this misusing of trust that the Crusades became the segregate of the period, Christian armies went to war under the command of the pope as the commander in chief, which leads us to our focused study topic on the Crusades.

Throughout the history of Christian warfare, the Crusades were the most significant of Christian hostilities.  November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II rose to power and initiated the darkest day of Christian history, a Christian Jihad.  Christianity has never recovered form the shadows of the decision to offer forgiveness and salvation to warriors who would slaughter all opponents who stood between them and the libertarian of Jerusalem.  The Crusade of this Christian Jihad started when Pope Urban II attempted to rescue the Christian faith form its civil war in convincing them of a more superior cause to be fighting for; the recapture of the Holy Land of Jerusalem.  Pope Urban II believed that the land of Christ was rightfully to be the owned by the Church and not by pagan Muslims.  He was convinced that initiating a jihad against the Muslims in Jerusalem were the Christians responsibility in order to aid fellow believers who were suffering, for the remission of sins, and because they were assured the imperishable glory of heaven.  Pope Urban II promised those who fought in the war against the Muslims would receive eternal forgiveness and the promise of Heaven.  The pope was now acting on both wicked and unbiblical grounds.  The Christian army, under the command of Pope Urban II, sacked the city of Jerusalem, which is known as the first crusade.  However, the Muslim’s retaliation was much more fierce than anticipated by the Christians and ended up loosing the city of Jerusalem to the Muslims after eight more crusades, eventually the Christians crusades ended after a great fall in 1291 A.D.

The Crusades – people identifying themselves as Christians who abandoned the teachings of Jesus that were to love our enemies, yet instead attempted to convert by the sword.  Christians today are still trying to make up for the crimes done in the past.  The Muslim people are a colossal amount of the world’s population, and now the hardest to witness to and the hardest to convince that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior.  Impressions never die therefore, it is very important as Christians and individuals, that we are in a constant walk with the Lord through our words, actions, and hearts!  The best way to convert is to act like Christ, not through a jihad.

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Bad Behavior has blocked 36 access attempts in the last 7 days.