Bechamann Signs Christian Sharia

Status
Not open for further replies.
You think history books are accurate?
All history books? No. All parts of any history book? Probably not. Reputable history books (not internet blogs) will back up their text with research and documentation, at the very least.
 
"Making up things?" It was an educated guess, since the pox was prevalent at the time and one of the treatment methods was to bleed the patient, something they do not do to pneumonia patients. So, I figured they thought he had something else along with it. George Washington supposedly died as a result of too much bleeding. I dunno, though. Just speculating here.

"He had acute epiglottitis (supraglottitis) which is a severe, rapidly progressing infection of the epiglottis and surrounding tissues that may be quickly fatal because of sudden respiratory (airway) obstruction by the inflamed structures."

More details at:

Papers of George Washington
 
And yet there are other papers that say he died from pneumonia. Hell, the doctors didn't know my father had cancer till about 2 weeks before he died. They thought it was possibly tuberculosis. So, again, until we can go back in time and use modern technology to determine exact cause, we'll never know for certain.
 
It depends on what you mean by "popular." You still haven't defined that. Since you ask, myself and the Christians I know don't really "follow" individual Christians. There are some that we have Christian love for and respect. They aren't famous by the world's standards. The Bible teaches against favoritism or hero worship.


I can't speak for what you or other groups of people do. You brought up Christians, so I was curious what you meant. I can't think of any "popular" Christians, so I thought maybe your definition was different from mine.

Popular under my definition: Well-known, well-liked, respected (sometimes) by a large group of people.

What's yours? Unless you don't use that word anymore since you graduated from junior high? ;)

I said that I wish there was a popular extreme Christian which implies there aren't any right now.
 
Popular under my definition: Well-known, well-liked, respected (sometimes) by a large group of people.
In that case, there are many Christians who are well-known, well-liked, and respected by other Christians. They are usually evangelists, authors, missionaries, Christian college instructors, pastors, composers, or ministry leaders. We don't categorize them as popular.

What's yours? Unless you don't use that word anymore since you graduated from junior high? ;)
In junior high, it meant someone esteemed by a clique for shallow criteria such as personality, clothing, money, appearance, etc.

I said that I wish there was a popular extreme Christian which implies there aren't any right now.
To me, "popular" and "extreme" don't go together. :giggle:

Most Christians aren't going to listen to anyone who promotes an extreme theology.

Or do you use another definition for "extreme?" Like "extreme sports," as meaning daring or defying danger. I might go for that one. :lol:
 
In that case, there are many Christians who are well-known, well-liked, and respected by other Christians. They are usually evangelists, authors, missionaries, Christian college instructors, pastors, composers, or ministry leaders. We don't categorize them as popular.

To me, they definitely are more "popular" than someone who listens to them and is unknown by the majority of the group. Popularity isn't something that people vote on nor agree on. It's subjective.

Most Christians aren't going to listen to anyone who promotes an extreme theology.

Or do you use another definition for "extreme?" Like "extreme sports," as meaning daring or defying danger. I might go for that one. :lol:

I was thinking of a Christian version of something like this (from the movie Borat):
Borat: My name i' Borat, I come a-from Kazakhstan. Can I say a-first, we support your War of Terror.
[crowd cheers]
Borat: May we show our support for our boys in Iraq.
[crowd cheers]
Borat: May U.S. and A kill every single terrorist.
[crowd cheers]
Borat: May George Bush a-drink the blood of every single man, woman, and child of Iraq.
[crowd cheers wildly]
Borat: May you destroy their country so that for the next thousand years not even a single lizard will survive in their desert.
[some of crowd still cheers]



Someone who starts off looking like a normal straight laced Christian but later on reveals just how extreme s/he is, making people realize that religion shouldn't get in the way of running a country. It can help form your morals but it shouldn't help form the laws.
 
In that case, there are many Christians who are well-known, well-liked, and respected by other Christians. They are usually evangelists, authors, missionaries, Christian college instructors, pastors, composers, or ministry leaders. We don't categorize them as popular.

While I'm not a big fan of the word "popular", your descriptions above: well-known, well-liked, do fit in the definition. It's a semantics game. Yes, I grant that not everyone who is well-known is liked, but even well-liked or respected is what draws attention, cliches, groupies, followers, listeners. Same as popular.
 
Talk about flimsy evidence; oops, I mean NO evidence.

Even to base such an outlandish theory on probability requires some numbers. What are the numbers that you used to make up this theory?

What evidence exactly do I need to state that it is plausible?:roll:

Like I said, I used historical fact regarding slaveowners fathering children with their slaves, and the accounts of rape of many others.

I didn't make up the theory, I simply said that I see where it could be true.

Get a grip, Reba.
 
What evidence exactly do I need to state that it is plausible?:roll:
Medical symptoms of syphilis observed by credible witnesses, or documents such as diary entries or letters by Washington.
 
Medical symptoms of syphilis observed by credible witnesses, or documents such as diary entries or letters by Washington.

That would be proof of the occurrance, not the plausibility. They are not one and the same.
 
