http://www.obsessionthemovie.com

Miranda brought this up fairly recently on the president thread. It seemed to get glossed over very quickly. Are Americans becoming too comfortable with this very real threat? When we are attacked again, will we be even more surprised than on 9/11? Do you seperate the "radical" Islams from the so called "peaceful" Islam in a way that leaves no conection? Any thoughts on this movie or this very important subject? Ever since 9/11, when I recieved a call that my mom was in the Pentagon building when it got hit, I have never ceased to be amazed at the lack of attention and understanding of this subject in America. Perhaps it hitting that close to home adds more awareness, but shouldn't we all be aware of what really threatens America?

ps. there is a 12 minute clip of the movie in the website, and you can see the movie for about 5 bucks...

Disclaimer : I'm by no means an expert on this situation. These are merely my opinions and should be taken as such - not as informed, studied truths.

I think Americans should ask themselves why the militant Islamics want to destroy America. Is it simply because of the religious differences? I don't think so because if this were the case, I think you'd see a lot more attacks in Western Europe and Australia.

I think the reason lies with the way Americans are perceived throughout the world. They are seen as arrogant, intolerant, undereducated, uncultured meddlers who stick their noses in places they don't belong and aren't wanted.

My gut feeling is that if we left them to run their countries in their way, they'd leave the US alone to run its country its way.

I also think there are far more serious problems that the USA faces. Some of these are intolerance, a lack of education generally and concerning the rest of the world, the false belief that the American way of life and culture is superior to anyone else's and a desire to remake the world in its own image.

I often hear Americans talk about the 'evil, intolerant Muslims.' I think most Americans should look in a mirror when they are pointing that finger.

Again, these are merely opinions. Feel free to bash away.

Dan, well said.

(Not to mention that the movie was made by a pro-Israeli group, so the bias is heavy towards the "evils" of Islam.)

Disclaimer : I'm by no means an expert on this situation. These are merely my opinions and should be taken as such - not as informed, studied truths.

I think Americans should ask themselves why the militant Islamics want to destroy America. Is it simply because of the religious differences? I don't think so because if this were the case, I think you'd see a lot more attacks in Western Europe and Australia.

I think the reason lies with the way Americans are perceived throughout the world. They are seen as arrogant, intolerant, undereducated, uncultured meddlers who stick their noses in places they don't belong and aren't wanted.

My gut feeling is that if we left them to run their countries in their way, they'd leave the US alone to run its country its way.

I also think there are far more serious problems that the USA faces. Some of these are intolerance, a lack of education generally and concerning the rest of the world, the false belief that the American way of life and culture is superior to anyone else's and a desire to remake the world in its own image.

I often hear Americans talk about the 'evil, intolerant Muslims.' I think most Americans should look in a mirror when they are pointing that finger.

Again, these are merely opinions. Feel free to bash away.



No No Dan, instead of this view, we should judge Christians the same way that we're judging Muslims. We should never try and separate out the peaceful followers of the Judeo-Christian path from the violent followers, because then we would ignore the risk.

How many have died at the hands of Christians and Jews (O.K. Israelis) in the past years? Well, lets look at the number of deaths just in the Middle East in a war started by a Christian based Country, America. The World Health Organization calculates that a million Iraqis have died due to this conflict that would not have died otherwise. Let's get over it, the Terrorists are wimps compared to us.

Gee, maybe that's why they don't like us? Perhaps some research on how many "common" people from the Middle East have been killed by totalitarian leaders that we've either put in place or supported (you know, like Saddam) would give us a clue...

Our ever growing greed for oil has caused us to misuse an entire continent and we wonder why we're not liked. Even the CIA recognizes this. Ron Paul gets it, the FBI gets it why can't the rest of us?

wow, what a surprise, the usual suspects bashing the evil America! There radical nature is our fault? :confused: Do any of you know what a "peaceful" Muslim is required to do to anyone that is not or refuses to be Muslim? Please, don't gloss over this like some of you tend to do when faced with a fact that could drastically affect your statements. Do you know?

If we left them alone Dan, they would invade and own anything they wanted without a trace of democracy. Ask any Jew. There hatred runs deeper than anything bad or evil America has possibly done to them.

The producer of the movie did not lie, so what does his affiliation matter? Can you tell me where he lied? Can you tell me what isn't true about his production? The fact is, you can't deny the content, the hard core truths behind there hatred, so you'll criticize the package, or worse, blame their actions on ours.

No mention here from any of you as to how these Muslims are wrong in there actions and plans, just bash America. Well if America is 1/4th the pit of hell that you describe it as, who's keeping you from leaving? If it were as bad as you say it is, and you truly believed what you are saying, you would be packing your bags right now. The truth is, you are "basking" (pun intended!) in the freedom of the greatest country to ever exist. Forgetting how you came to have that freedom and your sentament towards it is no less radical then what they call America "the great satan." Can anyone say hypocrosy? I know Dan, you don't live here, or do you? What's your conection to Charlotte BTW?

On a massively smaller scale, it reminds me how ridiculous it is for people who continue to bash the pdga website, always have a negative, non productive thing to say about it, but they keep posting and keep renewing membership. If it's that bad, get out! If it's not, then tell'em what would work better.

Your right Lyle, you can't sepreate them, because the so called "peaceful" Muslims support the "radicals." The idea of these two being seperate is an oxymoron, because one scratches the others back. They are inseperable (sp). Look no further than there governments. They do not denounce the radical element with any policy or action. The fact that SOME of them say they do, doesn't change there actions. Unlike America, terroism in Islamic run governments is generally not punished, it's supported and widely protected. You pull that crap here and you will be thrown in jail faster that you can say "burger and fries please!"

Radical Christianity ideology can be as bad as radical Islams, bombing clinics, kkk, ect. but only in the sense that it is individually supported. It doesn't matter what area of life you are talking about, there are freaks in every walk of society who take things to the point of death. But when a government and a religion foster and protect such radical behavior, it must be stopped. Go ahead, say that America fosters and protects radical actions too, the fact is, it is extremely different.

I really appreciate what you said at the bottom of your post Dan. I feel the same way, go ahead and bash my opinions all you want, I really don't care, what I do care about is the fact that you have the right to do that. Can you say the same of the Muslim? hmmmm?

BTW, do any of you know what the bible says a "peaceful" or "moderat" Chrisitan is to do towards their enemies? Have you looked up what a so called "peaceful" or "moderate" Muslim is called to do toward the unfriendly non-Muslim in the Quaran? Until you know the answer to this simple question, I beg you, please don't tell me they aren't fundamentally different. It's hard to throw a disc with a foot in your mouth! :D

I do not say any of this to start a fight. Like Dan said, I am simply sharing "my opinion." You can say anything you want in response. In the greatest country known to mankind, I would expect no less then to have that right.

Aside from the spelling errors...Word.

Ditto.

When are they going to put spell checker on this thing? lol, or is there one I don't know about? And thanks alot for saying that.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/people_of_the_book_the_muslims.html

According to the Koran, Christians and Jews are "People of the Book" and should be tolarated.

If everyone would just follow their respective "word of God", the world would be a nicer place.

Qur�an:9:5 �Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.�


There are 'bout 30 more like this I could quote... This is the "Holy Guide" for "radical" and "peaceful" Muslims alike. What would posses anyone to defend this? Whether any "peaceful" Muslims carry this out or not isn't the point. Who are they supporting and what does there "holy book" say? And when they chant by the tens of thousand "death to America" what are you going to suggest, we sit down and talk about it? It's out of hand and we need leaders with the "you know what" to stand up for what is right.

Besides all that, to hear an (I assume) American woman defend such an oppresive religion towards women is amazing. If you are of the belief that you can just pick and choose what parts of a religion you want, then I guess it makes sense. :confused:

You can quote as many quotes as you want, Christians and Jews are not disbelievers because they are "people of the book".

As for my views on repression, you make a lot of assumptions from my simple post.

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Anita, they say both! Just another thing that doesn't make sense about it. Both extremes follow the Koran. Both are required to uphold it and many more like it.

re: repression... I never intended to imply that you are for the treatment of women that Islam is at all, I simply was surprised to hear you defend it in general. That's why I said the whole "pick n choose" thing. I would hope you don't think the Muslim treatment of women is acceptable in any society. It is sick what even the "moderate" Muslim can do to women.

Bender: You need to quote that to a person who lives under the old covenant, like maybe a Jewish person, but even then, they've pretty much "cherry-picked" the laws they wish to uphold from the OT anyway. This wasn't wrtitten to Christians, or ever practiced by anyone under the new covenant. Nice try though I guess. How many google searches did that one take ya? :D

To both of you and anyone reading, this is serious business! The very real problems that many have towards American military, or self professed Christian spliter groups do not compare to this movement. Please try to understand?

<font color="red"> Islam is not just the outward visible manifestation of 'religion' (prayer, Haj, fasting), but the control by Shariah Law of judicial, educational, legislative, social, economic, militaristic, and social behaviors and norms, NONE of which can be separated out individually and looked at through western eyes and models.

We fail as Westerners when we try to interpret Islam in Judeo-Christian terms; it will NEVER fit. A Muslim's allegiance is to Islam and Islam alone. Islam supersedes ANY VOW OR OATH to any government, agency, etc (think military, America....) which is not under Shariah Law.

The media and military are either naive or ignorant of this fact, and MUST be educated about the 'true Islam'. This knowledge CANNOT be gained from imams or other Muslims, as the doctrine of lying will come into play, which allows and encourages Muslims to lie to defend the faith or Mohammed to unbelievers. Excellent articles are written on this by Silas and others on the Answering-Islam.org website. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every Muslim has the potential to become a terrorist based on the foundations of Islam and the teachings and example of Mohammed. I pray America and the West will soon be educated in the true teachings and motives of Islam.

</font>

I didn't defend anything. I simply point out that Jews and Christians and not disbelievers according to the Koran.

If we left them alone Dan, they would invade and own anything they wanted without a trace of democracy. Ask any Jew. There hatred runs deeper than anything bad or evil America has possibly done to them.



Perhaps the hatred runs deep because the land where Israel is was stolen from Muslims by Europeans to give to the Jews to make up for what happened to them in Europe in WWII.



No mention here from any of you as to how these Muslims are wrong in there actions and plans, just bash America. Well if America is 1/4th the pit of hell that you describe it as, who's keeping you from leaving? If it were as bad as you say it is, and you truly believed what you are saying, you would be packing your bags right now. The truth is, you are "basking" (pun intended!) in the freedom of the greatest country to ever exist. Forgetting how you came to have that freedom and your sentament towards it is no less radical then what they call America "the great satan." Can anyone say hypocrosy? I know Dan, you don't live here, or do you? What's your conection to Charlotte BTW?



Just so you'll know, I lived the first 38 years of my life in Charlotte. I've lived in Switzerland for 5 years and am in the process of becoming a Swiss citizen. As of this writing, I can't see myself ever living in the US again. Maybe that will change in the future, But I don't think so. I don't know if you've ever lived here or not, but, if you had, you'd know what you think of as freedom pales in comparison to what I have here.

<font color="red"> Islam is not just the outward visible manifestation of 'religion' (prayer, Haj, fasting), but the control by Shariah Law of judicial, educational, legislative, social, economic, militaristic, and social behaviors and norms,
</font>



And what exactly is the religious right trying to do in America?

If your statements are so correct, explain Turkey, a very secular, Islamic nation.

What I like most about Player is how it's O.K. for him to cherry pick the Qu'ran, but it's not O.K. for anyone to point out how the bible has similar verses. He didn't even bother to mention that those verses aren't part of the original Qu'ran, but indeed are a reflection of tribal law from the region and are not accepted by all followers.

The simple fact is that the majority of Muslims don't support the extremest views of the few, despite the conservatives apparent prejudices indicating that they do. Muslims are the same as most Americans, feeling that the barbaric actions of those very few militants are horrible, no matter where they are visited. It is only extreme prejudice that makes one view the entire region as supporting this fundamentalist view. BTW - that cuts both ways, a view of the Western World as all being greedy oil hogs is similarly narrow in perspective.

One should note however, that my perspective that the fundamentalist terrorist dogma is a Western product is correct in reality. The first and foremost terrorist acts in the Middle East were carried out by the Zionists against the British, an attempt - excuse me - a successful attempt to force the world to allow the formation of a Zionist state in the Middle East.

The use of fundamentalist religious doctrine to motive and coordinate resistance to Western influence in the Middle East was solidified in Iran.

Iran was a British - Oh what shall we call it - Colony, where the British State run Oil company, now known as BP, took all of the oil and left nothing for the people who lived there. The Iranians asked, very politely, if they might share in the revenue, given that the oil was really theirs to start with. BP refused. Soooo, the Iranians had an election, you know, democracy and all that, and they elected a nationalistic leader who nationalized the oil.

Well, we couldn't stand for that so the CIA sponsored a coup and inserted a U.S. lackey known as the Shah of Iran. A rather brutal dictator. Well, as history tells us, the only way the locals could confront him was via a religious fundamentalist movement.

Whether or not Player accepts or recognizes this is irrelevant. The CIA does, as well as the NSA and the FBI (despite the efforts of Rummy, Bush and his boss, Cheney to change history). Player can believe what he wants including the fact that the rest of the world is not intelligent enough to get what is so obvious to him, but I'll stick with the CIA...

Ron Paul on the other hand quite gets this as do a number of other smart people.

Globalization has led to a decreased standard of living throughout the world while a handful of Americans have gotten rich. We might be suckers in this scam, but the rest of the world isn't. It is only natural for them to resent the situation.

BTW - this doesn't mean I think America is some great evil. It does mean that I recognize that the very rich in this country are doing some awful things in America's name and that all of us are getting the blame for it... If I'm going to be blamed for something, I'd at least like to get some benefit from it... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="red"> Islam is not just the outward visible manifestation of 'religion' (prayer, Haj, fasting), but the control by Shariah Law of judicial, educational, legislative, social, economic, militaristic, and social behaviors and norms,
</font>



And what exactly is the religious right trying to do in America?



For the most part Dan is pretty smart but in this he's wrong. What he should have said is "what exactly has the religious right already done in America?"

Right now we are at the tail end of 25 years of deregulation, a process, believe it or not, started during the Carter Admin. The idea was that over regulation was killing our ability to do business in the world. Well, we got deregulation for 25 years and now, well, we're broke and corrupt and getting ready for a nice recession. You see, we forgot why we had all those regulations. They were put in place after the excesses of the 1920s were we had true free markets... they were a bust.

We have no idea of what has been done both here and abroad under the rationalization of free markets, but we're going to find out. But before that message, let's remember, that the party of deregulation and free markets is the part of religious fundamentalism in America, that'd be the GOP!

Case one, CSX - CSX was Tony Snow's baby. In the early 1990s a train derailed in Florida (Amtrak) and killed something like 9 people. After some investigation it turned out that CSX had systematically not carried out inspections and repairs of their line. It saved them $2 billion. Go stockholders!

The wife of one of the dead didn't accept that it was an accident, so she went looking and found the truth. It took 10 years and went all the way to the Supreme Court but she won the case. Her prize, $56 million. Hardly punitive given that CSX pocketed $2 billion. BTW - she donated almost all the money to charity. (BTW - Jeb Bush closed that loophole. Can't hurt Big Business, such a lawsuit would be limited to under a million today.)

This happened due to cut backs in inspectors (can't have high taxes now) and deregulation. It turns out that at this juncture, rail is the most dangerous form of travel with 10 times the death rate of truck transport. Keep in mind that most trains travel in rural areas where there is no car traffic.

Here's the best part. The rail line owners got a law passed that states that any passenger train wrecks that occur aren't their fault, period. So CSX simply passed the bill to Amtrak. For the uninitiated, that means they were negligent, pocketed $2 billion, and then passed the bill to us. If you don't think that our politicians aren't bought, you're foolin' yourself.

More to come...

edited because it just didn't read well. I'll work on it more...
Definitely agreed politicians are bought. They have to be in order to afford to run for office. It's part of the game.
The Religious Right is one of the scariest things in America.
Deregulation is close behind. However, don't connect President Carter to the Religious Right. He is a Christian and a Baptist, but definitely not connected to the Religious Right.
My understanding about the history of deregulation, Lyle, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that its concept started with Nixon. Deregulation laws were first passed under the Ford administration. Then, the completion of the total deregulation of the transportation departments was under the Carter administration. They were doing this partially in reponse to rising interest rates...did not work. A couple think tanks, including the Brookings Institute had advised it.
While in theory, deregulation would solve problems, in reality, it has bred further corruption of almost all companies.
Yes, it is much more difficult to sue and hold companies liable for damage done. True, deregulation is supported by the Religious Right. However, the first president fully supported by them was Ronald Reagan.

What I like most about Player is how it's O.K. for him to cherry pick the Qu'ran, but it's not O.K. for anyone to point out how the bible has similar verses. He didn't even bother to mention that those verses aren't part of the original Qu'ran, but indeed are a reflection of tribal law from the region and are not accepted by all followers.

<font color="green"> What really gets me Lyle, is how you ignore my words, and then imply I said stuff like this. I never said it wasn't ok for people to point out how the bible has similar verses. At some point, it becomes a lie. I never said it, you know it, but you imply it anyway! Give me your best definition of a lie, then hold it up to what you just said about me and see if it applies? If it doesn't, I'll buy your ticket, pack your disc golf bag and send you flying to a country that isn't so filled with the things you don't like.

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID was that "you need to talk to someone who lives under the Old Covenant." Christians don't live under the Old Lyle! You tried to apply an Old Covenant Law to Chrisitans. That was a biblically illiterate statement. Seriously, I am not trying to be ugly about it Lyle, I'm just calling it as it is. You know that doesn't apply to a Christian.
Besides, if I understand it correctly, the commands to kill unbelievers in the OT were commands by God to a nation, not a religion.

I don't have the time or interest to keep correcting and clarifying the hostile misquotes of a grown man. To voice an opinion that differs from mine is perfectly reasonable. But to boldy imply or outright misquote me is unacceptable. Remember how you misquoted me on taxes Lyle? No apology, no excuses, just ignore, imply, misquote, and give your reactions. Even when I spell it out to you nicley. I'm done with you, at least for now. When you are shown to have misquoted or misrepresented someone or what someone has said, you need to acknowledge it Lyle. Please, for the love of logic, will someone else please tell me I'm not seeing things? This is all going in my new book, "Words Mean Things!"

As far as "cherry picking" Qu'ran verses, you tell me Lyle, which Muslims follow the "ORIGINAL?" "NONE" would be the correct answer, because there is no such thing as a complete original Qu'ran manuscript! Each and every Muslim ( whether they "CALL" themselves "radical" or not ) supports the whole. That is the ugly truth that the so called "peaceful" Islams don't want to admit. New converts and sideline supporters simply don't understand while those who draw them in only quote the "peaceful" verses. The rest gets marginalized and ignored.

Here is some more TRUTH concerning this religion that Lyle and others on here are openly defending in the name of "peaceful Muslins." I especially find the home page to be very educational to the average person who does not understand that Islam is not just the outward apperance of a "peacful" religion.


Check out: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

and this: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammad s_Own_Words.Islam
[/color </font>

Don't even bother to acknowledge Lyle's statements. He's just like Richard Simmons, but in shorter shorts.

Just so you'll know, I lived the first 38 years of my life in Charlotte. I've lived in Switzerland for 5 years and am in the process of becoming a Swiss citizen. As of this writing, I can't see myself ever living in the US again. Maybe that will change in the future, But I don't think so. I don't know if you've ever lived here or not, but, if you had, you'd know what you think of as freedom pales in comparison to what I have here.



What are the requirements to become a citizen and what is the cost of living and unemployment like in Switzerland? I wouldn't mind living there. :cool:....Norway or Sweden would be nice also. :)......Da!!!!! :D

Interlaken, Switzerland is very nice.

http://www.meiertours.com/images/bd_interlaken.jpg

I'll take it. Hook me up with a job in a cheese or chocolate factory and I'll be happy. :D

Maybe I can get a job milking some of those chocolate cows. :)

Just so you'll know, I lived the first 38 years of my life in Charlotte. I've lived in Switzerland for 5 years and am in the process of becoming a Swiss citizen. As of this writing, I can't see myself ever living in the US again. Maybe that will change in the future, But I don't think so. I don't know if you've ever lived here or not, but, if you had, you'd know what you think of as freedom pales in comparison to what I have here.



What are the requirements to become a citizen and what is the cost of living and unemployment like in Switzerland? I wouldn't mind living there. :cool:....Norway or Sweden would be nice also. :)......Da!!!!! :D



First, you have to have lived here for 5 years. Second, you have to speak one of the 4 official languages (German, Italian, French, Romansh). Third, you have to find 3 witnesses who are willing to testify that you would make a good Swiss. Fourth, your local community leaders have to vote to accpet you as a Swiss. Finally, you have to pass a citizenship test.

The cost of living is high, but so are our salaries. (As examples, a Big Mac meal costs about 10 dollars, a haircut costs 40-60 dollars, and gasoline costs about 6 1/2 dollars a gallon.)

The average person gets 5 weeks of holiday a year to start. With time, that can go as high as 8 weeks a year.

Unemployment was at 2.7% at the end of August 2007. Switzerland currently has the 6th highest GDP per capita in the world (higher than the US) and the world's most competitive economy (WEF Global Competitiveness Report).

Switzerland has a direct democracy. That means the people can vote directly on changes to the laws. If you get enough people to sign a petition for something, there has to be a vote on it. The parliament can also change the laws, but the people can call for a referendum and overthrow the changes.

Switzerland has no enemies and hasn't been involved in a war since 1815.

Plus, as an added bonus, I can sit around in a park and drink beer in public!! That's right! I can throw 18 holes and then sit around at the last basket with my buddies and drink a beer without any hassles!

Life is good here!! :D

You chose Romansh, right? :)

One caveat to hasn't been involved in a war...they are more than willing to launder money/gold/artwork/etc for whoever is willing to deposit it -- no questions asked.


And on topic: Why does the Christian Bible include the OT if you aren't expected to live by it? The Torah doesn't include the NT. (Vaguely remembering some statement by Jesus about honoring the OT.)

And on topic: Why does the Christian Bible include the OT if you aren't expected to live by it? The Torah doesn't include the NT. (Vaguely remembering some statement by Jesus about honoring the OT.)


<font color="green"> Non believers and sadly even those who have put there hope in Jesus have a tendency to label the Bible as "a bunch of rules." There is so much more to it. That is exactly why it is a part of what you called "the Christian Bible." And that is chapter 6 in my book, "Words Mean Things!" :D

Also, as a Christian, you are in fact commanded to follow many of the principles of the Old Covenant that God made with His people. One time, an expert in the OT law tried to test Jesus with a question. He asked Jesus "what is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied:<font color="red"> � �Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.� This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: �Love your neighbour as yourself.� All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments </font> Mt. 22:34-40 That was a quote from the OT, Deuteronomy to be exact. Jesus honored the OT while here, but He also fulfilled it. </font>

You chose Romansh, right? :)



Absolutely not! That's a hard language - kind of a mix between Latin and Italian. Ich w�hlte Deutsch - Schwiizer-T��tsch sogar! (Swiss-German is a dialect that gives Germans and Austrians fits!)


One caveat to hasn't been involved in a war...they are more than willing to launder money/gold/artwork/etc for whoever is willing to deposit it -- no questions asked.



I never said how Switzerland stayed out of wars!! :D

In reality, this is not as easy as it used to be due to pressures from the international community. However, in the past, this was certainly the case. It's one of the problems with neutrality; you can't really say no to anyone's money because it could be seen as taking sides.

So you are allowed to interpret parts of the OT as needed. Just the opposite of what you are allowing Muslims to do.

Still waiting on an explanation for the Turkish government. If Islam is so invasive and demanding, why are they able to be an effective, secular Islamic nation?

So you are allowed to interpret parts of the OT as needed. Just the opposite of what you are allowing Muslims to do.

Still waiting on an explanation for the Turkish government. If Islam is so invasive and demanding, why are they able to be an effective, secular Islamic nation?



<font color="green"> Saying that Christians are not under OT Law isn't a matter of interpretation, it just is! wow! I'm not "allowing" Muslims to do or not do anything! I'm still waiting on a lot from you sir, but don't expect anything except more support for a religion you don't believe in. Let me ask you somthing, and please feel free to elaborate: why are you NOT a Muslim Bender? I mean if it is so accepting of everyone. If it's so peaceful and "effective in secular Islamic nations." If there is no "invasive or demanding" aspects to it, why don't you become a Muslim? </font>

Nice deflection. But I'll bite. Because I have free will. I choose to not belong to any religion.

Gospel of Matthew (I knew it existed):
5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

From this, Jesus says the OT is still in play. Of course, until someone later came along and interpreted it differently.


Your use of the Koran is the same game I'm playing here. Anita already proved that there are other interpretations. The government of Turkey is proving that secular government and Islam can co-exist, but you are so convinced

Bender said:

From this, Jesus says the OT is still in play. Of course, until someone later came along and interpreted it differently..

<font color="green"> No, He didn't say that, He said He came to "fulfill the Law." You have misinterpreted the passage. The evidence is overwhelming that you have.

The fact that the OT was abolished simply came about because it was no longer how we stood justified before God. That is the point of Colossians 2:14.

