PDA

View Full Version : Interesting ..the Islamic way of war.



K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 07:28 AM
I was interested lately when it came to my attention that in Dearborn Michigan, the rather large population of Muslims was trying to stop Christians from ringing church bells on Sunday.

Why would they do that? Why are Muslims world wide trying to make their adopted homes conform to their religion and laws. The reason is that there is no separation between church and state in the Muslim world, they rule by theocracy. And to them any other belief system or form of government is unacceptable.

There are two abodes to Islam the Abode of Islam and the Abode of war. The Abode of Islam is the territories that they have conquered and brought under the subjection of Islam, the abode of war is everywhere else.

We live in the Abode of war as far as Islam is concerned. Our government needs to wake up to this fact before it gets out of hand.And so do we.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmE1ZTRmMDQxMDQ0ZmVmNWVkOTk5MmM5YTQ4NmFhZjg=&w=MA==


In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.

YardleyLabs
11-06-2008, 08:50 AM
Can anyone point to information concerning this alleged ban on church bells in Dearborn? I have found many references to efforts to ban mosques from broadcasting a call to prayer, and statements that it would be hard to ban the mosques without also banning church bells. However, I have found nothing about an actual ban on church bells.

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 12:11 PM
Can anyone point to information concerning this alleged ban on church bells in Dearborn? I have found many references to efforts to ban mosques from broadcasting a call to prayer, and statements that it would be hard to ban the mosques without also banning church bells. However, I have found nothing about an actual ban on church bells.

Jeff they are not powerful enough to ask for an outright ban on bells just yet. They want to amplify their call to prayer 5 times a day over a loud speaker. Their position is if they cannot broadcast their call to prayer over loudspeakers Christians should not have the right to ring church bells.

In Britain they are asking for an outright ban in some areas because they have become that prominent and the "pagan" bells offend their ears.

YardleyLabs
11-06-2008, 12:15 PM
Jeff they are not powerful enough to ask for an outright ban on bells just yet. They want to amplify their call to prayer 5 times a day over a loud speaker. Their position is if they cannot broadcast their call to prayer over loudspeakers Christians should not have the right to ring church bells.

In Britain they are asking for an outright ban in some areas because they have become that prominent and the "pagan" bells offend their ears.

I guess that strikes me as completely reasonable assuming both are subject to similar time of day/noise level restrictions.

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 12:21 PM
I guess that strikes me as completely reasonable assuming both are subject to similar time of day/noise level restrictions.


I disagree. Coming into a country and asking them to exchange their culture and religion for yours is not reasonable at all.

And in any case that is not the situation in Britain. They are keeping their public calls and banning the church bells. The bells have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years.


You don't strike me as one who would support a theocracy.

YardleyLabs
11-06-2008, 01:17 PM
I disagree. Coming into a country and asking them to exchange their culture and religion for yours is not reasonable at all.

And in any case that is not the situation in Britain. They are keeping their public calls and banning the church bells. The bells have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years.


You don't strike me as one who would support a theocracy.

I don't support a theocracy although I have lived or spent significant time in Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish theocracies. I chose to return to living in the United States which, by Constitutional guarantee, does not have a state religion. Because it does not, I do not see a basis for saying that bells that "have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years" should be permitted while Muslim calls to prayer should be banned (What the English do is up to them.).

Happily, our culture and our "religion" have been evolving freely for centuries. My own religion, Unitarianism, only survived in Transylvania for a long time because both Christians and Muslims viewed us as heretics and neither was able to control Transylvania. The last person burned at the stake in Calvinist Geneva was actually a Unitarian. However, Unitarians were one of the most powerful religions during the Revolutionary War period in this country, controlling a large percentage of the churches in Massachusetts despite the fact that they were not Christians. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians. Jefferson never joined any formal church but described himself as a deist who hoped that all people would eventually become Unitarians. He also edited his own version of the bible reflecting his belief that Jesus was a great but very mortal man.

At various times in our history our culture has promoted many things that today we find abhorrent, whether it be slavery, burning of alleged "witches", incarceration of Japanese citizens during WWII, or discrimination against each new wave of immigrants as they arrived. Each of those waves of immigrants has been changed by our culture and has left its own mark on our culture. Some have been fully assimilated into the American melting pot, adding new flavors to the resulting brew. Others have preserved a more separate identity whether voluntarily or as a result of prejudice in the society at large or because they simply haven't been here long enough for the assimilation to happen (I estimate 2-3 generations).

Personally, I believe this dynamic, more than any other, has been the source of our strength as a nation. I hope that we remain open and accommodating for all the pioneers that will come to our shores in the future as we were to my Dutch ancestors who were welcomed by the Indians in 1674, to my Scottish ancestors who came in the 1840's, to my father-in-law's family arriving from Sweden in 1905, and to my daughter-in-law's Korean parents who came in the 1970's, and to the many other members of my extended family that have come to America from Italy, Iraq, England, China, etc.

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't support a theocracy although I have lived or spent significant time in Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish theocracies. I chose to return to living in the United States which, by Constitutional guarantee, does not have a state religion. .
this is debatable but not important to this discussion



Because it does not, I do not see a basis for saying that bells that "have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years" should be permitted while Muslim calls to prayer should be banned (What the English do is up to them.).

Happily, our culture and our "religion" have been evolving freely for centuries. My own religion, Unitarianism, only survived in Transylvania for a long time because both Christians and Muslims viewed us as heretics and neither was able to control Transylvania. The last person burned at the stake in Calvinist Geneva was actually a Unitarian. Another interesting topic for another time.


However, Unitarians were one of the most powerful religions during the Revolutionary War period in this country, controlling a large percentage of the churches in Massachusetts despite the fact that they were not Christians. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians. Jefferson never joined any formal church but described himself as a deist who hoped that all people would eventually become Unitarians. He also edited his own version of the bible reflecting his belief that Jesus was a great but very mortal man.

