Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite Blames Christianity for Anders Behring Breivik’s Attack in Norway | TheBlaze.com

Perhaps her name should be changed to "Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlewaite-A-Minute"!!!

THEOLOGIAN:  One who is expert in the study of God and religious truth.

My question, where does this educated idiot fit in?  She obviously has no idea where God comes in and even less of an idea regarding the Christian religion.  I point out the Christian religion because that is the particular religion under attack by Ms. Thistlewaite.  I don't believe that she is uneducated or even undereducated, but understanding what one has been educated in, is a far cry from just reading the books.  After reading some of Thistlewaite's papers and listening to her speeches, I have come to the conclusion that although very educated, her comprehension of theology is abysmal at best.

  Anyone who has even a minute understanding of Christianity could not in clear conscience write an article titled " When Christianity Becomes Lethal".   It should however be noted that Susan Thistlewaite is the former president of Chicago Theological Seminary and a preacher ordained through the United Church of Christ.  Putting aside all doubt concerning Ms. Thistlewaite's bias, one should know that the Reverend ( if you can refer to him as reverend) was also a teacher at CTS, and of course ordained  by UCC as well.  Ms. Thistlewaite assumes that the murderer of innocents in Oslo, Norway, Mr. Anders Breivik is a Christian.  Lets clear up one thing; there is absolutely NO proof that this maniac is a Christian, NONE!  Also, if Ms. Thistlewaite is a theologian she should know that there is nothing in the Christian Bible, the Commandments from God or the teachings of Jesus Christ that calls for or condones murder.  Again, Ms. Thistlewaite's knowledge of religion comes into question.

  Ms. Thistlewaite contends that Christians are "all-too-reluctant to see connections between their faith and extreme violence".  (Name an event or circumstance Thistlewaite!)  She also says "that Christians often dismiss horrific violence that is perpetuated by other believers as "madness."  (So, Ms. Thistlewaite, you don't believe that horrific violence is madness?)  She goes on to say "that Christians should be more willing to accept the inherent violence and then deal with its impact and roots".  (Once again Thistlewaite, give us a for instance!)  Thistlewaite's article goes on to say:  " I believe that certain theological constructions of Christianity "tempt" individuals and groups to violence; combined with right-wing (Okay, here it comes, the true agenda encapsulated in her article) political ideologies, these views can give a divine justification to the use of lethal force."  If you click on the link below it will take you to the article.  It's not very long, but if you read it, you will soon realize that Susan Brooks Thistlewaite has an agenda.  She is pro-multiculturalistic, if there is such a word, if not, well that's what she is anyway!  Amazingly she alludes to the fact that she too is a Christian.  I can not question ones faith or their profession of faith, but I certainly question her understanding of God, Jesus and the Christian faith as a whole.  

  Suffice to say, I am strongly opposed to a multicultural society.  I am strongly against Social justice, Moral Relativism and all forms of Socialism.  I am anti-Islam and anti-Sharia.  I believe that Islam is of Satan, and it will be the undoing of America and Western Civilization as we know it, if left unchecked.  I am a religious, born again, saved Christian, and I am not prone to violence.  But let it be known here and now, I will defend my faith as I have defended my country.  I will not now, or ever agree that Islam is a religion.  I will not now or ever bow to Allah for the sake of appeasing Muslims, either in this country or any other country.  I vow to fight against Muslim expansion into America and the West with whatever tools are at my disposal.  Unlike Muslim jihadis, I will not murder innocent men, women and children.  

  It is my considered opinion that Susan Brooks Thistlewaite is nothing less than a Communist/Socialist posing as a Christian.  I do not think she understands God or Christianity any more than reverend Wright or Barack Hussein Obama.  I doubt seriously that any of the above mentioned personalities regard the Bible as sacred, and they only profess to be Christian for convenience sake.  Reverend Wright does not preach Christian values, but instead preaches Black Liberation Theology which is in itself, anti-Christian.  Barack Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim, although his outward allegiance tends to be toward Islam, and his true faith left the closet a long time ago.  I believe that Ms. Thistlewaite, Obama and Wright all have the same goal; to destroy America as a Christian nation and rebuild it as a Socialist nation, with no God, honor, honesty, moral standards or freedom.  The three disgust me beyond words.

God Help Us

Sincerely, 

The Watchman      

Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite Blames Christianity for Anders Behring Breivik’s Attack in Norway TheBlaze.com

  If Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlewaite is such a renown theologian, doesn't she know that the Bible warns Christians about people like her?   

THE CRUSADES, WERE THEY NECESSARY? YES THEY WERE!!!