Jesus and His followers, Christians, are the embodiment of the Jewish Law. That will tell you how the law was to be implimented now that the OT was ending. The New Covenant, The New Testament, The New Law, are all the same thing Bender.

Jesus spells it out in the remainder of the chapter how the principles of the OT were to be lived out under HIM. Every time He say's "you have heard it said" in chapter 5, what do you think He is quoting Bender? The OT! He's not making it up as He goes. He's fulfilling it with His New Comandment...

The rulers were being hypocrites concerning the Law. When He said you must "surpass them" He was telling them how they are now suppose to live. Then He starts explaining in verse 21 and doesn't stop until 7:27!

Nothing would pass until it was/is fulfilled... Jn. 19:30, "It is finished!"

When you say that Jesus said the "OT is still in play" I pray you understand the implications of your statement. This is serious stuff man. Jesus, and His followers did not believe it was "still in play." The irony of your interpretation is that nearly none of them actually obeyed the OT. Law....
<font color="red">

1. The apostle Paul, a Jew said, "I MYSELF AM NOT UNDER THE LAW" (1 Cor. 9:20).

2. "ALL WHO RELY ON OBSERVING THE LAW ARE UNDER A CURSE" (Gal. 3:10).

3. "CHRIST REDEEMED US FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW" (Gal. 3:13).

4. "NOW THAT FAITH HAS COME, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE LAW" (Gal. 3:25).

5. "YOU HAVE BEEN SEVERED FROM CHRIST, YOU WHO ARE SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY LAW; YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE" (Gal. 5:4).

6. "IF YOU ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW" (Gal. 5:18).

7. "THOSE WHO ARE CIRCUMCISED [JEWS] DO NOT EVEN KEEP THE LAW THEMSELVES" (Gal. 6:11).

8. "IF RIGHTEOUSNESS COULD BE GAINED THROUGH [KEEPING] THE LAW, CHRIST DIED FOR NOTHING!" (Gal. 2:21).

9. "GENTLES...DO NOT HAVE THE LAW...THEY DO NOT HAVE THE LAW" (Rom. 2:14) (Gentiles never have had the Law.)

10. "NO ONE WILL BE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS IN HIS [GOD'S] SIGHT BY OBSERVING THE LAW" (Rom. 3:20).

11. "SIN SHALL NOT BE YOUR MASTER, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE" (Rom. 6:14).

12. "WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW SO THAT WE SERVE IN THE NEW WAY OF THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE OLD WAY OF THE WRITTEN CODE" (Rom. 7:6).

13. "CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW ... FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES" (Rom. 10:4).
</font>
I'd say it's pretty clear that Christians are not under the Law of the OT. That in fact, it is not "in play." The essential truths and qualities of the OT law IS "in play" in the lives of those who are dedicated to the one who fulfilled the OT. Your interpretation of Mt. 5:17-20 has no merrit in light of any other scripture. I pray you seek Him while He may be found and know that there are people who want nothing more than to help you do that.

I didn't mean for this thread to be a Bible lesson. Bender quoted a scripture and put forth a poorly backed interpretation of it. When he equates the Bible/Christianity with the Qu'ran/Islam he is demanding an explanation from one who knows the difference. They are vastly different. I don't believe I am off topic as much as some would think.

This is a very serious issue. I would appreciate the support of believers. In prayer or by your posts...


(edited to quote the short comentaries in red and the list of 1-13 cause I didn't write anything that is in red, but I lost it! My words are in green only)



</font>

"Do you seperate the "radical" Islams from the so called "peaceful" Islam in a way that leaves no conection?"

It's really simple. This statement implies that the "peaceful" Islam supports terrorism, you're implication being that it's written in the Qu'ran. If you are going to judge an entire religion by the literal writings in their religion, then you have to accept the same for your's. You, and others like you assume that every Muslim follows every precept of the Qu'ran, no matter how unacceptable that idea might be. By technical definition, it's prejudging 100s of millions of people. I have simply done the same to Christianity to try and show you how incongruous such a position is. Why can you see that such a position in relation to Christianity is over simplistic, but not when applied to Muslims?

Yes, there are some bad people out there who claim to represent Islam. Similarly, there are some bad people out there who claim to represent Christianity. No rational person would think that the evil things done by those who claim to represent the Christian God are really part of the Christian faith.

No. And here's why. The so called "peaceful" Islam supports the radical Islam in many documentable ways. That is undeniable. Do I beleive that there are some Muslims in the world who will never hurt anyone? Yes. But those "peaceful" Muslims, do they have any clue as to what they are supporting? The answere to that is A BIG NO! Those so called "peaceful" Muslims are decieved Lyle! They don't even know what they are a part of. For whatever reason, they have chosen to be a part of something that is bigger than there "peacful" interpretations and exclusitory methods of reading the Qu'ran. I don't know about you, I don't know of a religion or a God that allows you to pick and choose the parts you want! Think about that, don't just fly off half cocked and react to what I just said, please, I'm asking you, to just think about it. This isn't about you or me being right! Leave your pride at the door and look at the facts.


No, I don't have to believe the OT Law is a mandate for my life as a Christian. You think I do because "it says it right there in the OT and the OT is a part of your bible." That kind of thinking has no understanding of the scripture. You simply do not want to understand. The post prior to your saying this explains it in plain english man, and you completely ignored it to say "you gotta do the same thing!" The reason I don't follow the OT Law isn't bacause I don't want to! I'm not picking and choosing as you would like to think! There are words in there Lyle, and once again, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" I don't follow the OT Law because it was "nailed to the cross." Fulfilled. Completed in Christ. Once again, this isn't about you or me being right. I pray you leave your pride at the door, and take the time to examine this before you react without examining it.

No. And here's why. The so called "peaceful" Islam supports the radical Islam in many documentable ways. That is undeniable. Do I beleive that there are some Muslims in the world who will never hurt anyone? Yes. But those "peaceful" Muslims, do they have any clue as to what they are supporting? The answere to that is A BIG NO! Those so called "peaceful" Muslims are decieved Lyle! They don't even know what they are a part of. For whatever reason, they have chosen to be a part of something that is bigger than there "peacful" interpretations and exclusitory methods of reading the Qu'ran. I don't know about you, I don't know of a religion or a God that allows you to pick and choose the parts you want! Think about that, don't just fly off half cocked and react to what I just said, please, I'm asking you, to just think about it. This isn't about you or me being right! Leave your pride at the door and look at the facts.


No, I don't have to believe the OT Law is a mandate for my life as a Christian. You think I do because "it says it right there in the OT and the OT is a part of your bible." That kind of thinking has no understanding of the scripture. You simply do not want to understand. The post prior to your saying this explains it in plain english man, and you completely ignored it to say "you gotta do the same thing!" The reason I don't follow the OT Law isn't bacause I don't want to! I'm not picking and choosing as you would like to think! There are words in there Lyle, and once again, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" I don't follow the OT Law because it was "nailed to the cross." Fulfilled. Completed in Christ. Once again, this isn't about you or me being right. I pray you leave your pride at the door, and take the time to examine this before you react without examining it.



WOW! That's an incredible position you're supporting. So, you know a lot of Muslims or are you basing this position on what you've seen on T.V.?

Just wondering here. How many American Catholics sent money to the IRA in the 1980s? Are we allowed to assume that all Catholics support terrorism? Just so you know, the biggest chunk of money supporting the IRA came out of Boston MA...

The bible is a set of stories meant to support moral and ethical behaviors on the part of Christians. In that, it is very good. The concept that every person takes every part of the bible and interprets it the same is probably not a safe position. Even if we look at the Protestant religions we see huge variations in how the bible is interpreted and how it directs followers. If we include Catholicism we get farther afield. And we haven't even gotten to the Quakers, the Amish or the Mormons. Of course to the Southern Baptists (the religion I was brought up under) all the rest are burning anyway so I guess it doesn't much matter...

<font color="red"> In defense of Islam, Anita claims:

�According to the Koran, Christians and Jews are "People of the Book" and should be tolerated.�

�I simply point out that Jews and Christians and (are?) not disbeliever�s according to the Koran.�
</font>

<font color="green"> This is not accurate, not even close. The fact is, Jesus� own words about Himself would disqualify ANY sort of fellowship between the Christian and Muslim. The following exposes the truth about this. </font>

�With hatred also confirmed by close to 500 verses that speak of Allah's wrath on unbelievers, the effort to mine those rare diamonds that do speak of love and tolerance must be a true study in cherry picking. Such presentations are usually introduced with wild rhapsody (i.e. "the following verses will shatter completely all the lies about Islam advocating or promoting hate. It shows total respect to people from different religions and backgrounds...").
Yet, these apologists commonly ignore other, far more prevalent verses that do preach hatred, death, and doom. They also ignore the history of Islam and its relegation of nonbelievers to third-class status, with taxes and discrimination rooted in the Qur'an and traditions of Muhammad.
More importantly, they neglect to mention that these verses come from an earlier time period and are abrogated by later ones.
Take the most popular example, Sura (2:62) - "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Well, if this isn't universal tolerance for other faiths, then what is?
But unfortunately this is also from the earliest Medinan Sura (the same one that famously speaks of "no compulsion in religion"). It was "revealed" just after Muhammad and his 100 followers were expelled from Mecca and desperately needed to make alliances with the people around them in their new hometown of Medina. Most of their neighbors were not Muslims, and if Muhammad and his tiny group were to have informed the people around them of their religious inferiority and ultimate doom, then they would not have had the opportunity to gain power. By contrast, the 9th and 5th Suras are among the most intolerant of the Qur'an, and they are also considered the final revelations.
The same seems to hold true for Sura 3, which is an exercise in ambivalence. Verse 151 condemns Christians to Hell for believing in the Trinity, while verses 113-116 say that there are among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and the Last Day and are in "the ranks of the righteous." In order to stay on the safe side, however, Muhammad warns in verse 118 against taking "for intimate friends from among others than your own people." It also helps to remember that this Sura was an early Median verse, like Sura 2, but it follows the Battle of Badr, and occurs at a time when Muslims were gaining strength in the community and could afford to be a bit more arrogant.
Taken as a whole, no other religion on earth has the mandate that Islam does to dominate those outside the faith politically and culturally. Non-Muslims are to be subjugated and forced to pay money to Muslims, according to the Qur'an's 9th sura and various Hadith. Islamic law (Sharia) not only governs the affairs of Muslims, but non-Muslims as well. It proscribes a body of rules that systematically discriminate against those of other faiths, denying them legal rights, restricting their religious practices, and even determining where they are allowed to build houses.
One of the more common tricks that today's Muslims disingenuously play on the truly naive is to pretend that that Muhammad commanded his followers to love and not to hate. This is a partial truth. There are Hadith that tell Muslims not to hate (Bukhari (73:89)) and not to do harm in word or deed (Muslim (1:65)) but the context and exact wording makes it very clear that this applies within the Muslim community to a believer's relations with fellow Muslims. These are not commands that govern a Muslim's obligation to the general community. (For an example of how Muslims manipulate others in this way, see this article).�

<font color="red"> Bender continues the support the Qu�ran by trying to equate an OT scripture of the Bible to the Qu�ran. He also tries to accuse me of false interpretation of an OT passage to fit my belief that the OT Law was no longer in effect for the Christian:

Bender - �2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.�
�So you are allowed to interpret parts of the OT as needed. Just the opposite of what you are allowing Muslims to do.�</font>

<font color="green"> These shallow attempts by Bender to twist the Word of God, discredit me, and defend a false religion that he himself does not follow are exposed in the following: </font>

Another game that Muslim scholars play to compensate for the absence of verses commanding universal love is to appeal to verses of the Bible that provide this instruction. Such scholars assert that since Islam is based on the two earlier religions of Judaism and Christianity, it therefore inherits the concepts of peace, love and tolerance that are missing from the Qur'an.
But, of course, Muslims are not taught to believe the Old and New Testaments outright. There is no rote memorization of such scripture as there is for the Qur'an. There are also abundant historical and theological contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible, from the Trinity to Redemption. For example, the Qur'an says that the crucifixion never happened (something that hardly anyone else denies). Of course, it also claims that the mother of Jesus was the sister of Moses as well, since the characters share the same name, even though they are separated by at least 13 centuries. (Needless to say, the Qur'an really isn't the best source for Judeo-Christian theology).
In short, it is highly disingenuous for Muslims to fill in the missing pieces of their faith by picking and choosing what they will from other religions to conveniently fit the fashion of the times. (This is particularly tasteless given the persecution that Muslim rulers have meted out historically on non-Muslim populations). Even though the practice of manufacturing Islam began with Muhammad, there are reasons why this military leader chose to say so very little about universal love and brotherhood, yet so very much about killing and eternal doom.

<font color="green"> Lastly, Bender tries to accuse me of �playing the same game that he is playing.� </font>

<font color="red"> Your use of the Koran is the same game I'm playing here. Anita already proved that there are other interpretations. (no, she didn�t!)
</font>
<font color="green"> I�m not interested in your game Bender. This is serious business that ultimately threatens the freedom you have to say such things and so much more. The quote I made is not a vague reference to some one forgotten time, or one forgotten tribe as Lyle tried to say. This link ( http://www.answeringislam.de/Main/Silas/hassaballa_violence2.htm ) shows in �error #7� exactly why it is not just an isolated application to one tribe of Muslim.

I don�t hold any hate towards the �usual suspects� that defend the indefensible, nor do I hate those who are a part of this false religion. But living in a country where I have the right to expose it for what it is, I will do so. And living for a God that loves even those who hate Him, I feel compelled to do what I can to inform those who are deceived and misinformed. If you feel the same way, please show your support through your prayers and posts� </font>

black letters are from: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/024-hell-and-hate.htm <font color="green"> PLEASE READ?

As always I'd like to say, that this is a serious topic with serious implications. Please don't gloss over the responses I give you and post things I didn't say and ignore the answers I've already given. I try very hard to listen to every word you say. To this point, I have not heard anything that could defend such a doctrine...</font>

Just wondering here. How many American Catholics sent money to the IRA in the 1980s? Are we allowed to assume that all Catholics support terrorism? Just so you know, the biggest chunk of money supporting the IRA came out of Boston MA...



I am not a Catholic, nor wish to be. I don't support them in any way. In fact, I teach many about the false doctrines associated with that religion. I don't bash them, just like I don't bash Muslims. So to imply that the money that religion is associated with my beliefs is a false. If you know the difference between Catholic and Christian, one would have to assume your statement is also kinda presumptuous. ;)

The bible is a set of stories meant to support moral and ethical behaviors on the part of Christians. In that, it is very good. The concept that every person takes every part of the bible and interprets it the same is probably not a safe position. Even if we look at the Protestant religions we see huge variations in how the bible is interpreted and how it directs followers. If we include Catholicism we get farther afield. And we haven't even gotten to the Quakers, the Amish or the Mormons. Of course to the Southern Baptists (the religion I was brought up under) all the rest are burning anyway so I guess it doesn't much matter...




<font color="green"> The Bible is much more than your reduced explanation of it. You are right, many groups have many different interpretations. When it comes to interpretations it is good that they be consistent with the rest of the document you are talking about. That's common sense man.

For both texts, I have put forth a logical interpretation concerning specific verses in question. Along with adequate reasons to believe that specific, time honored interpretation. I've also given one that is consistent with the rest of the Bible and the Qu'ran. I do not see that sort of accademic integrity and evidence brought forth by those who make other claims. What I read from yo and others are claims that are not backed up with adaquate support, and statements that are not consistent with the entire book(s). If you have them, please share them before you make any more, hmmm, "bold" claims.

My wife was brought up Southern Baptist too. She is a devoted believer in Jesus ("loves horses, and America too" Tom Petty!) After being raised up in it, you could not pay her to go to an old school Southern Baptist church! I can tell you from personal experience, even prior to my wife, that the damage that some southern Baptis do in the name of Jesus is shameful. I experienced a bit of that in the Church of Christ. Not LDS! That harsh, judgemental, shallow and often prideful style of religious interaction is a hard thing to grow up with. Their are examples of it every religious group. But the actions of some do not determine the validity of the whole. Before you quote that line, and say "that's what you are doing with Muslims" read what I said. I said the validity of it, not the sweeping judgement of everyone involved! Think about what that means...

I can understand why you would be turned off to anything remotely sounding dogmatic. I would encourage you to look a bit beyond traditions and individuals who have contributed to a view of Christianity that isn't accurate. Around the world there are misconceptions and falsehoods made about Christianity every minute of every day. It's not hard to see why a lot of people are confused or angry or hostile to something so grossly misrepresented. I pray you can learn to look beyond all that and find someone who doesn't have an "agenda" while sharing the truth with you.</font>

I am not a Catholic, nor wish to be. I don't support them in any way. In fact, I teach many about the false doctrines associated with that religion. I don't bash them, just like I don't bash Muslims.

:confused: :eek:




So to imply that the money that religion is associated with my beliefs is a false. If you know the difference between Catholic and Christian, one would have to assume your statement is also kinda presumptuous. ;)



Funny... all my Catholic friends seem to think that they are Christians. :eek:

I am not a Catholic, nor wish to be. I don't support them in any way. In fact, I teach many about the false doctrines associated with that religion. I don't bash them, just like I don't bash Muslims.

:confused: :eek:




So to imply that the money that religion is associated with my beliefs is a false. If you know the difference between Catholic and Christian, one would have to assume your statement is also kinda presumptuous. ;)



Funny... all my Catholic friends seem to think that they are Christians. :eek:



Aren't they the original Christians? :D Of course it doesn't much matter. Since they're not Southern Baptists they're still burnin'. :D

BTW - does any one know how many atheists are in government in America? Apparently if you don't believe, it's pretty hard to get elected. Almost like you're... a third class citizen.

BTW - does anyone know how Israeli Muslims are treated? If I recall, they're pretty much treated as... third class citizens.

That's why SDan lives in Switzerland, apparently you can get citizenship even if you speak German or French, but not if you speak Spanish.

Is that why they call themselves Catholics?

BTW - does any one know how many atheists are in government in America? Apparently if you don't believe, it's pretty hard to get elected. Almost like you're... a third class citizen.
<font color="red">I think that there is a congressman from California who is openly atheist. I'll look this up later when I have a little time.</font>

BTW - does anyone know how Israeli Muslims are treated? If I recall, they're pretty much treated as... third class citizens.

That's why SDan lives in Switzerland, apparently you can get citizenship even if you speak German or French, but not if you speak Spanish.
<font color="red">It's a little early, so maybe I'm just reading this last one wrong. Can you explain this for the benefit of those us who are morning handicapped? </font>

Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) is openly atheist.He first announced this in 2007. Of course, he has been a congressman since 1972 and never bothered to mention it before. Small steps are better than no steps, I suppose.

I would not want to speak for Lyle, but I think his comment about not speaking Spanish was an attempt at humor (which I thought was funny) and connecting a couple threads together...lots of talk about illegal immigration on another thread (the next president).

BTW - does anyone know how Israeli Muslims are treated? If I recall, they're pretty much treated as... third class citizens.

Which is still better than being a Jew Iran. :D

BTW - does any one know how many atheists are in government in America? Apparently if you don't believe, it's pretty hard to get elected. Almost like you're... a third class citizen.
<font color="red">I think that there is a congressman from California who is openly atheist. I'll look this up later when I have a little time.</font>

BTW - does anyone know how Israeli Muslims are treated? If I recall, they're pretty much treated as... third class citizens.

That's why SDan lives in Switzerland, apparently you can get citizenship even if you speak German or French, but not if you speak Spanish.
<font color="red">It's a little early, so maybe I'm just reading this last one wrong. Can you explain this for the benefit of those us who are morning handicapped? </font>





Laura is correct, a poor attempt at humor. Also, an attempt to comment on the immigration issue that is so prevalent in this country and yet, so misinformed. Many in this country are offended by the concept that someone here might speak any other language than English, and yet in Switzerland, they are so all inclusive that they accept a number of different languages realizing that each has a storied history in their region and something to add. Oh, by the way, weren't the first visitors to the Americas Spanish? Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

On the other hand, WOW! we have a token atheist in politics! Too cool!

BTW - does anyone know how Israeli Muslims are treated? If I recall, they're pretty much treated as... third class citizens.

Which is still better than being a Jew Iran. :D



Excellent Point! But, as me Da used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right!" By the way, look up the history of Judaism in the Middle East. At one time all those crazy countries embraced and supported the religion, or so I've been told. You know, back when being a Jew in America and Europe was a... dirty thing.

So, who disenfranchised who first? While I have no doubt the Muslims in the Middle East hate Israelis, the stealing of land and other atrocities that Israel has committed does not place them in the, "we're the good guys" category.

BTW - since I've already gotten myself in trouble once today, I don't support racism, anti... or pro-religious positions, sexism or any other kind of prejudice. I especially think the antisemitism that has occurred and still occurs in this country is pathetic.

Laura is correct, a poor attempt at humor. Also, an attempt to comment on the immigration issue that is so prevalent in this country and yet, so misinformed. Many in this country are offended by the concept that someone here might speak any other language than English, and yet in Switzerland, they are so all inclusive that they accept a number of different languages realizing that each has a storied history in their region and something to add. Oh, by the way, weren't the first visitors to the Americas Spanish? Anyway, sorry for the confusion.



Actually, if you're not counting the Native Americans (and I'm guessing you're not since they weren't visitors), the first Europeans in the Americas were Vikings.

Yes, there is a huge language diversity here in Switzerland. Although you have to speak one of the four official languages to be a citizen, I can walk down the street in Z�rich any day of the week and hear 10-15 different languages within 10 minutes. Too bad I only understand 2 of them!

So, if I travel to any other country in the world and only speak English, no one would be offended that I didn't at least try to learn their native tongue? I'm not a world traveler, but my friends that have visited places all over the globe have told me that you are treated much better if you understand the language everyone else is speaking. Besides, if you only spoke English, how could you ask for a bathroom, hospital, bank, embassy, etc.?

You just reminded me of a joke.

What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?

An American! :D

I think the point several of us are trying to make whether regarding language, culture, or religion is the importance of having an open-mind, tolerance of differences, and the desire and willingness to learn more.

Is that why they call themselves Catholics?



Christianity = Catholicism + Protestantism

Protestantism = Baptists + Methodists + Anglicans + Episcopalians + etc, etc, etc.

I think the point several of us are trying to make whether regarding language, culture, or religion is the importance of having an open-mind, tolerance of differences, and the desire and willingness to learn more.



This is why I'm voting for Laura for President!

Laura is correct, a poor attempt at humor. Also, an attempt to comment on the immigration issue that is so prevalent in this country and yet, so misinformed. Many in this country are offended by the concept that someone here might speak any other language than English, and yet in Switzerland, they are so all inclusive that they accept a number of different languages realizing that each has a storied history in their region and something to add. Oh, by the way, weren't the first visitors to the Americas Spanish? Anyway, sorry for the confusion.



Actually, if you're not counting the Native Americans (and I'm guessing you're not since they weren't visitors), the first Europeans in the Americas were Vikings.

Yes, there is a huge language diversity here in Switzerland. Although you have to speak one of the four official languages to be a citizen, I can walk down the street in Z�rich any day of the week and hear 10-15 different languages within 10 minutes. Too bad I only understand 2 of them!



That's it, I'm learning Viking... ism... ish... an... Oh whatever! :D

BTW Dan, on behalf of the entire Apache nation, we forgive you for only speaking European languages! :D

And I actually did read David's response, and now I'm officially done since he is unwilling to believe that followers of another faith can't bend from the teachings in their book. Nevermind the fact that Christians and Jews have been bending from their book since, well, before it was written.

You just reminded me of a joke.

What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?

An American! :D



Hey! I can read Latin. Does that make me monoandahalflingal?

Thanks...if only I had the funding...actually I'd rather run for Congress...Seriously, I would LOVE to run for a public office...and WIN! That is my secret (okay, not so secret) fantasy.
BTW, Dan may be correct on the Vikings discovering America first, but remember we (the majority of the PDGA posters) live in Texas --- a whole other country---in which case you are correct with the Spanish being the first! :D

Actually, I'm coming from the position that while the Vikings did come here from Europe first, they most certainly weren't here first. I give them less claim even than the Spanish since they left and the Spanish stayed. There is no question that the Spanish have had as great an impact on the new world as the English did. The poor French are left a weak third.

Given the (questionable) cultural contributions by the Spanish and English on the new world, one should give each fairly equitable recognition and (choke) credit.

You just reminded me of a joke.

What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks one language?

An American! :D



Hey! I can read Latin. Does that make me monoandahalflingal?



NO! It makes you a halfmonolingual. :D

<font color="green"> I believe this info is about six months old </font>

"Update in Iraq: Good the Americans have accomplished:

Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
An interim constitution has been signed.
Girls are allowed to attend school.
Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years."

BTW - does any one know how many atheists are in government in America? Apparently if you don't believe, it's pretty hard to get elected.



In Texas, you have to believe in a higher being, or God to run for office.

I watched Obsession a few days ago on line.

My thought, it did not tell me anything I didn't know other than the connection between Nazism and the Radical Islamics.

If you watch it closely, you will notice they talk about why the United States is one of there Targets. It talks about Blowback, but does not use that word.

Player, you are wrong for the most part about Muslims. I have several business associates who are Muslim, they are not "terrorists"

The same as not all Christians are going to blow up Subways in London or Abortion Clinic's in America.

I will give you some quotes from Usama bin Laden in my next post.

ok, these are quote from Usama bin Laden's 2004 speech televised on al-Jazzera.


Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.



complete speech (http://www.dallasforronpaul.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=361&amp;highlight=ladin)

Sept 07 speech as transcribed by the US government.


"I say, refuting this unjust statement, that the morality and culture of the holocaust is your culture, not our culture. In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?! The holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us. And my proof for that is in what your brothers, the Spanish, did when they set up the horrible courts of the Inquisition to try Muslims and Jews, when the Jews only found safe shelter by taking refuge in our countries. And that is why the Jewish community in Morocco today is one of the largest communities in the world. They are alive with us and we have not incinerated them, but we are a people who don't sleep under oppression and reject humiliation and disgrace, and we take revenge on the people of tyranny and aggression, and the blood of the Muslims will not be spilled with impunity, and the morrow is nigh for he who awaits."

"Also, your Christian brothers have been living among us for 14 centuries: in Egypt alone, there are millions of Christians whom we have not incinerated and shall not incinerate. But the fact is, there is a continuing and biased campaign being waged against us for a long time now by your politicians and many of your writers by way of your media, especially Hollywood, for the purpose of misrepresenting Islam and its adherents to drive you away from the true religion. The genocide of peoples and their holocausts took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons."

"This work of yours is the greatest form of polytheism and is rebellion against obedience to Allah with which the believer becomes an unbeliever, even if he obeys Allah in some of His other orders. Allah, the Most High, sent down His orders in His Sacred Books like the Torah and Evangel and sent with them the Messengers (Allah's prayers and peace be upon them) as bearers of good news to the people."

"And everyone who believes in them and complies with them is a believer from the people of the Garden. Then when the men of knowledge altered the words of Allah, the Most High, and sold them for a paltry price, as the rabbis did with the Torah and the monks with the Evangel, Allah sent down His final Book, the magnificent Quran, and safeguarded it from being added to or subtracted from by the hands of men, and in it is a complete methodology for the lives of all people."


"And did you know that the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Quran dozens of times, and that in the Quran there is a chapter whose name is "Maryam," i.e. Mary, daughter of 'Imran and mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both)? It tells the story of her becoming pregnant with the Prophet of Allah Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), and in its confirmation of her chastity and purity, in contrast to the fabrications of the Jews against her. Whoever wishes to find that out for himself must listen to the verse of this magnificent chapter: one of the just kings of the Christians - the Negus - listened to some of its verses and his eyes welled up with tears and he said something which should be reflected on for a long time by those sincere in their search for the truth."

"He said, "verily, this and what Jesus brought come from one lantern": i.e., that the magnificent Quran and the Evangel are both from Allah, the Most High; and every just and intelligent one of you who reflects on the Quran will definitely arrive at this truth. It also must be noted that Allah has preserved the Quran from the alterations of men. And reading in order to become acquainted with Islam only requires a little effort, and those of you who are guided will profit greatly. And peace be upon he who follows the Guidance."



Complete speech with my take on it (http://www.dallasforronpaul.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=362)

Ok, this is the speech that the American press said Usama told us we had two choices Die or convert to Islam. Read the whole speech and you will see he actually said, Die or change your Leaders who will change your Foreign Policy.

In other words, as long as we are messing with the middle east, we will be attacked.

BTW, Iran had an elected government in the late 1940's, there Prime Minister Nationalized the oil industry and the CIA along with the British government helped overthrow there government and installed the western friendly Shaw of Iran. Right now, Iran has more freedoms than they did when the Shaw was in power.

Pakistan had a democratic government, Mashariff overthrew it 10 years ago and we have supported him.

Most of the rest of the Middle Eastern countries are run by Kings.

I watched Obsession a few days ago on line.

My thought, it did not tell me anything I didn't know other than the connection between Nazism and the Radical Islamics.

If you watch it closely, you will notice they talk about why the United States is one of there Targets. It talks about Blowback, but does not use that word.

Player, you are wrong for the most part about Muslims. I have several business associates who are Muslim, they are not "terrorists"
<font color="red"> The personal beliefs of the handful of Muslims you personally deal with do not represent 1.5 billion (B!) muslims or the Holy Book that they follow. Besides, I never said your business associates who are Muslim are terrorists. This is the first I've ever heard of you having business associates that are Muslim. So, I'm not really sure what your implication is there. What exactly am I "wrong for the most part" about? I respectfully disagree with that very unspecific statement. I THINK you are implying that I say that all Muslims are terrorists, which isn't true, but I don't want to read into it too much or put words into your mouth.

</font>
The same as not all Christians are going to blow up Subways in London or Abortion Clinic's in America.

I will give you some quotes from Usama bin Laden in my next post.

<font color="red"> Listen, I don't come on here to simply bash something I don't agree with. The only thing I am doing is warning people by exposing them to the truth about a religion that is inherently false. Just like you have a passion to share ideas and stuff about Ron Paul and other things, I have a passion for sharing what I believe to be important. If you would like to show me specifically where my statements about this religion are wrong, I would appreciate that sort of discussion much more. But the personal beliefs or rantings of a killer like Usama, although useful in many ways, don't serve any credability to Islam as a religion and they certainly don't convince me of anything noble or peaceful concerning anything. </font>

as FDR once said ''The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself''

I do not fear terrorism. Now if I was in the middle east I would feel differently.

My first apartment in Collage I shared with a Jordan citizen. [Omar] Actually he was Palestinian but as a child his family was forced to leave in the 7 day war. His family fled to Jordan and were eventually able to become citizens, something that is not all that easy to do if you are Palestinian.

Before that, I worked with a guy from Iran. One day I found him on campus passing out pamphlets on how the US government messes with Iran. We had many conversations between pizza deliveries.

Between these two guys, I learned more about how the middle east views the west. In other words, I understood the mindset of these people in the 80's.

I was strongly against Dessert Storm in the early 90's because I knew it would hurt us in the long run. I had never heard the term ''blowback'' at the time, but that is exactly what I thought would happen.

for most of the 90's I didn't pay much attention to the few attacks on our embassies or even the bomb set up in the World Trade Center. That all changed on 9/11/01.

My first thought, it was a terrorist attack over Palestine. As it turns out, I was not that far off. [one of the 3 reasons given]

For the last 7 years, I have read a lot about Usama and terrorist in general. I probably know more about him than anyone on this board. I do understand what motivates him. I understand why he is doing what he is doing. And yes, everytime I hear about another tape, I look for the transcript. I have read most of them. He has NEVER said he attacks America because we are FREE. In fact, as I posted above, he has stated he attacks us because HE wants to be free.

Oh yea, I am friends with the Mr. Jim's owner in East Plano. [Mo] I sold my North Carrollton location to his brother-in-law. [Ahmad] Mo set up his older son [Max] in East Allen and now he just purchased the West Plano store. I was invited to Max's wedding 2 years ago. There were only 5 non Muslims there. It was an arranged marriage. I not only talked about it with Max and Ahmad, but talked about it with Wies, Ahmad's son. His marriage will be arraigned too along with his 3 younger sisters.

I also purchased my North Carrollton Location from Farzod. [Fred] He and I became friends and have talked several times about the Middle east and Islam. After I purchased North Carrollton, he purchased South and North Grand Prairie. He also purchased Coppell and owned it for a time. He is currently out of the pizza business and owns the Blue Bunny Ice Cream market for the DFW.

BTW ''Fred'' owned a concrete company in Iran before he fled to the USA in the late 70's. I introduced him to Ahmad, the guy I sold my North Carrollton store too.

I was also friends with Kevin [can't spell his actual name] that owned the Lewisville Mr. Jim's for several years. His English was terrible so I didn't talk much with him about politics and world views. We just stuck with Pizza.

I found that most were uncomfortable when I first started asking questions. They didn't know what to expect. I just informed them I wanted to know what they have been though and wanted to hear another point of view.

Thanks for being more specific! :D

Sorry to be sarcastic. I don't mean to tick you off or get an argument going, I am just asking you to be more specific because this is a VERY important topic. I respect the fact that you have had several meaningful relationships with people of the Islamic faith, I'm not discounting that in any way. What I am saying is that those personal stories of your's do not address the things I've been sharing with you at all. You said I am wrong about the Islamic religion, can you please tell me how?

2 quick stories about Ahmad

1st, after 9/11, he needed to fly to CA where he moved here from. He was treated like crap and it took over an hour for him to be able to board the plane. He told me back then he was not going to ever fly again if he could not help it.

2nd, he worked in the Afganistan Embassy in Germany when the USSR invaded. He was able to get his family out. His wife's sister's family fled to Pakistan. He was able to get them visas to come to Germany. Eventually they all moved to the USA. Mo purchased the Mr. Jim's and Ahmad worked out in CA.

in 2004, Ahmad's wife flew back to Afganistan to visit family she had not seen for 20 years. She did not have to be escorted.

BTW, they have all become American citizens.

Now as far as Islam wanting to kill all ''non Muslims'' It all depends on who you talk to.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an is interpreted indifferently by different clerics.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an is interpreted differently by different clerics.



Fixed for Bryan. :)

as FDR once said ''The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself''




Teddy has a better quote...


Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

�In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in
good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be
treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
origin. But this is predicated upon the man�s becoming in very fact an
American, and nothing but an American�There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn�t an
American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this
excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and
civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to
which we are hostile. . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is
the English language. . . . We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is
a loyalty to the American people.�

good point cent

2 quick stories about Ahmad <font color="red"> Thats fine Bryan, but please understand, and I mean this with all due respect and I am not trying to fight with you, but these stories do not represent 1.5 Billion Muslims or have anything to do with the validity or value of the Qur'an, or Islam as a whole. You seem to either relate everything to justified retaliation towards America or personal isolated stories that are unrelated to the topic. I respect your right to say whatever you want, I'm just asking you to be more specific because this is a very important subject.</font>

1st, after 9/11, he needed to fly to CA where he moved here from. He was treated like crap and it took over an hour for him to be able to board the plane. He told me back then he was not going to ever fly again if he could not help it.

2nd, he worked in the Afganistan Embassy in Germany when the USSR invaded. He was able to get his family out. His wife's sister's family fled to Pakistan. He was able to get them visas to come to Germany. Eventually they all moved to the USA. Mo purchased the Mr. Jim's and Ahmad worked out in CA.

in 2004, Ahmad's wife flew back to Afganistan to visit family she had not seen for 20 years. She did not have to be escorted.

BTW, they have all become American citizens.

Now as far as Islam wanting to kill all ''non Muslims'' It all depends on who you talk to. <font color="red"> I don't need to talk to 1.5 Billion Muslims, figure out what percetage holds to the entire Qur'an and what percentage doesn't to know what the Qur'an says! I can read it myself. I don't need the oppinion of a handful of neo-Muslims to know what the religion itself calls for. The whole idea that they can pick and choose the parts they want to follow and somehow the rest can be ignored and somehow not have any affect on there beliefs is false. </font>

Like the Bible, the Qur'an is interpreted indifferently by different clerics. <font color="red"> Are you implying that just because people look at it differently it doesn't matter how it's interpreted? Or what parts Muslims pick and choose to live by? It most certainly does matter. Otherwise, I see no point in this statement other than the very weak defense of "you see it your way and I'll see it mine." There's a lot more to it than that. History isn't that subjective Bryan. There are solid reasons to believe that the Qur'an is not only unreliable but corrupt. My saying that isn't "hate speach" when I can show you why I beleive that and I don't even say it with an ounce of hatered, but concern for what it's potential is.

Thank you for sharing your stories, I am sorry your friend was treated like crap, that was and is not neccessary, but I don't think these stories address what I am talking about. </font>

<font color="red">

I did not complete the post. I had to go. I will eventually.

I do not brand all Muslims by what a FEW do.

No, I do not think it is anywhere close to 10 percent that want us dead, more like less than 1 percent that would actully do something about it.

As a fellow disc golfer and friend who has spent a lot of time in Packistan, most of the people there are looking for food and shelter everyday, they don't even care about the West, but only when we influance there government so they have a harder time getting this done

It is a little more involved than that.

There are a few clerics that teach that the Qur'an says to kill all non believers. Others don't, I would even say this is the vast majority of clerics.

Like the Bible, you have to look at the time the Qur'an was written. Do you think the Jews still live by an eye for an eye [strike that, they do seem to do that in Israel in relation to the Palastinians]

Oh, I know one other Arabic person who is an Arab Christian from Lebanon. I talk with them a few times a month about what is going on in the middle east. His family in Lebanon could see all the bombing from there windows last year. He got back from vacation in Lebanon the week before the invation. BTW, even though he is an American citizen and Christian, he has problems when flying too.

What would Ron Paul do about this?

Let me see,

Given there are well over a billion Muslims, and they all support terrorism, I'm wondering how we live day to day? I mean if you think about the amount of TNT that a billion Muslims could carry, that's got to be, what, a couple a hundred nucular bombs?

I'm diggin' in my back yard now. I've ordered the supplies and I'm set for 20 years.

<font color="red"> Here is a very basic history of Islam. This is given only as a reference point for discussion. If you haven't caught on to it yet, I will explain soon just how man made it is as well as many other aspects. The goal in sharing this information is not to hurl hatered toward Muslims in any way, shape or form, but to inform and warn in a manner of sincere concern. </font>

"Islam, began in Mecca, claimed to be the revelation of God (Allah) through the angel Gabriel to a man named Muhammad. Muhammad was born in approximately AD 570-571. He was born to the powerful tribe of the Quraish in Mekkah (Mecca). His father's name was Abdullah. His mother's name was Aminah.

Apparently Abdullah was a merchant who made caravan trips. He died on a trading trip soon after his marriage to Aminah, leaving Muhammad fatherless at birth. Aminah, his mother, died when he was only six years old. Muhammad was taken in by his grandfather, only to have him die when Muhammad was eight years old. At this time, his uncle, Abu Talib, one of the leaders of the Quraish tribe took him in and raised him.

Muhammad was taught the family business and apparently quite successful. A wealthy widow named Khadijah arranged for Muhammad to oversee her trading business, and was so impressed with his skill and appearance that she proposed marriage to him. Muhammad was twenty-five and Khadijah was forty when they married. They had six children, two boys and four girls. Both of the sons died early in life. The daughters lived to see Muhammad become the founder of Islam.

Having married the wealthy Khadijah, Muhammad now became a gentleman of leisure and somewhat of a philosopher. He would retreat from society, take trips into the desert and mountains. He would spend his hours in meditation, greatly concerned about the condition of the civilization he saw around himself. He had a personal mission to find "truth." One of his frequent places of seclusion was a cave on Mount Nur. It was while in this cave, during the month of the Ramadan, a pagan festival, that he received his first visitation from Gabriel and recited the verses found in Qur'an 96:1-5.

At first, Muhammad shared his new revelations with only his family and close friends. During the next three years the message of Muhammad quietly spread among the people of Mekkah, especially among the youth. Then Muhammad is believed to have received instructions from Allah to go public with his message and openly condemn the paganism and idolatry of Mekkah. This open condemnation of idolatry became an economic threat to the prosperity of Mekkah, and as a consequence, organized opposition to Muhammad and Islam began. At this point, Islam was politically weak, and many Muslims died for their faith.

Persecutions became so great that many Muslims fled to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) for refuge. When Mekkan delegates tried to extradite them, after hearing the Muslim's defense, the ruler refused their extradition on the basis that his faith was similar to theirs, and he could not allow them to be harmed.

Muhammad continued to proclaim his message, and his following slowly grew. At one point, in 621, a group of delegates from Madinah (Medina) responded to his call and made a covenant with Muhammad and declared themselves to be Muslims.

A year later, in 622, some seventy people from Madinah made a similar declaration and pledged to fight to protect Muhammad against any and all odds. This pledge or covenant from some who were leaders of Madinah was a turning point for Islam

It provided Muslims with a secure base of operations and allowed them to expand from it. Muhammad commanded the Muslims in Mekkah to migrate to Madinah. After some struggle, Medina was declared to be wholly a Muslim community. For thirteen years, Muhammad had preached in Mekkah with minimal success. He had followed a quiet, non-political approach and merely preached. Now, however, his tactics changed. He established himself as religious, political, and military leader. Under his guidance, the community of believers became more important than family or tribe. Islam began to be spread through intimidation and force. Entire tribes and cities were "converted" under threat of war or by conquest. Success led to greater success. Inthe year 630, eight years after he had been forced to leave Mekkah, Muhammad returned with such an overwhelming force that the Mekkans made no resistance. Muhammad's forces destroyed all the idols of Mekkah, and declared the Kabah to be the place of worship for Allah.

With the subjugation of Mekkah, Islam became the power on the Arabian peninsula Tribe after tribe, city after city declared allegiance to Islam and it's prophet. They were given no choice. Muhammad returned to Madinah and continued to rule his kingdom from there. Muhammad died in 632 at the age of sixty-three. In twenty-three years he established a religion and social order that is still dominant in the Arab world today.

With Muhammad's death, Islam continued to flourish under the leadership of Muhammad's companions. The first Caliph (successor to the prophet - Kalifah) was his father in law and long time friend, Abu Bakr. In his two years of leadership, Abu Bakr consolidated Islamic influence over the entire Arabian peninsula.

The second caliph was Umar. He was in power from 634 to 644. Under Umar, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia were added to the growing list of Islamic subjects. Others followed, continually expanding the borders of Islam. Under the leadership of the Kalifahs, Islam spread into Europe, Africa, and Asia. The caliphate lasted centuries, shifting from one dynasty to another, but always claiming the religious right to lead. Eventually the caliphate evolved into the Ottomon Empire which lasted until the early 20th century.

Islam spread as a social system, a political system, and a religious system and it was spread by force of arms. That was its philosophy in the beginning, and it is still the philosophy of Islam today.

Today Islam is one of the world's dominant religions, and claims as much as one fifth of the world's population.

Islam claims to be a united religion with no divisions; however, one does not have to be an astute observer to realize that Islam is, in reality, fragmented into many different branches, some of which are militantly hostile to each other. There is no unity among Muslims as they would have us believe. Two prominent groups, the Shiites and Sunnites had their origins around 660 over who was the legitimate caliph. Other sects followed.

With the end of the colonial system, Islamic states were given their autonomy again. With the wealth from petro-dollars, Islam as a religion is being successfully spread over the world. Islam is one of the greatest opponents in existence to the gospel of Christ today, and is one of the fastest growing religions in the world." - Ney Rieber

Interesting...a Google search for Ney Rieber yields nothing resembling this tidbit of historical (but incomplete) fact. Unless the comic book author John Ney Rieber is the same person who this is attributed to, but I doubt it. Link to the source? (It's the historian in me, I don't like taking second hand sources without seeing the first hand version. Misinterpretations and everything, you know.)

By the way, why is it not mentioned that the Ethiopian religion at the time was Christianity? (Probably because that would hurt the message. Ethiopia converted before either half of the Roman Empire did. But a Christian ruler showing compassion for a similar religion is interesting, yes? Kinda makes other Christians look bad doesn't it?)

Christianity was a political system too, or did they just get free advertising from the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire?

And thanks to Martin Luther and Henry VIII, there is also no unity among Christians either. Ask the Northern Irish. I've never heard Muslims claim to be one unified religion -- even the subsects of the major sects disagree on interpretations, just like they all did right after Luther's inflammatory post on the church door. (Guess they didn't have door moderators back then. I'm thinking he would have gotten probation 2.) The biggest difference? Choice of weapons between 16th century and today.

And if you mean no harm to Islam, then why the warnings? You do realize that Christianity is just as man made, especially the NT, since none of it was written down for years, and not every one can agree on what is canon and what is apocrypha.

Actually, I really start to wonder what denomination you belong to, David. I can't think of one that holds the same view of Islam that you do. Unless you're Jewish, but you've said you're a Christian, so that's ruled out. I'm also ruling the nonsense that Christianity is the one true religion. If that was the case, then what about all the religions older than it? Or is this just a pick on the new kid stance?

Bender, do you remember when you made the flippant statement that <font color="red"> "Jesus said the Old Testament was still in play" </font> a few pages back? <font color="blue"> (#795130 - 02/13/08 12:00 AM) </font>

The Implication that you made was crystal clear. That Christians don't follow the parts they don't want to in the Old Testament, just like the Muslims don't follow the many SCATTERED verses that they don't want to in the Qur'an.

You demonstrated this belief by putting words into the mouth of someone you don't even believe in! By implying that Jesus said the law of the OT was for Christians, you attempted to make a mockery of how some Christians pick and choose scripture. You probably didn't realize it, but you were also saying the same thing about Muslims with that remark. Ooops! It doesn't matter though, because more importantly, your interpretation of what Jesus said was incorrect.

I didn't just say "hey your interpretation is wrong!" or <font color="red"> "My ruling </font> (as you say) <font color="red"> is that it's nonsense!" </font> No, I took the time to show you what the scripture clearly says and WHY it should be interpreted differently. Go back and read it? <font color="blue"> (#795130 - 02/13/08 12:00 AM) </font> Especially if you think I'm the one drifting in this thread. To put it bluntly, I showed you undeniable proof why your statement was incorrect and this was your only response:

Quote:

<font color="red"> And I actually did read David's response, and now I'm officially done since he is unwilling to believe that followers of another faith can't bend from the teachings in their book. Nevermind the fact that Christians and Jews have been bending from their book since, well, before it was written. </font>

Because I am unwilling to believe in a religion that lets me pick and choose the parts I find acceptable, you are <font color="red"> "officially done" </font> with me? Also, you're only going to acknowledge my proving your statement wrong by saying <font color="red"> "I read it"</font>? Um, ok! As Bill Buckley once said, <font color="green"> "I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you believe what you just said" </font> because a short time later you come back to post this jewel of hostility and biblical misunderstanding:

Quote:

<font color="red"> Christianity = Catholicism +Protestantism

Protestantism = Baptists + Methodists + Anglicans + Episcopalians + etc, etc, etc. </font>

I will respond to almost any question that is asked of me. If you actually want me to respond to you Bender, I'd suggest that when your hostile remarks are proven to be false, that you take the time and effort to acknowledge it before you throw more "fuel on the fire." If you can�t even do that, why would I take the time to adequately respond to your list of questions, personal implications and blatant mockery of Christianity? So you can ignore me again? No thank you sir!

To my own pain, your quoting of a historical recap drew me back in. Where's that link to Ney Rieber's Islamic history again?

You are right about one thing, I have to allow the traditional interpretation of "Jesus' on the OT" to stand in order to allow my views of all religions to exist. Otherwise I am holding Christianity to a standard which I'm not holding Judaism or Islam (or any other religion).



because a short time later you come back to post this jewel of hostility and biblical misunderstanding:
<font color="red"> Christianity = Catholicism + Protestantism
Protestantism = Baptists + Methodists + Anglicans + Episcopalians + etc, etc, etc. </font>


Um, in a poll the entire Christian world, roughly 99% would agree with those two statements. There is nothing hostile, nor misunderstood in those statements. Please enlighten me on why you think there is hostility or misunderstanding, as on this I am truly at a loss. Even granting you unlimited faith doesn't explain how a simple statement of historical fact is mean-spirited or wrong. Add that to the list of questions from post 802865.

Remember, you are the one who says Islam is bad. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Theoretically, this one is much easier than proving God exists.

To my own pain, your quoting of a historical recap drew me back in. <font color="blue"> Not true. I can't draw you back to something you never left. </font> Where's that link to Ney Rieber's Islamic history again? <font color="blue"> Originally, I did not leave the link out purposely, I cited the mans name who wrote it and that is enough for me. If you can't find anything else that he has written, then I'm sorry, but that's not my problem. He wrote nothing else on the site other than what I quoted, which I agree with, so there is nothing else to reference there. </font>

You are right about one thing, I have to allow the traditional interpretation of "Jesus' on the OT" <font color="blue"> You mean the interpretation that says He "nailed it to the cross?" Good choice! That would be a biblically accurate interpretation.</font> to stand in order to allow my views of all religions to exist. Otherwise I am holding Christianity to a standard which I'm not holding Judaism or Islam (or any other religion).



because a short time later you come back to post this jewel of hostility and biblical misunderstanding:
<font color="red"> Christianity = Catholicism + Protestantism
Protestantism = Baptists + Methodists + Anglicans + Episcopalians + etc, etc, etc. </font>


Um, in a poll the entire Christian world, roughly 99% would agree with those two statements. <font color="blue"> Bender, in real polls, most indicate that under 40% of those who claim to be Christians haven't even read the bible! So how accurate could at least 60% of them be in there definition of biblical Christianity? You have clearly demonstrated that your definition of Christianity is not biblical. I've proven it already <font color="orange"> (#795130 - 02/13/08 12:00 AM) </font> , I don't have to prove it again.</font> There is nothing hostile, nor misunderstood in those statements. Please enlighten me on why you think there is hostility or misunderstanding, as on this I am truly at a loss. <font color="blue">Christianity + Man made religion = False religion. Your definition of Christianity is simply not biblical. What could be more hostile to the truth? At what point does it become a lie? When you've clearly been shown the truth and still say the opposite?</font> Even granting you unlimited faith doesn't explain how a simple statement of historical fact is mean-spirited or wrong. <font color="blue"> I never said "mean-spirited" and what "historical fact" are you talking about? Also, what does "granting me unlimited faith" mean? lol</font> Add that to the list of questions from post 802865. <font color="blue"> I am not going to keep answering the questions of someone who clearly doesn't care to know the answers.I've been more than accomidating with you up to this point.</font>

Remember, you are the one who says Islam is bad. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Theoretically, this one is much easier than proving God exists. <font color="blue"> You can't prove the existence of God. I never said you could. It's up to the individual to be reasonable, logical and consistent with their methods or standards of evaluating the evidence and of course, God's help. If I could prove it then you wouldn't be defending a faith that you don't even follow or saying things that aren't true about Jesus and Christianity. Then again, who knows. Some people will never believe no matter how much evidence for God they are exposed to. Still others will always be caught up in the deception of tradition no matter how much evidence shows it to be false.

I pray that you can grasp the meaning of what true Christianity is. Certainly not every move I make! Not the name on the side of a building that you call a "denomination." And not some silly equation of this + that = Christianity. But true, authentic, solid Christianity that can only be defined biblically. You don't do that to the Islamic faith! You don't say peaceful Muslims + radical Muslims = Islam do you? But somehow that's ok when it comes to Christianity? That's inconsistant and unbiblical. I don't mean to sound ugly Bender, but you do not have an accurate understanding of what biblical Christianity is. ANY shade of Islam is nothing like it... </font>

<font color="blue">

</font>

What is Islam?

http://www.carm.org/islam/islamic_doctrine.htm

What are the doctrines of Islam?

http://www.carm.org/islam/islamic_doctrine.htm

True faith in Islam

http://www.carm.org/islam/faith_true.htm

Islamic Terms

http://www.carm.org/islam/islamic_terms.htm

Contradictions in the Qur'an

http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm

All that, and I still don't know if they believe in gravity...

Somewhere it must be in there.

Hey, I heard that 20% of evangelicals still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Where do you guys stand on this issue?

^^^
This coming from a "scientist" with no credibility...

Do you consider Mormons to be Christian?

^^^
This coming from a "scientist" with no credibility...



Ohhhh! That hurts my feelin's. Dave Vincent thinks I have no credibility. Is it just me or is it anyone who disagrees with you? Just wanted to be straight on this.

BTW - let's be clear on this CENT = DARK HORSE. Apparently this MB isn't as secure as it should be.

BTW - let's be clear on this CENT = DARK HORSE. Apparently this MB isn't as secure as it should be.




No doubt...how can someone who is on probation under the MB disciplinary list be allowed to post under 2 different accounts?

BTW - let's be clear on this CENT = DARK HORSE. Apparently this MB isn't as secure as it should be.




No doubt...how can someone who is on probation under the MB disciplinary list be allowed to post under 2 different accounts?























[/QUOTE]

Probation is different than suspension.

Message

board

is

secure...

A Partial List of Problems and Contradictions in the Quran

http://www.rim.org/muslim/quranproblems.htm

All that, and I still don't know if they believe in gravity...

Somewhere it must be in there.

Hey, I heard that 20% of evangelicals still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Where do you guys stand on this issue?



If 20% of "evangelicals" actually believe that, which I highly doubt, then 20% of them have not done much to investigate the work of people who know better. It's not really an issue Lyle, especially on this thread, is there something else you are trying to say with this point? Surely you aren't just trying to be cute or funny! If you were, keep trying or you will be stroked and need to re-tee! :D

Wow. Just wow.

"Biblical" Christianity, so you're qualifying what Christianity you're talking about. Good, now I can understand your viewpoint. From what I've read of it, it's the core of Christianity, and an overlapping belief across all Christian denominations -- one that tends to get lost in the higher levels of churches. No one other that those claiming to be true Biblical Christians would consider it to be Christianity in the historical worldview, and even then I think some of them would understand that the term Christianity defines all groups following the word of Christ. Thus Catholics, Protestants, etc. are all Christians (Wikipedia captures this pretty well) -- they're just not what you consider Christians. You're claiming that your smaller viewpoint overrules the majority, but that's not how it works, even in religious history.


Point of clarification: If you've ever written a research paper, you'd understand that it is your responsibility to prove that a source exists, especially after the reader has searched and not found it.


And yes Islam is sum of the radicals and the peacefuls. You are always going to have such a spectrum, regardless of religion. Ever hear of the War Scroll? The Christians who wrote that down were just as radical as the current Islamic radicals -- just nowadays, radicals have access to badder weapons and have more time and reasons to act. Sinn Fein is a good example of radical Christians.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Just wow. <font color="red"> How insightful, I never looked at it that way! </font> :D

"Biblical" Christianity, so you're qualifying what Christianity you're talking about. <font color="red"> Absolutely! Listen sports fan, Christianity is not a religious buffet. You don't just pick and choose what fits your religious appetite. </font>

Good, now I can understand your viewpoint. <font color="red"> Sorry, but I kinda doubt that . </font>

From what I've read of it, it's the core of Christianity and an overlapping belief across all Christian denominations -- one that tends to get lost in the higher levels of churches. <font color="red"> Bender, did you just have a moment of clarity? Yes, a specifically worded message that doesn't just "overlap" the splintered sects that claim to be Christian, but mandates a standard for all. It is given to all by way of commandments, examples and necessary inferences. I am not sure what you mean by "higher levels of churches" but if by that you mean church leadership, yes, that central "core" system often gets "lost" or manipulated by those who should in fact be upholding "biblical Christianity."
</font>
No one other that those claiming to be true Biblical Christians would consider it to be Christianity in the historical worldview, and even then I think some of them would understand that the term Christianity defines all groups following the word of Christ. <font color="red"> Yes! You've understood one aspect of my simple point! When you say "historical worldview" all you are really saying is that many people throughout history have denominated from "biblical Christianity." But because the concept of biblical translation being flawed is easily disproved, that in fact the earliest transcripts are the same ones we translate from now, we have no excuse as to why we would denominate from it. Simply put, if we have the same script as the early Christians did, and we do, then we have no excuse for denominating ourselves from it. At least, those who claim to be Christian. And yes, I agree with you that anyone who only knows this nebulous form of Christianity would have a hard time recognizing it any other way. Even if it was biblical!
</font>
Thus Catholics, Protestants, etc. are all Christians (Wikipedia captures this pretty well) -- they're just not what you consider Christians. You can call yourself anything you want, but what does the bible say a Christian is? Jesus said Himself, "if you love me, you'll obey what I command." (John 14) He did not say, if you love me, you'll make up your own rules! A Catholic is a Catholic! Read 1st Peter 4:16 and you tell me, what did he call them? Can a Catholic be saved? Can a Catholic be a Christian? IMO it is definately possible, but they wouldn't make much of a Catholic! <font color="red"> You can call yourself anything you want, but what does the bible say a Christian is? Jesus said Himself, "if you love me, you'll obey what I command." (John 14) He did not say, if you love me, you'll make up your own rules! A Catholic is a Catholic! Read 1st Peter 4:16 and you tell me, what did he call them? Can a Catholic be saved? Can a Catholic be a Christian? IMO it is definately possible, but they wouldn't make much of a Catholic! </font>

You're claiming that your smaller viewpoint overrules the majority, but that's not how it works, even in religious history. <font color="red"> I am not saying that! I'm saying the bible will always be more important than human traditions.
</font>
Point of clarification: If you've ever written a research paper, you'd understand that it is your responsibility to prove that a source exists, especially after the reader has searched and not found it. <font color="red"> I've explained this already. You aren't my professor Bender! If you were, I'd audit the class! ;)</font>

And yes Islam is sum of the radicals and the peacefuls. <font color="red"> I doubt those "peaceful" Muslims would agree. The "peaceful" Muslims I've known and talked to don't think the radicals have anything to do with true Islam.
</font>
You are always going to have such a spectrum, regardless of religion. Ever hear of the War Scroll? Yes. The Christians who wrote that down were just as radical as the current Islamic radicals -- just nowadays, radicals have access to badder weapons and have more time and reasons to act. <font color="red"> I don't mean to sound rude at all, but so what? Those so called "Christians" involved with the War Scroll do not represent biblical Chrisianity. Ever heard of disc golfer who was a jerk on the course? Does he represent what disc golf is all about? Personal perception may be reality, but it's that individuals reality, not the essence of the thing you are talking about. </font>

Sinn Fein is a good example of radical Christians. <font color="red"> Those radical republicans, Roman Catholic if I remember correctly, do not represent biblical Christianity. Sinn Fein is a good example of radical people who call themselves Christians. Just like in the pdga, you can call yourself a professional, that doesn't mean you are one.
</font>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting Bender: (sounds like the name of a movie!)

"No one other that those claiming to be true Biblical Christians would consider it to be Christianity in the historical worldview"

<font color="red"> This is the crux of the whole issue. When you say "Christianity" what you really mean is anyone who makes that claim. No matter how much they denominate themselves from the original. No matter how much their actions deviate from the commandments, examples or things that are neccessarily inferred in the bible. When I say "Christianity" I am talking about what the bible says, period. Which is, IMO, the way it ought'a be. Just try throwing your PDGA rulebook out the window and play disc golf the way you feel like. We'll see how quickly you get stroked and eventually booted out! You are still playing "disc golf." But you are not playing by the pattern set forth by the PDGA. I think that is a very simplistic analogy, but it makes the point.

It is this "nebulous Christianity" that causes intelligent people like yourself to consistently refer to what some have done in the name of Christ as evidence for Christianity to be bogus. I don't do that with Islam, never have, never will. I don't say "there are bad Muslims, therefore it's all bad." It's a false religion IMO, but not because of the radical actions of some who claim to be Muslim. Think about that logic for a moment. You'd throw away your opportunity to know and be right with your Creator all for the sake of being able to say "well look at what that guy did?" or "Those "Christians" did such 'n such?" That is very sad.

I would imagine that your intellectual hang ups against Christianity are not the only things that keep you from trusting Jesus. You can use any number of other things. Me and my words, which I think you have. Your many other life experiences with others who call themselves "Christians." You could also use so called "scientific" evidences for evolution, personal pride, ego, fear, shame, guilt, sin, immoral behavior, on and on to keep you from trusting. But one thing you cannot do Bender, is deny the fact that there is a pattern in the New Testament concerning Christianity. There is a blueprint or plan for Christianity. Because some, including myself at times, have made God out to be less than desirable, does not make Him, or His Word untrue or "just another pathway to God."

In your questioning of Christianity, I pray you'd ask the questions that really mean something to you personally. The questions that really weigh heavy on your heart. You could do that in a pm if you feel more comfortable. You publically defend a religion that you personally don't believe in and you deny Christianity but have shown that you don't comprehend even the most basic element of it. That it is what it is, and adding to it only makes for a big religious mess! </font>

Ha! Now you want to convert me. No thanks.

There are too many religions from too many cultures that all have been around too long that share the same basic beliefs. There is no one religion, no one way to enlightenment/salvation. You may think so, but that's because you're biased (which isn't a problem, just a fact).

A Partial List of Problems and Contradictions in the Quran

http://www.rim.org/muslim/quranproblems.htm



I'M BACK!!!!! (My country coordinator sent our renewal forms very late this year!!)

Can you show me a religious book that doesn't have problems and contradictions? If you try to tell me The Bible is flawless, I'm going to ask you to look at this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) link or even this (http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm) link, or just tell me which of the 4 versions of the resurrection story you believe, since they're all different and therefore, contradictory.

Converting you isn't my job Bender, that's between God and you. I am just taking advantage of my opportunity to share. I don't say this in a mean way at all, but you have some rather serious misconceptions concerning the bible and Jesus. All I ask is that if you are going to publically blurt out things about Jesus or the bible, or Islam for that matter, you would also give evidence as to why anyone should believe it. Or at the very least, when someone shows you why that opinion isn't consistent with the text, you would acknowledge it to some degree. If someone can't do one of those two things, can you tell me why their opinion should be looked at as anything other than speculation?

Our words are here for anyone to examine and unless you edit it before it gets quoted, or it gets removed by the pdga, it isn't going anywhere. What I am saying is that I've looked back on what you've said and IMO there's just no "there there." You know what I mean? There's no substance, just opinion about things that can be investigated and put on the scales of "reasonability." (yes, reasonability is a word! I looked it up after I typed it! :D) Like when you said <font color="red"> "Jesus say's the Old Testament Law is for Christians to follow today." (2/12/08) </font> That statement was downright false and the implications were very far reaching. You showed me that your understanding of the bible was not correct. Jesus nailed it to the cross. This is a very basic, but important doctrine. I didn't flippantly slam your statement Bender. You offered no evidence and when I showed you why the bible does not support your statement, you never even acknowledged it and still haven't. Not too cool IMO.

I understand why you would think of Christianity in such a broad sense. Your refusal to see it in it's original meaning is where the gears begin to grind though. I catch myself looking at it in the jadded broader sense as well sometimes. I've gotten the dirt of false doctrine under my fingernails before too! With all the people who corrupt it, how could we not. I think this guy has really captured the thought in this quote:

<font color="blue"> "Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." Sam Pascoe
</font>
The only exception I would make in this quote is that Christianity started in the heart and mind of God as a bridge between God and man. The semi-sarcastic, yet very real way in which Christiany has become defined isn't hard to understand. With each "move" mentioned above, in the hands of men, it became less and less of what it was meant to be. Mankind has done about all it can to distort it. But no matter how much we redefine something, it will never change what it originally was.

Just like the childs game where one kid whispers something into the ear of another kid, then he whispers it to another, then another, ect.. and by the time it gets back to the person who said it, the message is very different. With Christianity, it's original meaning not only hasn't changed, but it has also never been improved upon. This isn't just "IMO," I can show you! Remember what I said about "showing why you believe what you believe?" Try me! More accuarately, TRY HIM! It aslo hasn't been lost. We have God's Word, the bible, so we are without excuse when it comes to not knowing what "biblical Christianity" is.

There are still those who walk the "narrow gate" and cling to the "original" meaning of Christianity. I consider it the highest honor and wisest choice to be one of them. I want to thank you for letting me share these things with you. You may reject them by saying <font color="red"> "no thanks." </font> but I appreciate the opportunity nonetheless. I look at these threads as an opportunity to share what I believe and you have allowed me to do just that without fighting. I hope that in no way I have offended you because that was never my intention and hopefully never will be.

I have been on both sides of the fence in my life. I even tried to straddle the fence a time or two. Even today! :DWhen you say <font color="red"> "I believe there is only one (true) way, because I am biased," </font> I couldn't disagree with you more though. I am biased because I have considered why He is the way. I've seen the evidence and it is good! I can't get past it man, it is too much to deny.

You personally know the people who can attest to my former way of life. I didn't change because of some church creed, family religion or some emotional whirlwind that I got caught up in from some slick talking preacher. I also did not change because of some American "health and wealth" gospel! I changed because the evidences were too overwhelming. I hope you get a chance to discover them for yourself and your family. I'll do what I can to share some of them, but it's not my job to convert, only to share. Anyway, thanks for letting me do that...

Hey Dan, welcome back! Just so you know, I've been there, these so called "condradictions" found in the bible are mostly pretty easy to give a reasonable response to. If you have any specific ones you'd like to discuss, feel free. There are no rules to this, especially from me, but I'm sure we can agree to "take it outside" sorta speak! :DWhat I mean is that I am starting a new thread called "Bible Discussion" that I think would be a little more focussed. Please feel free to paste your post there if you want. I realize how much "bible" I've talked about here, but it was only in response to a previous discussion I think Bender and I were starting to wind down. I could be wrong, I am just guessing. I know I'm guilty of thread drift, big time, but I'd like to get this one back on track here before long. Am I way off base here? You can do whatever you want, like I said, I don't make the rules, I just thought it would make more sense.

http://www.heritage.org/33-minutes/index.htm

WOW

Not a fan of the FEAR factor.

This is used to put push the Neo-Con Agenda.

I have no problem with Defensive weapon, except when they are presented in this light.

Thanks for the pms BigE, I too was shocked to learn how quickly ballistic missiles could reach our shores. "WOW" indeed.

Pizza, how do you feel about the "fear factor" put out by radical Muslims? When have you EVER heard RP address radical Muslim actions without blaming someone else, usually America? I've NEVER heard RP address their actions on their own merit or why they do what they do.

And NEVER do I hear from RP or his supporters how Islamic terrorism is NOT dealt with by the "peaceful" Muslims. It's always a blame game.

The only "Neo-Con Agenda" in this promo is to protect against very real threats, so your'e right, the Heritage Foundation most definately "pushes" that. Not one word of "nation building" or anything else Ronbots get distracted by. ;)

I don't understand what "light" you think this promo was "presented in?" You didn't like the signing? :confused:

I will get the more exact number, but it is something like 95% of all suicide bombing are done against a viewed foreign occupation. (the numbers may have changed with Iraq because of the bombings against the Iraqi Police and Military who are viewed as our patsies)

You name the terrorist attack and I will give you who they were attacking and why (in there minds views)

I have been looking at and working on this for over two years.

I will give you the 3 reasons Osama bin Laden stated for attacking on 9/11

1 - our support for Israel
2 - Our bombing of Iraq for 10 years
3 - our military base in Saudi Arabia

In fact, I have yet to find one single act of terrorism against a country because the are Free!!!!!

Acts of Terrorism are done against a viewed aggressor, in the case of the USA, our blind support of Israel even though they oppress the Arab/Muslim Palestinians.

Then when we get more involved (as in invading Iraq) they view us as occupiers. We have had troops on the ground in the Middle East for 18 years now (as of next month) Before this, we supported many dictators as in Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, or Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

Do you want me to keep going????? I can:D

(I will give you some articles and quotes by RP later, right now I have to make dough)

Please, I beg you, I'll order a thousand pizza's, do not keep going with why they think they are justified!?! I totally agree with you, you are correct, America is not innocent in all their actions towards them. But I've heard all of this countless times, and the conclusion is always the same:

Quote: ..."(in there minds views)"

I don't look at them as if they're kids who destroy school property for kicks! I agree, for the most part, they believe in what they're doing!!! I say "for the most part" because there is such a thing as the indoctrination of youth who don't know anything else. I simply disagree with their views/beliefs, both religiously (as you do too) and their terrorists actions which you constantly defend when you say "they said they did 'this or that' because of ________ (please don't fill in the blank :D)." And the logical conclusion every time you do that is that America is to blame (and others) and if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. Niether of which are true.

Previously, you defended Islam because you personally know "peaceful" Muslims. You explain how they get a bad rap and those "peaceful" Muslims don't support the actions of the radical Muslims. But, how many radical terrorist Muslims do you know? What do you know about what they believe? Religiously, as in the Koran? Are you aware of how the radical Muslims view lying? Not your "peaceful" Muslim friends, necessarily, but the radical terrorist Muslims? If you are not aware, I would kindly suggest you study it before you rely on polls concerning the perceived purposes of suicide bombers!

I am quite familiar with RP's sophestry (logical in appearence only) concerning THIS issue. That's why I could never vote for him. Not everything we do over there is "needless meddling," or a meaningful cause for radical terrorist action.

What "light" was that promo "presented in" in your opinion?

First question deals with Ron Paul's views, listen to what they quote from Romney and Guiliani, both of there views are WRONG.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9i71VAUwKkM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9i71VAUwKkM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>


The President, in the 2000 Presidential campaign, argued against
nation-building, and he was right to do so. He also said, "If we are
an arrogant Nation, they will resent us." He wisely argued for
humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or
declaring war against Saddam Hussein or even continuing the illegal
bombing of Iraq is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote
peace.
November 29, 2001
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/h112901.html




Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.
The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."
The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

July 21, 2005
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html


Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don�t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It�s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we�re not the ones suffering.
Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

January 23, 2007
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html





We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.
The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.
The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:
"� the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results."
January 15, 2007
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul361.html

do not keep going with why they think they are justified!?


That is exactly our problem, we are not learning from our mistakes. We keep doing them, even when all signs are that it will result in "Blow back". (Blow Back is a term the CIA uses when referring to instances like our putting the Shaw of Iran in power resulting in the taking of our hostages. Blow back also is what happens when we arm Israel so we are attacked by terrorist.)


And the logical conclusion every time you do that is that America is to blame (and others) and if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. Niether of which are true.



Again, when you look at any crime (and Terrorism is a crime) you always look at the motive. If you ignore this, you are just asking for more of the same.

How am I (or Ron Paul for that matter) blaming America for the Terrorist attacks against us. It is our governments actions that lead to this, not radical Islamics. Radical Islamic's use our actions as talking points in recruiting terrorists, but it is not about religion as much as it is about there own freedom.

I ask you to go back and read some of Osama bin Laden's speeches directed towards us. He talks about how Islam and Christians can live in peace like they do in Egypt and have in other countries around the middle east. He talks about how they are fighting for there freedom.

As far as how many "radical Muslims" do I know, well I worked with this one Iranian guy back in the 1980's, he use to be out handing flyers against America's treatment of Iran on campus. But no, I would not even view him as "radical" Fact is, a majority of Muslims are not radical. Most are just looking at how to put food on the table and a roof over there heads.

David, read this article to better understand what I am saying about Suicide Terrorism, it is written by the guy that Ron Paul quotes and I was talking about off the top of my head this morning.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It�s the occupation, not the fundamentalism (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/)

You can also look up more articles on Robert Pape, I recommend it.

http://www.heritage.org/33-minutes/index.htm



you want to know my thought on this Propaganda, OK

1st off, it starts with hard hitting music with a middle eastern flavor in the singing. Right off the bat, this turned me off, I saw right though it.

But I will be the first one to tell you it works. I have seen many things like this passed back and forth between many Republicans this last year. They were used to scare us into voting for McCain.

The promo goes into saying "who knows how many countries could have ballistic weapons in 10 years" while they show Iran's president and North Korea's dictator in the background. That is the Fear Factor.

Dr. Carafano even said if we want to go do something good (IE police the world) that another country could "hold us hostage" to keep us from doing it.

Man, watching this again is making me sick, this is no different than the Nazi propaganda that they put out in the 30's.

In reality, it is no different than the the propaganda the terrorist put out to recruit there numbers.

Standing at Ground Zero and making there point?? Propaganda

I like the Czech Ambassador "if not America, then who?"

I don't have much problems with the end of the clip, mostly in the fear they are trying to parlay at the beginning.

I actually agree with the Constitutional stance on this issue they put out there. Yes, the Constitution says the Federal Government is to protect us, the United States, this is why we have the National defense.

It is ironic that I changed my signature line yesterday with this conversation today.

[QUOTE]
http://www.heritage.org/33-minutes/index.htm



I never even hinted that we should "ignore" what they say concerning their motives. I just don't buy it. You're not talking about "peaceful Muslims" Bryan. They aren't believable.

When you and Mr. Paul say "I don't blame America" and usually in the next breath indicate that America is the "cause," I find myself struggling to figure the logic of claiming "no blame" towards America.

I'll have to come back to what Osama said concerning Islam and Christianity. I only mention it now so I won't forget. This is very important. So is my sleep occasionally!

You say "a majority of Muslims are not radical." This was never an issue, I agree. But it begs the question that I've asked before and got very little to no response. That is, "why would a large portion of the "peaceful" Muslims, certainly well over a billion, show such apathy in reguards to their actions taken against those "wayward" brethren?"

One answer is a belief in what you and Ron Paul claim to be the "pivotal motivation." In other words, many "peaceful" Muslims believe the extremists when they claim "occupation" over "fundamentalism." Like I said, I don't buy it.

Closely related, is the idea that MANY "peaceful Muslims simply don't know the Koran, just like MANY Christians don't know their "holy book." The obvious difference is the fact that the New Covenant and the Koran have vastly different teachings concerning the "radicalism" we're talking about here today. Is that "not knowing" of the Koran's verses (that anyone can see as "radical" when they come to understand them) the thing that makes them "peaceful Muslims?" Or is it because those verses, and they are many, are NOT applied to their life? It could be both, as well as others...

"The Logic of Suicide Terrorism?" If there ever was an oxymoron! Just kidding (a little!). I'll cut to the chase Bryan, I am tired. Please don't try to convince me that "occupation" is the "pivotal motive" when the promise of paradise is given to those who will blow themselves up and take as many infadels with them AND IT IS BELIEVED TO BE TRUTH. This fact has nothing to do with faulty ties between 9/11 and Iraq. It's got nothing to do with bad or idiotic moves by Bush. It has to do with what is believed and taught. Try taking this religious belief away and you tell me how many human time bombs there would be? Not nearly as many.

I personally don't believe that promo was over the top in it's "fear factor." The radical Islamic threat (among others) is real. It is not made up. Much like your thoughts on how America has "ignored" what they themselves say is the "motive" had fallen asleep to the threat. Not only publically, but in it's leadership. Reguardless of whether those are the real "pivotal motives" or not. So, whatever production techniques found in this promo that emphasize middle eastern "propoganda" as you put it, I have zero problem with. It's factual and it is a real threat that is massively tied to middle eastern, radical Muslims.

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the dialogue even when we disagree.

http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=52478851001&s=al&promo_code=91F8-1

Well put.