At various times in our history our culture has promoted many things that today we find abhorrent, whether it be slavery, burning of alleged "witches", incarceration of Japanese citizens during WWII, or discrimination against each new wave of immigrants as they arrived. Each of those waves of immigrants has been changed by our culture and has left its own mark on our culture. Some have been fully assimilated into the American melting pot, adding new flavors to the resulting brew. Others have preserved a more separate identity whether voluntarily or as a result of prejudice in the society at large or because they simply haven't been here long enough for the assimilation to happen (I estimate 2-3 generations).

Personally, I believe this dynamic, more than any other, has been the source of our strength as a nation. I hope that we remain open and accommodating for all the pioneers that will come to our shores in the future as we were to my Dutch ancestors who were welcomed by the Indians in 1674, to my Scottish ancestors who came in the 1840's, to my father-in-law's family arriving from Sweden in 1905, and to my daughter-in-law's Korean parents who came in the 1970's, and to the many other members of my extended family that have come to America from Italy, Iraq, England, China, etc.
I agree with the last paragraph absolutely. This is the first time though that newcomers to our shores are interested not in a new beginning so much as expanding their theocracy.

Unless you count the Puritans as newcomers ..then this will be the second time. The same puritans BTW who gave us the Salem witch trials. Who also believed that they carried God's mandate to bring this country under submission. Except this time we are the savage heathens who need proselytized.

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 03:20 PM
I agree that we have to allow all bells or no bells. As long as the standard is applied the same to both. I would much rather hear the bells of the church personally, but that is me. I am sure there are just as many that would like to hear something else. If they are both violating a noise law than neither should be allowed, if they are not than they both should be allowed. I agree that there is no "state sponsored religion". I am a Methodist and choose to attend church accordingly, but there is nothing that says we have an official religion or that the majority religion is the official religion. To me it is no different than if there were a rock concert and a rap concert that wanted to perform simultaneously and you allowed one and not the other. Either allow The Rolling Stones and Lil Wayne to perform at the same time, or don't allow either.

Except this time we are the savage heathens who need proselytized.

to this point I am pretty sure that most churches in the USA have a missionary program that at this very minute are out settling in Korea, Vietnam, and many many other countries trying to convert Muslims, Hinduists, Buddists, and whatever else to Christianity, what is the difference?
What you are talking about is evangelism. The difference is between proselytizing and evangelism.

Evangelism is sharing your faith in a way that respects and individuals intellectual choice. Note Jesus says " Who do you think I am?" Granted a number of Christian's have gone overboard and we do have a very violent history. But it is not because the Christian religion demands violent conquest of non-believers..

Proselytizing demands subservience to God whether you want to or not.

Islam means submission literally and actually.

Pete
11-06-2008, 04:35 PM
Jeff Just curious
You mentioned the fact that the uniterian church was dispised by christians and muslims alike. Since I mess around with quite a bit of biblical research stuff I was wondering why this sect was considered non christian. Did they simply deny the existance JC? Or deny the trinity? I'm also a uniterian but JC is more our hero,messiah, the main man the son of God but not God it self.

Just curious no biggy,,,no arguement. Just peaked my interest.
Thanks
Pete

YardleyLabs
11-06-2008, 04:56 PM
Proselytizing is routinely done by many of our religions. When I was a kid, both Baptists and Methodists competed in their efforts to save my sister and me. People came often to ask my parents if they could take us to sunday school or to revival meetings. My fifth grade teacher, Miss Gee, had us read out loud from the bible every day. Jews were required to select readings from the New Testament so that they could find Jesus (We are talking about a public school, not a private one. I was ecstatic when such activities were outlawed in public schools.). I would call all of these activities proselytizing.

In a prior life, I was liaison between City Hall and a devout religious group in New York City. They were working hard to build their community and pooled funds for economic development. They would buy the corner buildings on each block in the area they lived because, as one of the leaders explained to me, the person who controls the corners controls the block. The religious/economic council would make loans to members of the community to start businesses as long as they employed others from the community. When young adults married, the economic council helped them to secure their first aprtments. When they were ready, they would be lent money to buy an apartment building in the community where they would live and rent out space to new members of the community. In this manner, they expanded their religious community, stabilized an otherwise dangerous area of the city, and grew politically and financially stronger. Their culture was insular but they formed a valuable -- and sometimes controversial -- element in the City's cultural landscape. They were in no way a threat.

Although not as organized, similar patterns were used by some of the Italian communities where I lived in Brooklyn, with social clubs (e.g., Citadini di Pozzallo) that were based on ties from the villages where immigrants had originated. Korean communities have also been very effective in building on ties within their communities to help the communities grow stronger. When my niece wanted to connect with her own Chinese roots, she became part of a neighborhood Chinese cultural organization in St. Paul where she learned the language, learned traditional dances and celebrations, and connected with other Chinese and Chinese American youth.

What you are describing in Dearborn is very much in the tradition of American immigration over the last 100+ years. I do not believe it represents any kind of threat.

YardleyLabs
11-06-2008, 06:07 PM
Jeff Just curious
You mentioned the fact that the uniterian church was dispised by christians and muslims alike. Since I mess around with quite a bit of biblical research stuff I was wondering why this sect was considered non christian. Did they simply deny the existance JC? Or deny the trinity? I'm also a uniterian but JC is more our hero,messiah, the main man the son of God but not God it self.

Just curious no biggy,,,no arguement. Just peaked my interest.
Thanks
Pete

That pretty far off the topic of retrievers even for the "political" forum on RTF. I am not a theologian but will try to give a brief overview.

Unitarianism has, like most religions, changed a lot over time. When the pagan emperor, Constantine was looking for a state religion to help unify the remains of the Roman Empire, he organized the Niacene Council to encourage Christians to agree on the tenets of their faith. A major focus was on the question of the deity of Christ as encompassed in the concept of the Trinity. While all of these early Christians revered Jesus and his teachings, there was disagreement over whether he was a great prophet or in fact the son of God. The majority opted for the latter belief and those that rejected this notion of a deified Jesus were expelled from the community of Christians. These "rejects" survived in eastern Europe but did not openly adopt the Unitarian title until the 16th century in Transylvania when King Sigmound legalized the practice of Unitarianism. That didn't help when he died a few years later and his successors forced the religion back into hiding. These early practitioners were called Unitarians because of their belief that there was only one God and their rejection of the concept of the Trinity as a violation of this one-God concept.