The Myth that Washington Died of Syphilis

Source: Unknown, contemporary legend, 1950s

The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a person only tells them with all his might.—Mark Twain

Of all the myths about George Washington, perhaps none other is so grounded in ignorance. Washington died on 14 December 1799, at the age of 67. Hardly any other death in eighteenth-century America was better chronicled. He was attended by three doctors, plantation workers, family members, and slaves. At the time, Washington's personal secretary left two separate accounts of his last illness and death; the doctors each left accounts as well; and later, Washington's adopted stepgrandson, George Washington Parke Custis gave his recollections of Washington's death. All were widely publicized.

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease caused by the Treponema pallidum spirochete (bacterium). After incubation the disease first produces minor symptoms, usually a single small painless sore, that heals without treatment. At the next stage a minor skin rash develops, sometimes accompanied by fatigue, loss of apetite, sore throat, fever, headache, muscle ache, weight loss, hair loss, and swollen lymph glands. These symptoms also eventally subside without treatment, signifying the onslaught of the disease's final stages. Sometimes latent for years, the latter stage of syphillis is more dangerous and can permanently damage the cardiovascular system. Symptoms include painful lesions on the skin, ligaments, joints, and bones as well as numbness, muscle weakness, paralysis, numbness, blindness, dementia, and mental illness. It sometimes causes brain aneurysm and death. Symptoms of the disease were widely recognized long before the eighteenth century.

No one who has ever espoused the myth that Washington died of syphilis has ever attempted to link any of the disease's symptoms to Washington's last illness, nor have they claimed that any of his symptoms mimicked those of syphilis. Rather, they just mindlessly repeat the canard.

Now, Washington's final illness and death. On 12 December 1799, as was his daily custom, Washington mounted his horse to ride about his Mount Vernon estate, which consisted of five plantations covering more than 8,000 acres. Although a few weeks shy of his 68th birthday, he was in excellent health, vigorous both in mind and in body. The ex-President stayed outside from about 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. The thermometer did not rise above 30 degrees Fahrenheit all day, the Northreast twinds were strong, and until about 1 P.M.a drenching mixture of rain, snow, hail, and sleet was falling. Washington came in for dinner and spent the evening as ususal, but the next morning he was prevented from riding out by a heavy snow that had fallen during the night. He complained of a sore throat but later in the day went outside to mark some trees that he thought needed to be cut down. That evening his voice was hoarse but he was cheerful and read aloud from his studies. When advised by his secreatary, Tobias Lear, to take something for his throat, he replied, “you know I never take any thing for a cold. Let it go as it came.”

Washington went to bed at his usual time but awoke between 2 and 3 P.M., agitated and breathing with difficulty. His wife Martha wanted to call a servant but he prevented her from doing so until it was time to rise. Once up, an overseer was sent for, that he might bleed him, a doctor was called for, and a “mixture of Molasses, Vinegar & butter was prepared to try its effects in his throat; but he could not swallow a drop.” Washington already was beginning to die of slow suffocation. Bleeding brought on relief but not a cure, as did the doctor's preparations of a “gargle of Vinegar & sage tea” and a “blister of Cantharides on the throat.” Another gargle of vinegar and hot water nearly suffocated him.

More bleedings, more doctors, but no relief. About 5 P.M. Washington told one of the doctors, James Craik, with whom he had been close friends since the French and Indian War, “Doctor, I die hard; but I am not afraid to go; I believed from my first attack that I should not survive it; my breath can not last long.” From then on Washington was “uneasy & restless,” and applications about 8 P.M. of “blisters and cataplasms of wheat bran to his legs and feet” produced no changes. Two of the three doctors left his room, “without a ray of hope.” Washington died between 10 and 11 P.M. “During his whole illness he spoke but seldom,” wrote Lear, “and with great difficulty; and in so low & broken a voice as at times hardly to be understood. His patience, fortitude, & resignation never forsook him for a moment.”

So how did George Washington die? Medical speculation has ranged from diptheria to streptococcus to “fulminant cervical phlegmon” to acute epiglottitis to “profound hypotesion and shock” brought on by rapid bloodletting. Doctors Craik and Elisha Dick a few days after Washington's demise gave the cause of death in the Alexandria, Virginia, newspaper, as an “inflammatory affection of the upper part of the windpipe, called in technical language, cynanche trachealis.” In laymen's terms an inflammation of the glottis, larynx, or upper part of the trachea. Antibiotics certainly would have revived him, had they been available; likewise, a tracheotomy might have saved him, and was even suggested by one of the attending physicians, but the procedure was so new that the doctors did not dare risk performing it. There is no consensus, but most medical authorities now agree that the bleeding was not sufficient to kill Washington, and it actually brought him some relief, as observed by those who were with him. The modern diagnosis of acute bacterial epiglottitis accounts for all of the symptoms, and agrees with the original assesment by the doctors who treated him. The infection caused Washington's epiglottis to swell, blocking his windpipe, and he suffocated to death.

No symptoms of death by syphilis.

http://www.frankgrizzard.biz/10myths/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top