@MasterMaliq@SpeaktheTruth64 Talvez você precise rever sua noção do que é coexistência pacífica, porque eu não chamaria de coexistência pacífica mulçumanos espalhados pelo ocidente exigindo sharia num país que não é o deles, esfaqueando, degolando, estuprando e matando quem não é mulçumano. É uma invasão.
Gente, Deus ainda está no controle de tudo.
Mesmo quando a mente fica cansada e o coração cheio de dúvidas, existe um Deus cuidando de cada detalhe do seu caminho. Nenhuma lágrima é ignorada por Ele.
O que parece difícil hoje não será para sempre.
Ó MEU JESUS, perdoai-nos,
livrai-nos do fogo do inferno;
levai as almas todas para o céu
e socorrei principalmente as que
mais precisarem da Vossa misericórdia!
PAI NOSSO que estais nos Céus,
santificado seja o vosso Nome,
venha a nós o vosso Reino,
seja feita a vossa vontade
assim na terra como no Céu.
O pão nosso de cada dia nos dai hoje,
perdoai-nos as nossas ofensas
assim como nós perdoamos
a quem nos tem ofendido,
e não nos deixeis cair em tentação,
mas livrai-nos do Mal. AMÉM!
Before the Crusades, two-thirds of the Christian world had already fallen under Islamic rule.
Your school probably skipped that part.
They taught you the Crusades began in 1095, as if Christians just woke up one morning and decided to march east for no reason.
But history did not begin in 1095.
By then, Islamic armies had already conquered massive portions of the Christian world:
Syria.
Egypt.
North Africa.
The Holy Land.
Spain.
In 711 AD, Islamic forces crossed into Spain.
By 732 AD, they had pushed all the way into France.
That is where Charles Martel met them at the Battle of Tours and stopped the advance into Western Europe.
Some historians consider it one of the most decisive battles in world history.
So when people talk about the Crusades without mentioning the 400 years before them, they are not giving you history.
They are giving you a narrative.
Were the Crusades complicated?
Of course.
Were Christians perfect?
No.
But the idea that the Crusades were some random act of Christian aggression is historically dishonest.
The real story begins long before 1095.
And once you know what happened before the Crusades, the entire conversation changes.
They buried this.
Now you know.
In his Summa Theologiae, St Thomas Aquinas laid out one of the most charitable yet practical arguments concerning immigration that effectively shaped the West for almost 1,000 years.
1. Immigration must always be proportionate so that foreigners can properly assimilate into the culture and mode of worship of the state.
2. Citizenship – and associated rights – should only ever be granted after the third generation to preserve the culture, mode of worship, and constitution of the state.
3. The common good of the citizens must remain the highest priority of the state, meaning, the state's obligation to provide aid to its neighbours can never be at the expense of the citizens.
However, Aquinas ends with the sobering reminder that some peoples and states are incompatible with one another, and these must be held as "foes in perpetuity".
King Charles is shifting from the historic title “Defender of the Faith” to the elastic “Defender of the Faiths.”
On paper, it’s just one letter — an “s” turning singular into plural.
In substance, it is a theological revolution: the abnegation of truth itself.
“Defender of the Faith” presupposed something now unfashionable in “multicultural” Britain: that Truth is singular, not relativistic, and that the Crown was tied to the Christian confession that shaped England.
“Defender of the Faiths” dissolves that into managed pluralism — contradictory beliefs side by side under one royal umbrella, as if truth were diplomatic etiquette rather than conviction.
Christianity proclaims Christ as God incarnate. Islam explicitly denies it. Both cannot be “defended” without flattening truth itself.
But have no fear: at this rate, a future British monarch — by then, more of a sultan — will, when the time is right, revert back to “Defender of the Faith”… singular again.
By then, it just won’t be Christianity.