Unitarianism was rejected as a heresy by the Catholic Church and by the early protestant churches -- hence the burning of a Unitarian philosopher in Geneva by the Calvinists. By the 18th century, in what was called the Age of Enlightenment, Unitarianism began to flourish in England and later in America, particularly in Massachusetts, where Harvard eventually evolved into what was essentially a Unitarian divinity school. At that time it was viewed as a religion of reason rather than faith since it relied on personal experience as the basis of belief. Original scriptures were seen as testimonies of personal experience. Creedal interpretations of these scriptures were rejected completely. Many also viewed the "scripture" as historic documents that had to be read with the same critical view that you might apply in reading someone's diary. From that perspective, the "Jefferson Bible" was actually a cut and paste rewrite of portions of the New Testament by Thomas Jefferson in which he eliminated what be deemed to be non-credible descriptions of miraculous acts to include only what Jefferson believed was an accurate description of "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". Unitarians also generally rejected the notion of salvation through belief and the notion of salvation throgh predestination, favoring the notion that salvation depended on acting in a manner consistent with Christ's teachings. The religion continued its evloution through the 19th and 20th centuries. Notable Unitarians included:

Presidents John Adams
President John Quincy Adams
President Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
President William Howard Taft
Presidential Candidatete Adlai Stevenson
President Millard Fillmore
Attorney General Elliott Richardson (famously fired by Nixon)
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Fannie Farmer (couldn't resist including this one)
Charles Dickens
Clara Barton (Founder of the Red Cross)
Albert Schweitzer
Alexander Graham Bell
Tim Berners-Lee (The real inventor of the Web)
Sir Isaac Newton

The modern Unitarian church, which merged with the Universalist Church, is rightly seen as a bastion of social liberalism. My father joined in 1941 as his form of doing penance for my grandfather's membership in the KKK. At that time, the Unitarian Church was one of the only churches taking a strong public stand on civil rights. Unitarians were also among the first to welcome gay and trans-gendered members and to permit same sex marriages.

More (and probably more accurate) information on Unitarianism is available on the website of the Unitarian-Universalist Association ay http://uua.org (http://uua.org/). Please accept that I have written this only in an effort to anse=wer a question and not in an effort to proselytize or convert anyone.

However, when historical revisionists talk about the religious beliefs of our forefathers, I encourage you to remember that many of our most important forefathers were in fact Unitarians who rejected the most fundamental tenets of what we now call Christianity (I had to say this to make my comments political;)).

Joe S.
11-06-2008, 07:12 PM
this is debatable but not important to this discussion

What is debatable about not having a state sponsored religion in the United States.

Waiting On This One Regards,

Joe S.

Pete
11-06-2008, 07:18 PM
Thanks Jeff
That was quite a history lesson
Constantine was quite a fellow:D
Pete

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 09:25 PM
Proselytizing is routinely done by many of our religions. When I was a kid, both Baptists and Methodists competed in their efforts to save my sister and me. People came often to ask my parents if they could take us to sunday school or to revival meetings. My fifth grade teacher, Miss Gee, had us read out loud from the bible every day. Jews were required to select readings from the New Testament so that they could find Jesus (We are talking about a public school, not a private one. I was ecstatic when such activities were outlawed in public schools.). I would call all of these activities proselytizing.

In a prior life, I was liaison between City Hall and a devout religious group in New York City. They were working hard to build their community and pooled funds for economic development. They would buy the corner buildings on each block in the area they lived because, as one of the leaders explained to me, the person who controls the corners controls the block. The religious/economic council would make loans to members of the community to start businesses as long as they employed others from the community. When young adults married, the economic council helped them to secure their first aprtments. When they were ready, they would be lent money to buy an apartment building in the community where they would live and rent out space to new members of the community. In this manner, they expanded their religious community, stabilized an otherwise dangerous area of the city, and grew politically and financially stronger. Their culture was insular but they formed a valuable -- and sometimes controversial -- element in the City's cultural landscape. They were in no way a threat.

Although not as organized, similar patterns were used by some of the Italian communities where I lived in Brooklyn, with social clubs (e.g., Citadini di Pozzallo) that were based on ties from the villages where immigrants had originated. Korean communities have also been very effective in building on ties within their communities to help the communities grow stronger. When my niece wanted to connect with her own Chinese roots, she became part of a neighborhood Chinese cultural organization in St. Paul where she learned the language, learned traditional dances and celebrations, and connected with other Chinese and Chinese American youth.

What you are describing in Dearborn is very much in the tradition of American immigration over the last 100+ years. I do not believe it represents any kind of threat.

What you have described is not what is going on in countries with substantial Islamic immigrant populations or growing Islamic populations. They demand that their host country accommodate them. How is this the same as what you described above?

K.Bullock
11-06-2008, 09:29 PM
What is debatable about not having a state sponsored religion in the United States.

Waiting On This One Regards,

Joe S.

I don't know Joe, what is debatable? ....you start the thread. ;-)

Was Jefferson's "wall of separation" meant to keep church out of government or government out of church?

JDogger
11-06-2008, 10:23 PM
I disagree. Coming into a country and asking them to exchange their culture and religion for yours is not reasonable at all.

Sorry, I come late to this discussion, and maybe somebody later in this thread has already brought this up... but I know many Native Americans who would agree with you, K. Bullock, many.

E Pluribis Unum... Out of many... one. It worked for "The Greatest Generation" seventy years ago, and briefly seven years ago, post 9/11, and it may again. Depends on the challenges we face, and how we meet them.

JD

YardleyLabs
11-07-2008, 06:10 AM
I know of only one religion that has been more violent in its pursuit of new converts than Islam -- Christianity. Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have burned, pillaged and raped their way to dominance. They have destroyed culture after culture -- most in this hemisphere -- to promote the glory of God. The only forces that were able to resist Christian dominance of the Mediterranean were the forces of Islam, leading to a stalemate between Spain and Northern Africa at one end and between the Baltics and Turkey at the other.

Happily, we have left the worst of those battles behind. However, I deeply distrust religious zealots of all flavors because they always seem willing to fall back into religious war. They are so convinced of the correctness of their belief in God (or Gods) that they condemn non-believers as evil and/or damned.

I don't have to go to Saudi Arabia to hear that belief. I simply have to turn my radio to almost any of the conservative Christian radio stations in this country. In each case, the justification for intolerance is simple -- we're right, they're not. In my mind, a primary mission of our government is, on one hand, to protect the right of each group to believe in its own superiority if it wishes while, on the other hand, making sure that those groups are never able to translate their self-proclaimed superiority into government reinforced authority.

The idiots "discovering" the secret Islamic conspiracy to destroy good Christians are the same idiots who used to talk about the secret Catholic conspiracy to force good Protestants to worship all those funny statues of saints. They are also the same idiots who blamed all financial woes on evil little Jewish men using their control of banks to steal our wealth. In my mind, there is no one more dangerous than a person "defending" God. I don't care whose God they claim to represent.

Personally, I say let the gods take care of themselves while the rest of us work on living together in peace. In this country, diversity is not something new, it was a matter of our original "intelligent design." :)

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 06:39 AM
I know of only one religion that has been more violent in its pursuit of new converts than Islam -- Christianity. Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have burned, pillaged and raped their way to dominance. They have destroyed culture after culture -- most in this hemisphere -- to promote the glory of God. The only forces that were able to resist Christian dominance of the Mediterranean were the forces of Islam, leading to a stalemate between Spain and Northern Africa at one end and between the Baltics and Turkey at the other.

Happily, we have left the worst of those battles behind. However, I deeply distrust religious zealots of all flavors because they always seem willing to fall back into religious war. They are so convinced of the correctness of their belief in God (or Gods) that they condemn non-believers as evil and/or damned.

I don't have to go to Saudi Arabia to hear that belief. I simply have to turn my radio to almost any of the conservative Christian radio stations in this country. In each case, the justification for intolerance is simple -- we're right, they're not. In my mind, a primary mission of our government is, on one hand, to protect the right of each group to believe in its own superiority if it wishes while, on the other hand, making sure that those groups are never able to translate their self-proclaimed superiority into government reinforced authority.

The idiots "discovering" the secret Islamic conspiracy to destroy good Christians are the same idiots who used to talk about the secret Catholic conspiracy to force good Protestants to worship all those funny statues of saints. They are also the same idiots who blamed all financial woes on evil little Jewish men using their control of banks to steal our wealth. In my mind, there is no one more dangerous than a person "defending" God. I don't care whose God they claim to represent.

Personally, I say let the gods take care of themselves while the rest of us work on living together in peace. In this country, diversity is not something new, it was a matter of our original "intelligent design." :)


In this country, diversity is not something new, it was a matter of our original "intelligent design
:lol: Ha! Unitarian my foot, You sound like a good Calvinist.


And your sentiment is good with me, except there are some who will not let us live in pesace.



I think you misunderstand me. Whether someone is Christian or not means little to me(well in some respects). And I agree that the strength of this country is it's diversity. In that respect the Roman empire was similar and recognized the need for someone to become a citizen while keeping their cultural identity intact.

I don't think I have once said," keep the Muslims out" or Brown eye bad Blue eye good. Those are not my core beliefs.

And your point about the violence of Christian's that have come before us has been addressed. That was more a sign of the times they lived in rather than a tenet of the Christian religion. And I am not even trying to compare Christianity to Islam.
Islam is a religion that at its core is violent it's teachings are violent and the aim of Islam is imperialism. That is the point. And we are in denial of these facts that is the other point.

Political Correctness is keeping western nations from from having an honest dialogue about something that is a very real danger to our individual freedoms. The spread of radical Islam is a danger. And to deny that without even trying to understand Islam is a little silly.

I am trying to find a link to an honest to God, Islamic reformer in the spirit of Martin Luther. She spoke at our campus a while back. "A liberal Campus BTW"
She is a very interesting lady that has challenged the extremism in her own community .And guess what she lives under the threat of death for her views.

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 06:45 AM
I don't have to go to Saudi Arabia to hear that belief. I simply have to turn my radio to almost any of the conservative Christian radio stations in this country. In each case, the justification for intolerance is simple -- we're right, they're not. In my mind, a primary mission of our government is, on one hand, to protect the right of each group to believe in its own superiority if it wishes while, on the other hand, making sure that those groups are never able to translate their self-proclaimed superiority into government reinforced authority.



Besides the bad theology I cannot stand their crazy inflections. And they are not groups. They are someone who somebody gave a microphone.

YardleyLabs
11-07-2008, 06:57 AM
Besides the bad theology I cannot stand their crazy inflections. And they are not groups. They are someone who somebody gave a microphone.

Are you talking about the calls to prayer from the mosques or the calls to prayer from the Christian radio stations?:D

I'm not accusing you of being anti-Muslim per se, but I do think your understanding of the the Muslim religion is incomplete. All of our religions include elements that do not fit in today's world and/or that are subject to interpretation to support peace or war. In my experience, Islam is no more or less war like than Christianity. The good or evil comes from the hearts of the "believers" not the Koran or the Bible.

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 07:18 AM
Are you talking about the calls to prayer from the mosques or the calls to prayer from the Christian radio stations?:D

I'm not accusing you of being anti-Muslim per se, but I do think your understanding of the the Muslim religion is incomplete. All of our religions include elements that do not fit in today's world and/or that are subject to interpretation to support peace or war. In my experience, Islam is no more or less war like than Christianity. The good or evil comes from the hearts of the "believers" not the Koran or the Bible.

Would it be fair then if we must put it in Christian/ Muslim terms to compare the Life of the Prophet Mohammed to the life of Jesus? Outrageous claims aside. Just the historical figures. I don't think you will have to go too far to see the very dissimilar world view.



I'm not accusing you of being anti-Muslim per se,

Per se is correct. I am trying not to go there. I recognize that all Muslims are not sold out to Wahhabi style Islam. but it is growing and they are not leaving even peaceful believers much of a choice.

There is a very progressive mosque here in Toledo, Ohio that has actually elected a woman president. Which drove the zealots nuts, there is quite a power struggle going on. I don't know of any mosque that is that progressive.

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 07:44 AM
All of our religions include elements that do not fit in today's world and/or that are subject to interpretation to support peace or war

The eastern religions do not, but that does not stop them from slaughtering people. Per the headlines coming out of India.

And I think Tao fits quite nicely ..in my context it is missing Jesus though.:D

John Kelder
11-07-2008, 06:20 PM
O K boys and girls , put on your thinking caps . Or enable your dream r.e.m.s . IMHO here is history repeating itself .
When America was "discovered" around 1492, it was already inhabited by a thriving civilization , with different sub cultures from sea to shining sea .The newcomers first embraced the natives , IMO ,mostly to survive the Natives .
Systematically ,slowly but surely ,the embrace became a death grip , and the Natives were soon fighting for their survival on all fronts , from the Great Plains to the politicians on the Potomac .Thru pen and sword ,the newcomers were now the natives .
I think the current situation is simular ,albiet with a learning curve that the newcomers learned from a previous civilization ,and realized to become the new natives ,a friend on the Potomac is a must .
And slowly , will historians compare the church bell to the buffalo ?

YardleyLabs
11-07-2008, 06:56 PM
O K boys and girls , put on your thinking caps . Or enable your dream r.e.m.s . IMHO here is history repeating itself .
When America was "discovered" around 1492, it was already inhabited by a thriving civilization , with different sub cultures from sea to shining sea .The newcomers first embraced the natives , IMO ,mostly to survive the Natives .
Systematically ,slowly but surely ,the embrace became a death grip , and the Natives were soon fighting for their survival on all fronts , from the Great Plains to the politicians on the Potomac .Thru pen and sword ,the newcomers were now the natives .
I think the current situation is simular ,albiet with a learning curve that the newcomers learned from a previous civilization ,and realized to become the new natives ,a friend on the Potomac is a must .
And slowly , will historians compare the church bell to the buffalo ?

Your fears are not new. In the late 19th century we feared the "Yellow Peril" of Chinese immigrants that we believed would mongrelize and destroy our culture. Before and after we feared the same from blacks. Then we feared the Irish and the Italians, sure that they too would destroy our culture and sell our souls to the Pope. I think your fears belong in the same garbage can with those earlier ones. I have a number of arabs in my extended family (Iraquis even). My brother in law is an engineer who has now been here 35 years. He took his American bride back to Iraq and wasn't able to escape for another two years with my sister-in-law and niece. He since managed to bring his whole family to the U.S. where they have been trying to subvert our culture ever since by celebrating thanksgiving, watching football, going to work, giving to charities, sending their children to college, buying and selling homes, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/YellowTerror.jpg/250px-YellowTerror.jpg

Yellow Peril regards,

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 07:45 PM
Your fears are not new. In the late 19th century we feared the "Yellow Peril" of Chinese immigrants that we believed would mongrelize and destroy our culture. Before and after we feared the same from blacks. Then we feared the Irish and the Italians, sure that they too would destroy our culture and sell our souls to the Pope. I think your fears belong in the same garbage can with those earlier ones. I have a number of arabs in my extended family (Iraquis even). My brother in law is an engineer who has now been here 35 years. He took his American bride back to Iraq and wasn't able to escape for another two years with my sister-in-law and niece. He since managed to bring his whole family to the U.S. where they have been trying to subvert our culture ever since by celebrating thanksgiving, watching football, going to work, giving to charities, sending their children to college, buying and selling homes, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/YellowTerror.jpg/250px-YellowTerror.jpg

Yellow Peril regards,


It is not a simple as race or nationality . http://www.islamfortoday.com/america04.htm

The same approach was taken in other countries as is being taken here*edit (the same apathy towards extremism for fear of seeming insensitive) end edit*. Now very recently England has banned extremist preachers from their island. Too little too late. Can Muslims and other societies live in peace. Look the globe over and see for yourself it doesn't seem likely. Though I believe it is possible, but not if we deny the extremist doctrines that poison Islam, and stick our nations collective head in the sand.

I also believe we can defend against extremism without resorting to fear of the "Yellow Peril". And keep our heritage intact to boot.

Jeff, though I am debating with you I am reflecting on what you write. You are making some very good points and giving me something to think about. So don't think I am dismissing your thoughts and not giving them any weight.

That said, I am still going to debate you .:)

Keith Farmer
11-07-2008, 07:52 PM
I know of only one religion that has been more violent in its pursuit of new converts than Islam -- Christianity. Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have burned, pillaged and raped their way to dominance. They have destroyed culture after culture -- most in this hemisphere -- to promote the glory of God.


I hear this all the time from people who really have no clue what church history is. I believe the mistake in the statement above is the confusion between true Christianity, as was started by Jesus the Christ (who was, is, and forever will be God who robed Himself in human flesh to redeem mankind from his fallen state), and Roman Catholicism masquerading its efforts at world dominance as Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)

Christianity is all about a God who did not require (nor still requires) someone else pay the penalty for sin so that man could be reconciled to Himself...rather He Himself laid down His own life so that mankind could be saved:

Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above..." John 19:10, 11

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-26665b)] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6,7

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31#fen-NIV-28706a)]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..."1 Cor. 15: 3,4


In terms of Islam I suggest one read the writings, or go hear personally, someone who has removed himself from the religion and get the real story...such as:

http://www.erguncaner.com/home/biography/default.php (http://www.erguncaner.com/home/biography/default.php)


KF

K.Bullock
11-07-2008, 08:23 PM
I hear this all the time from people who really have no clue what church history is.
We should have stuck to politics




I believe the mistake in the statement above is the confusion between true Christianity, as was started by Jesus the Christ (who was, is, and forever will be God who robed Himself in human flesh to redeem mankind from his fallen state), and Roman Catholicism masquerading its efforts at world dominance as Christianity.

If you think Jesus started Christianity you are in agreement with the Catholic church. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell won't stand against it". (that's paraphrased btw
Catholics claim Peter as the first Pope.;) that is what they base Apostolic succession off of.

Notice also there are no Christians in the bible. Jesus didn't start Christianity ..Christians did. That's why it screws up now and then. Humility is not a bad goal for a Christian, seeing as how our God was born in a Pig sty and didn't seem to mind.

And as was pointed out by Jeff in his reply to Pete the Nicene creed which you base your doctrine for the trinity off of is also Catholic...Notice no reference to Trinity in the bible.

Nope I am not Catholic, I can't get with the Marian doctrines although they are interesting. But they are as Christian as they come and to say they are not is to deny your own faith.

Church history is good thing, I get lost in it sometimes though and forget I am supposed to be living it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)

[COLOR=navy]Christianity is all about a God who did not require (nor still requires) someone else pay the penalty for sin so that man could be reconciled to Himself...rather He Himself laid down His own life so that mankind could be saved:

Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above..." John 19:10, 11

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-26665b)] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6,7

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31#fen-NIV-28706a)]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..."1 Cor. 15: 3,4


In terms of Islam I suggest one read the writings, or go hear personally, someone who has removed himself from the religion and get the real story...such as:

http://www.erguncaner.com/home/biography/default.php (http://www.erguncaner.com/home/biography/default.php)


KF

YardleyLabs
11-08-2008, 07:16 AM
I am actually not prepared to discuss the intrinsic merits of one religion over another. Ultimately, each individual must reach for his or her own beliefs. My concern is with how our government embraces a multi-religious, multi-racial, and multi-cultural society. This is not a new problem in our country, it was an essential component of our country from the days of its foundation.

I agree that to preserve our social structure that we must protect ourselves from those who would exchange our freedoms to create a government and society that conforms more closely to their religious beliefs. However, this is not just an issue with Islamic fundamentalists. We are threatened much more immediately by some Christian fundamentalists who believe that our country was founded as a Christian country and want our government to be more proactive in protecting our Christian character.

I read the Establishment clause of the Constitution as aggressively as others on this forum read the second amendment. The only way to protect religious freedom (and non-religious freedom) is to prevent the mechanisms of our government from becoming entangled with any particular religious "ism". Violations of that boundary not only violate the inalienable rights of those with different beliefs, they ultimately corrupt the message of those permitting themselves to become entangled with the government. For an example, look at how churches must censor their own messages to preserve tax exemption. Maybe the right answer is to give up tax exemption altogether.

As individuals we make moral judgments all the time. However, it is incumbent on us to recognize that opinions on morality belong to men regardless of their claimed source. Government must handle those opinions even-handedly and not make any decisions that discriminate based on the particulars of one religion or non-religion vs. another. Going back to the original point of this thread, that would mean regulating both church bells and Muslim calls to prayer in an even handed way: time of day, noise level, etc. Hiding religious bias behind phrases like “cultural traditions” does not change the fact that the bias is a religious one.

John Kelder
11-08-2008, 07:34 AM
Your fears are not new. In the late 19th century we feared the "Yellow Peril" of Chinese immigrants that we believed would mongrelize and destroy our culture. Before and after we feared the same from blacks. Then we feared the Irish and the Italians, sure that they too would destroy our culture and sell our souls to the Pope. I think your fears belong in the same garbage can with those earlier ones. I have a number of arabs in my extended family (Iraquis even). My brother in law is an engineer who has now been here 35 years. He took his American bride back to Iraq and wasn't able to escape for another two years with my sister-in-law and niece. He since managed to bring his whole family to the U.S. where they have been trying to subvert our culture ever since by celebrating thanksgiving, watching football, going to work, giving to charities, sending their children to college, buying and selling homes, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/YellowTerror.jpg/250px-YellowTerror.jpg

Yellow Peril regards,

Where do you get off thinking my observations put me in fear ?" I can ride ,rope ,hammer and paint , do things with my hands that most men can't" so the song goes .
FYI , I tried to reenlist in the USMC right after 9/11 . Wouldn't take me , I was over the age limit .But fear ? Hell , I was just saying , without saying it , that history repeats itself .Which your post proved .
Some might be in fear , I just look forward to killing them all ,and letting God sort them out.

Pete
11-08-2008, 08:47 AM
OK So since we opened our arms up to the muslim population and plan on giving many of them a free 1 way ticket to america,,should we also let their culture thrive as part of a free america which I think is governed by certain rules and regulations. Should they be alowed to practice their religion unhibited by a government which is seperated from religion

From what I have read culture ,politics and religion are rolled up in 1.


Case in point
Muslum man in texas kills daughter.for relations with american boy.
Should he be praised or thrown in jail.? Or should he be praised in jail.

Also radical islamm is a religion

Let the hypocrocy begin

Pete

YardleyLabs
11-08-2008, 08:57 AM
OK So since we opened our arms up to the muslim population and plan on giving many of them a free 1 way ticket to america,,should we also let their culture thrive as part of a free america which I think is governed by certain rules and regulations. Should they be alowed to practice their religion unhibited by a government which is seperated from religion

From what I have read culture ,politics and religion are rolled up in 1.


Case in point
Muslum man in texas kills daughter.for relations with american boy.
Should he be praised or thrown in jail.? Or should he be praised in jail.

Also radical islamm is a religion

Let the hypocrocy begin

Pete

We don't let anyone act outside the law based on their religious beliefs. If you shoot someone who is attempting to kill another person walking down the street, you will not be prosecuted. If you kill a physician who is performing an abortion you will go to jail for attempted murder even if your religion tells you that the unborn fetus is as much a person as anyone walking around on the streets. Your religion may allow you to marry multiple women, but under our laws you will still be jailed for bigamy. We should allow practitioners of all religions to practice their religions within the constraints of our laws. I don't care whether you are atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew, the laws are the same.

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 09:13 AM
We don't let anyone act outside the law based on their religious beliefs. If you shoot someone who is attempting to kill another person walking down the street, you will not be prosecuted. If you kill a physician who is performing an abortion you will go to jail for attempted murder even if your religion tells you that the unborn fetus is as much a person as anyone walking around on the streets. Your religion may allow you to marry multiple women, but under our laws you will still be jailed for bigamy. We should allow practitioners of all religions to practice their religions within the constraints of our laws. I don't care whether you are atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew, the laws are the same.