Many Crusade Battles Went On For Days, And Sometimes Weeks

Myth # 4:  The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery.
  It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region.  It was the Muslim East that was powerful, and extremely wealthy.  Europe was the "Third World" in those times.  The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America.  Catholic presence in the Crusader states was always tiny, easily less than 10% of the population.  These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders.
  The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader states was Muslim.  They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of  plantations or even factories, as in the case of India.  They were merely outposts.  The ultimate purpose of the Crusader states was to defend the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places.  There was no mother country with which the Crusader states had an economic relationship, nor did the Europeans economically benefit from them.  Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources.  As an outpost, the Crusader states kept a military focus.  While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader states were safe, but once the Muslims united, they were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.
  Myth # 5:  The Crusades were also waged against Jews.
  No Pope ever called a Crusade against Jews.  During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there.  In part this was pure greed.  In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as crucifier's of Christ, were legitimate targets of war.  Pope Urban II and subsequent Popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews.  Local Bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success.  Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.  These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate by-product of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not he purpose of the Crusades.  To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas.  They were arrested and punished for those crimes.  Hut the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.
  Question:  Is the present struggle between the West and the Muslims in any way a reaction to the Crusades?
  Not necessarily, although terrorists like Osama Bin Laden many times refer to Americans as Crusaders.  It is important to note that it was Islam that was the super-power in the Middle Ages.  Muslims were extremely wealthy, sophisticated and very powerful.  The "Crusades" as far as the Muslim Empire goes were relatively insignificant.  The "Crusades" were only important to the Europeans, as it was a large and concerted effort on their part, and other than the First Crusade, the rest, (nine officially) were failed attempts to stop the Islamization of Europe.  During and after the Crusades, Muslim empires continued to expand and conquer Christian territories.  Muslims conquered the Balkans and much of Eastern Europe and even the greatest city of the time, Constantinople.  It wasn't until the 19th century when Europeans began conquering and colonizing Middle-Eastern countries that many so-called historians, not surprisingly the French royalist writers began to cast the "Crusades" as Europe's first attempt to bring the fruits of Western civilization to the backward Muslim world.  As a result of the French royalist writers, the Crusades were transformed from failed attempt at stopping Muslim expansion into Imperialist Wars.
  Unfortunately those histories were taught in the colonial schools and became the accepted view in the Middle East and beyond.  Here in the 20th and 21st centuries, imperialism has become discredited.  Ironically and using the adage that "no good deed goes unpunished" , many Islamists have seized on the colonial misrepresentation of the Crusades, and claim that the West is responsible for all their problems.  It is now the Muslim contention that the West has been preying upon Muslims ever since the Crusades.  What goes around, almost always comes around.  By this I mean that it has been said the people in the Middle East have long memories, and this may be true but in the case of the Crusades, they have a recovered memory: one that was manufactured for them by their 19th century French and European conquerors.  How Ironic!!!
  "The Muslim Brotherhood is very adept at playing the victim card to get their way in America and the the West.  We, as Christians, must not allow this false victim card to play on our sympathies.  Tolerance of the expansion of Islam is a dangerous practice, and will be a fatal blow to Christendom if left unchecked." 
God Help Us
The Watchman
(Sources and Acknowledgements:  Myths of the Crusades, Author: Thomas Madden)
( St. Bernard was actually Bernard of Clairvaux, born 1090-died 1153.  St. Bernard of Clairvaux has a very interesting history, I urge you to Google "St. Bernard of Clairvaux" and read about this remarkable Nobleman.)

THE CRUSADES, CHRISTIANS NEED NOT BE ASHAMED

Christian Crusaders Fought Long Hard Battles For Many Years At A Time,
Some Left England, France and Spain as Young Men and Returned Many Years Later

In this ongoing saga of the Crusades, I will only touch base on a few of the many myths that have grown. The facts bear out that too many stories were fabricated by the Muslims long after the Crusades were over.  The reasons behind these fabrications, no one knows for sure.  In essence the was no reason to fabricate anything, as it was the Muslims under their leader Saladin who were ultimately victorious.

  MYTH #3:  When the Christian Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep in blood.

  This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades.  It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. However, this needs to be looked at in and understood in historical context.  The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asia civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces.  That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well.  That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers.  If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.  In the case of Jerusalem, the Muslim defenders had resisted right up to the end.  They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive.  They were wrong!  When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack.

  Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.  By modern standards this may seem brutal.  Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days.  It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.  As for those "streets of blood", no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention.  Jerusalem is a big town.  The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
  The lost history of the Crusades:  Western guilt over, and apologies for, the Crusades ignores one crucial fact:  The West actually lost!
  The Crusades were a response to more than four hundred years of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.
  Here is a point to ponder:  In the year 1453, Muslims captured the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople (Istanbul Turkey today).  In the late 15th century, Rome was evacuated when Muslim armies landed at Otranto in an unsuccessful invasion of Italy.  By the 16th century, the Ottoman Turk empire stretched from North Africa and Arabia to the Near East and Asia Minor.  They penetrated deep into Europe, conquering Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Croatia and Serbia.  In 1529, the Ottomans (Muslims) laid siege to Vienna, Austria.  Fortunately for Europe, the siege failed; otherwise the door to Germany would have opened.  It wasn't until 1572, when the Catholic Holy League defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, that Islam's threat to the West finally ended.  Or was it?  Not really...  In the late 20th century, that's here and now my friends, the doors to Europe are once again open to Muslims.  I wonder, who will stop them this time?
God Help Us
Sincerely, 
The Watchman
(Acknowledgements and Sources:  Author, Thomas Madden and Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen)