Michael Savage Is Wrong About The Bible

For Freedom – Galatians 5:1 ^ | April 18, 2012 | Michael D. Day

[roamer_1]

As the two religions share the same template (holy books, one god, prophets and war on heretics), I think it is important to ask the reasons for the similarities.

It seems your knowledge of the Bible and of the Koran (and assoc. hadiths), or one of the two, is sorely lacking. ANYONE who reads both will immediately be impressed by the diametric opposition in them being juxtaposed. There is not only virtually no agreement between the two, they are EXACT opposites of each the other.

The 'god' Allah is *NOT* Almighty YHWH.

[roamer_1]

Those OT “edicts” were TEMPORARY, not permanent.

More to the point, in every_single_case that I can recall, when YHWH called for the obliteration of a people, that people was descendant from the Nephilim... The Fallen Ones. The less sophisticated means of the 'god' of the Koran is to obliterate everyone who is not muslim.

One was eliminating a problem thoroughly and efficiently.

The other seeks conversion by threat and fear.

The motives are wholly different.

[RobbyS]

The Crusades were wars to resist jihad and to recover the regions lost to Islam after 632. The first came after the Turks had overrun almost all the Christian Byzantine empire. They failed because after the Fe=rabkish armies had taken over the leading cities of Syria, including Jerusalem, the alliance between them and the Byzantines broke down, and Crusader states were set up which refused to accept the authority of the Emperor. This led ultimately to the tragic Fourth Crusade, which destroyed the Byzantine empire, or reduce it to a shell of itself. So, the Crusades were religious wars like the ones of the 16th and 17th Century which shattered Christian unity. They failed, leaving Southern Eastern Europe to invasion and conquest by the Ottoman Sultans, who not only conquered Constantinople but led armies to the gates of Vienna. As Luther loudly led a German Rebellion against the Holy Roman Emperor and saw the Turkish invasion as a judgement against the West—which in a way it was, a judgement against schism and disunity in the Church—The Emperor Charles managed to hold onto Vienna. Not for another generation, after the Turks were defeated at Lepanto, was the Turkish advance halted. Not until 1876, was the Turkish conquest of Southeastern Europe reversed and the Christian peoples given their freedom.

[JimWayne]

So I guess the exact analogy would be the Inquisitions.

[RobbyS]

Or “star-chamber” courts in England.
Inquisitions rather than massacres. Which would you have? The Albi in southern France were the equivalent of the Mormons in the United States, except far more radical. The pope sent in crusaders to put them down. The Inquisitions were courts set up to regularize the repression. Of course,suppression has bad, bad long term consequences. The Huguenot had their greatest support in the same region; the Jacobins their greatest strength outside of Paris. No bad deed goes unpunished. In Spain, after the Reconquista had recovered Spain from the Moors, the Jews and Moors remaining were forced to convert, mostly in the same way that Christians and Jews were in Muslim lands, or Protestants in Catholic lands or Catholics in Protestant countries, by economic and social disadvantages. The Inquistion was a result of the final unification of Spain. I suggest you read Henry Kamen’s book on the Inquisition.