Careful, Jeff.

That's at least two logical comments on this thread. One more and critical mass is reached and the thread goes into auto-lockdown mode. ;-)

Logical Regards,

Joe S.

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 09:28 AM
Careful, Jeff.

That's at least two logical comments on this thread. One more and critical mass is reached and the thread goes into auto-lockdown mode. ;-)

Logical Regards,

Joe S.

Again, no surprises from Joe. :o

JS
11-08-2008, 10:22 AM
Thanks folks, Yardley and Bullock in particular, for a fascinating and refreshingly civil discussion!!!

Please carry on.

JS

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 10:34 AM
Notice no reference to Trinity in the bible.

Hummm...while the word may be absent, the concept seems to be clear:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

No Surprises Regards,

Joe S.:o

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 11:13 AM
Hummm...while the word may be absent, the concept seems to be clear:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

No Surprises Regards,

Joe S.:o

it would seem to be clear, that is because you were raised with the doctrine. Developed by the First Council of Nicea in 325 in response to another teaching that taught that Jesus was created by God not God himself. Trinity is the doctrine that declares Jesus God not created by God.

BTW: the council was all Catholic big c not little c. (giggle):)

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 11:44 AM
Thanks folks, Yardley and Bullock in particular, for a fascinating and refreshingly civil discussion!!!

Please carry on.

JS

I did see in another thread that Yardley packs heat, so I figured I better watch my step. An armed society really is a polite society. :lol:

YardleyLabs
11-08-2008, 11:47 AM
I did see in another thread that Yardley packs heat, so I figured I better watch my step. An armed society really is a polite society. :lol:
I may be liberal, but i am not a pacifist.:p

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 11:54 AM
I may be liberal, but i am not a pacifist.:p

:lol: My one comfort in watching our nation go left of center is that Liberals do not go armed. Now you are trying to take that away from me. Thanks :rolleyes:

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 12:47 PM
:lol: My one comfort in watching our nation go left of center is that Liberals do not go armed. Now you are trying to take that away from me. Thanks :rolleyes:

Consider it taken.

Heat Packing Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 12:52 PM
it would seem to be clear, that is because you were raised with the doctrine. Developed by the First Council of Nicea in 325 in response to another teaching that taught that Jesus was created by God not God himself. Trinity is the doctrine that declares Jesus God not created by God.

BTW: the council was all Catholic big c not little c. (giggle):)

The concept of the trinity is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in three forms. The passage from John supports that. The Gospel of John is the Word of God. So, you believe the bible is the word of God or you do not, which is it?

In For A Penny In For A Pound Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
11-08-2008, 01:35 PM
The concept of the trinity is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in three forms. The passage from John supports that. The Gospel of John is the Word of God. So, you believe the bible is the word of God or you do not, which is it?

In For A Penny In For A Pound Regards,

Joe S.
And that's why I bail when the conversation moves to the "correctness" of any particular belief. The essence of faith is belief without reason. Far be it from me to question anyone else's faith given that mine rests on the same unreasoned foundation. The fact that our faiths differ is reason enough, in my mind, to preserve the secular independence of our government.

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 03:19 PM
And that's why I bail when the conversation moves to the "correctness" of any particular belief. The essence of faith is belief without reason. Far be it from me to question anyone else's faith given that mine rests on the same unreasoned foundation. The fact that our faiths differ is reason enough, in my mind, to preserve the secular independence of our government.

Absolutely.

My concern is when folks say "Well, the Bible says..." and it is a literal interpretation that works for the issue at hand. Then when a question is asked about another subject and a literal interpretation proves inconvienent, the response is more often than not "Well, what that passage really means is..."

Believe what you want to belive and be happy with it. I will believe what I want to belive and be happy with it. Don't let yours pass laws that are based on YOUR religious view when yours are in power and I won't let mine pass laws based on our religion when we are in power. It's that old "Do unto others thing" I read about some place...

Interesting Discussion Regards,

Joe S.

K G
11-08-2008, 03:36 PM
And that's why I bail when the conversation moves to the "correctness" of any particular belief. The essence of faith is belief without reason. Far be it from me to question anyone else's faith given that mine rests on the same unreasoned foundation. The fact that our faiths differ is reason enough, in my mind, to preserve the secular independence of our government.

The essence of faith is belief without PROOF.

http://rationalchristianity.org/?p=23

BIG difference regards, :smile:

kg

YardleyLabs
11-08-2008, 04:10 PM
The essence of faith is belief without PROOF.

http://rationalchristianity.org/?p=23

BIG difference regards, :smile:

kg

Keith,

I accept the correction although I suspect we are saying the same thing.;-)

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 09:20 PM
The concept of the trinity is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in three forms. The passage from John supports that. The Gospel of John is the Word of God. So, you believe the bible is the word of God or you do not, which is it?

In For A Penny In For A Pound Regards,

Joe S.

I guess I am missing your point. Trinity isn't a concept it is a doctrine.


So, you believe the bible is the word of God or you do not, which is it?




Why? Just because you say so?

I am waiting for you to surprise me Joe ..don't let me down man.:)

K.Bullock
11-08-2008, 09:24 PM
The concept of the trinity is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in three forms. The passage from John supports that. The Gospel of John is the Word of God. So, you believe the bible is the word of God or you do not, which is it?

In For A Penny In For A Pound Regards,

Joe S.
Holy cow Joe ..read the Nicene creed then come back. sheesh. I just got what you were saying.

Pushbutton2
11-08-2008, 10:33 PM
Well hell.
I don't see the big deal. They have been broadcasting their call to, 5X day, for 3 - 4 years now, I worked in and around Dearborn before moving to Texas 2.5 years ago.

First time I heard it WAS MAD!!!

but you know what they say freedom of religion, for everyone EXCEPT the Citizens!

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001658.php

Check out the Date Lower Right hand corner

Pete
11-09-2008, 07:53 AM
Hummm...while the word may be absent, the concept seems to be clear:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

No Surprises Regards,


When my wife and I got married we became one flesh so it says.,,,,really I see 2

The book is a literal book, a figureative book,,, a book of customs and mannors,,,, a book with hundred of figures of speech we no longer use, a book filled with hebrew idiums

And some people think they can quote a verse and let it mean what they want.

IIPeter 1 :20 No proficy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


Maby people should put the same effort in studying it ,,,as they put into reading blogs and zooming cyberspace.
Pete

Pete
11-09-2008, 08:23 AM
So I guess you libs are all 4 the KKK being able to march in parades ,preach and send their beliefs over a loud speaker. And you would run in their defense if someone complained about it.

Yea I know I see the liberal media doing that all the time.

Its pretty ovious to tell when someone wants to quietly practice what they believe and obvious when people want to cause friction and divide.

Pete

Gun_Dog2002
11-09-2008, 09:14 AM
Hummm...while the word may be absent, the concept seems to be clear:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

No Surprises Regards,

Joe S.:o

Sorry Joe, at 1 John 5:7 the discussion of them being considered one is based on unity of thought. See John 17:21, 1 Cor 3:8, John 10:30. The greek "Hen" is consistantly translated throughout the bible as agreement or oneness in purpose or thought.

/Paul

Patrick Johndrow
11-09-2008, 09:45 AM
So I guess you libs are all 4 the KKK being able to march in parades ,preach and send their beliefs over a loud speaker. And you would run in their defense if someone complained about it.

Yea I know I see the liberal media doing that all the time.

Its pretty ovious to tell when someone wants to quietly practice what they believe and obvious when people want to cause friction and divide.

Pete

I am far from a liberal but I am all for any group to be able to PEACEFULLY march in parades and deliver their message over a loud speaker as long as public noise ordinances are not being broken. To think other wise is dang near Un-American.

Pete
11-09-2008, 10:13 AM
I guess its a matter of opinion just like our 2nd admendment rights,,,some people think our founding fathers meant bb guns and sling shots ,,some think it was only talking about the military. Some seem to think the citizen should only own this or that.

Well I believe our founding fathers meant something a little different than what we have today.

Some think we can say what ever we want including burning the flag or yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Some think there should be common sence discresion.
Its ovious our 1st right ( saying anything and everything is what our founding fathers intended) And as far as our second right is one is concerned.,,, well you finish the sentence.

Just like religion, we can all make documents smean what we want them to smean. Words don't mean anything anymore
Pete

Pete
11-09-2008, 11:37 AM
Sorry Joe, at 1 John 5:7 the discussion of them being considered one is based on unity of thought. See John 17:21, 1 Cor 3:8, John 10:30. The greek "Hen" is consistantly translated throughout the bible as agreement or oneness in purpose or thought UNQUOTE

Paul stop it your impressing me:D
Pete

Joe S.
11-09-2008, 01:26 PM
Sorry Joe

Thanks for clearing it up, Paul.

Understood Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-09-2008, 01:41 PM
So I guess you libs are all 4 the KKK being able to march in parades ,preach and send their beliefs over a loud speaker. And you would run in their defense if someone complained about it.

Yea I know I see the liberal media doing that all the time.

Its pretty ovious to tell when someone wants to quietly practice what they believe and obvious when people want to cause friction and divide.

Pete

Can't speak for "you libs" but as far as I'm concerned, they are entitled to speak what tiny portion of their minds I feel they have as long as they follow the established rules. I am free to listen, walk away, or ignore them at my discretion.

The thing about the 1st is its ability to work both ways on an issue. While I find the position of those that preach hate in any of its forms to be objectionable in the extreme, as an American citizen I have a duty to see that they have a right to speak.

Congratulations on being able to divine the reasons that others do the things they do. I am still trying to figure out why I do some of the stuff I do.

Introspective Regards,

Joe S.

Pete
11-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Congratulations on being able to divine the reasons that others do the things they do. I am still trying to figure out why I do some of the stuff I do.

Introspective Regards,

No problem Joe
If you need help figuring something out let me know I'll be glad to divine it for ya

Just tryin to be the helpy helpy person that I am:razz:

Pete

cotts135
11-10-2008, 05:59 AM
Since the beginning of civilization has there been anything ,man made or natural, that has killed more people than the believe that my god is better than your god. Can't we step back for a second and how ridiculous this is. For our believe that religion is good, and that it teaches us morality and humility. we sure seem to forget how many people it has harmed.

K.Bullock
11-10-2008, 07:26 AM
Since the beginning of civilization has there been anything ,man made or natural, that has killed more people than the believe that my god is better than your god. Can't we step back for a second and how ridiculous this is. For our believe that religion is good, and that it teaches us morality and humility. we sure seem to forget how many people it has harmed.

You would love a guy named Dawkins.

Sure there has, the plague, volcano's, Tsunami's. Hitler killed many to get rid their religion not just Jews , but Christians too. He subscribed to Nietzsche's philosophy about religion and humanity. Which is that religion is for the weak and the weak are holding up the eventual evolution of a master race.

This is one of my favorite authors he was a Lutheran Pastor who wrote some good stuff sitting in a concentration camp waiting to die for his faith. I don't think it is as simple as religion is bad and the world would be at peace without it. The world would still be at war even without Dawkins "Purple people eater in the sky".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer


In 1939, Bonhoeffer joined a secret group of high-ranking military officers based in the Abwehr, or Military intelligence Office, who wanted to overthrow the National Socialist regime by killing Hitler. Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 after money used to help Jews escape to Switzerland was traced to him. He was charged with conspiracy and imprisoned in Berlin for a year and a half.

In Flossenbürg, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging at dawn on 1945 April 9, just three weeks before the liberation of Berlin and one month before the capitulation of Nazi Germany. The manner of execution was, like other executions associated with the July 20 Plot, so brutal and graphic that even Wehrmacht soldiers were loathe to watch. Bonhoeffer was stripped of clothing in his cell, tortured and ridiculed by the guards, and led naked into the execution yard. The lack of sufficient gallows to hang thousands of Germans after the July 20 Plot had caused Hitler and Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels to seize on the idea of using meathooks from slaughterhouses[3] and slowly hoisting the victim to dangle from an incrementally tightening noose formed of piano wire.[4] The asphyxiation is thought to have taken approximately half an hour.[5]

“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer