God_Owned...it would be nice to see a little of that scripture that you have in your profile coming to light here. Remember: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Did you think Mark is my enemy who is cursing me or that he is spitefully using? You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow Liberal Mark.
Not only do you seem to be going after Mark a bit more than seems necessary, but your entire view against the Muslims seems a bit too harsh.
Ahh, the Liberal in you is coming out now. You think you are my personal governor? Sounds a little judgmental to me.
Call me a Muslim-sympathizer or whatever you want, but God's command for us to love one another applies to loving them too.
..and you think that rejecting their demonic religion is hateful..Hmmm! I guess Jesus was being hatful when he rebuked the Sadducees and Pharisees; and you do remember the thong of cords.
I'm not supporting the Islamic religion, I disagree with it as much as the next person, but I also firmly believe that all of this anger and hate towards the religion isn't going to get us anywhere.
Ahh, there is that Liberal judgment again. You think to know what is in my heart when it come to the people of Islam. Mind reading isn't a gift of the Spirit.
A soft answer turns away wrath, is that not also in the Bible? Just because they are violent and hateful doesn't mean that we have to treat them so in return (which a few of your comments have made it seem your viewpoint is). So far as I can tell, no Christian has changed the world and impacted a people for Christ by letting them know how much they despised their religion and how wrong they are. Those who impact others for Christ are those who go in with hearts of love and "let their lights shine before men."
Well, I guess you don't get out much either. By the way, did you think Mark was a Muslim. That is who I was talking to.
So far as fears of muslims taking over the world, where's your faith in God.
Where did I say Muslims were going to overtake the world? I believe that Mark was the one concerned about starting WW III.
Truly, God is working on this earth, and He does reign supreme.
Glad to know you realize it.
Last I checked, this entire battle against Islam was a spiritual battle..."for we do not wrestle against flesh and blod, but against principalities, against powers, against the rules of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
I guess those are some pretty spiritual swords which are being used to lop off peoples heads? It does have its roots in spirituality, but it manifests in the nasty here and now. ...ask the people who were in the WWTC.
Do you think we would pull out of IRAQ.
Please pay attention to all that I say, because if you had you would have noticed that I said that there is definitely satanic influence in Islam, as there is in any religion that is not Christianity (or for atheists for that matter), but that doesn't mean that those who don't worship God are worshipping Satan.
Muslims worship the devil. Wake up and look at their fruits. ...go read Genesis.
So far as googling for information, most things just aren't credible. Finding valid information takes a lot more effort than just doing a simple google search.
It isn't hard at all finding good info on the internet. let me give you one of many examples.
Just curious. What is it about Liberals that gets your panties in such a bunch? We're not all that threatening of a group.
Come visit Canada someday if you want to see a truly multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious group of people who have found a way to peacefully co-exist. Do these groups have their differences? Of course. Are they killing one another over them? Thankfully, not on a large scale, although isolated incidents do arise, as they will anywhere.
Are there militant Muslims? Yes. Are there militant Christians? Yes. Should we condemn an entire religion based on the actions of a few?
I'm not Muslim myself, but I respect the right of each person to believe and worship as they choose. And I don't go around condemning them and spouting hateful rhetoric.
I apologize in advance for any typos or any such thing. It is almost 3 am where I live and I have had a very stressful day filled with the glorious things known as college finals...
Did you think Mark is my enemy who is cursing me or that he is spitefully using? You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow Liberal Mark.
Actually, I was referring to your attitude towards Muslims... I mean, they are obviously persecuting us and are definitely to be counted as our enemies....
Ahh, the Liberal in you is coming out now. You think you are my personal governor? Sounds a little judgmental to me.
Actually, I am a conservative, for the record. And what I am truly saying, is that if I wasn't a Christian and I came in here and read your posts, I would be totally turned off and I would just leave. There is a reason that so many people believe that Christians are judgmental and condescending, and the things that you have been saying about/towards the Muslims are some of them.
..and you think that rejecting their demonic religion is hateful..Hmmm! I guess Jesus was being hatful when he rebuked the Sadducees and Pharisees; and you do remember the thong of cords.
I never said anything about being hateful, though it is quite true that you haven't yet said one thing that could even come close to representing Christ's love. It is possible to disagree with a religion, but still care about and have a heart for those who are deceived and follow it. And Jesus wasn't being hateful when he rebuked the pharisees, that was a thing called "righteous anger." Do you really think that Christ was angry at how the children of Israel were behaving? Yes, He rebuked them, but like a parent rebukes a child - out of love, with a feeling of sorrow at the fact that the child has gone astray. Is it possible for God to be hateful? Doesn't that contradict when the Word says that God is love? All that is done by God, is done out of love for His creation...
Ahh, there is that Liberal judgment again. You think to know what is in my heart when it come to the people of Islam. Mind reading isn't a gift of the Spirit.
I was not reading your mind, I was making logical conclusions based on the compilation of everything that you have posted on this thread. Can you look back and see even one thing that shows even a pang of concern for the people who have been deceived into believing these lies? You have made no discernment between the religion, and those who have been deceived by it. Hate the religion, hate thier beliefs, but if you're going to express it so vehemently then make a strong distinction between the religion and those who are currently sentenced to hell due to the deception.
Well, I guess you don't get out much either. By the way, did you think Mark was a Muslim. That is who I was talking to.
Again, I was referencing everything that you have said on this thread... Also, I get out a lot more than you'd think, and I don't come into this argument with little knowledge about Islam. I have attended world religion classes, with an emphasis on Islam through a WoF outlet, as well as having spent numerous hours doing research on my own through credible sources (ie: published journals, etc.... Just because a respected pastor says something or an article online says it doesn't mean that I'm going to believe it - I'm going to go out and see what information I can find on the topic and come to my own conclusions). I don't just hear, see, or think something and accept it as truth.
Where did I say Muslims were going to overtake the world? I believe that Mark was the one concerned about starting WW III.
My apologies - I misunderstood/read your responses.
I guess those are some pretty spiritual swords which are being used to lop off peoples heads? It does have its roots in spirituality, but it manifests in the nasty here and now. ...ask the people who were in the WWTC.
Do you think we would pull out of IRAQ.
No, I do not think that we should pull out of Iraq, but I also don't believe that what our soldiers are doing over there are doing anything to get to the root of the problem. They can work on keeping the peace in the physical world, and that's their job. Our is to step up and show love to all of those hurting, deceived people. As Christians our responsibility is to get down on our knees and pray for God to move in the situation. Again, just because they are striking out at us physically, doesn't mean that that is where our battle lies. Let the world take care of the problems that have enbroached upon their territory, but why don't we focus on our part in this war?
Muslims worship the devil. Wake up and look at their fruits. ...go read Genesis.
I'm just going to give up on this front. That's fine if you want to say that they're worshipping the devil. I mean, I know that they don't worship God, but for me to classify everyone that doesn't worship God as a devil-worshipper seems a bit harsh. If you want to view it that way, then whatever, I just don't care about this point anymore.
[quote]Oh my goodness. Just curious. What is it about Liberals that gets your panties in such a bunch? We're not all that threatening of a group.[/QUOTE]
Well first of all they alwas get around to saying vile things like you just did. Secondly, I never met one who wasn't a liar. Thirdly, I never met a liberal who wasn't a control freak who is in love with other people's money. They are anti-Christian, baby-killing pro-abortionists, situaltionally moralistc socialists.
Here is some more info.
"Liberalism
Liberalism is the belief that government exists to protect or enable the liberty of the individual, by protecting their Natural Rights. Liberalism spans a wide range of political systems, from Anarchy to Communism (both of which are anything but liberal, in practice). The types of government which implement Liberalism may also span the range from Monarchy to Democracy.
Natural or God-given Rights
The terms actually refer to the different origins of the same Rights. In the Ten Commandments, God actually speaks out and says, "I bestow these Rights upon Man." In fact, only three of the Ten Commandments are rules governing the relationship between Man and God. The other seven are rules governing the relationship between Man and Man. They specifically enumerate some of the Rights given to Man by God, and forbid Man from taking them away. Three of these are familiar, and mentioned in the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty, and Property. The Ten Commandments is the oldest document I know of which enumerates a Man's Rights.
The underlying principles of Natural Rights were first analyzed by the ancient Greek philosophers, and were revitalized in the 1600's and 1700's by French philosophers. Much of the thought into Rights and forms of goverment was first performed (or recorded) by the Greeks. The philosophy of Natural Rights starts with the premise that every man is inherently born with desires particular to each individual, and the capacity and will to fulfill those desires. By applying the basic theme, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we realize that Man should be allowed to fulfill his desires, unless such fulfillment impairs another. Natural Rights are the basic [philosophical] tools which Man requires to fulfill his desires. Key among them are Life, Liberty, and Property.
Civil Rights
Unlike God-given, or Natural Rights, which are inherent to every Man from birth, Civil Rights are "Rights" which do not exist until government bestows them. These "Rights" are created when the government requires some cooperative effort by the community to provide some good, treatment, or service to every citizen in the community. For example, the Right to Public Transportation. In this example, government has dictated that some people make a means of transportation available to the general public. Not only is a transportation device something which has been created by Man, but neither Nature nor God has bestowed any "Right" upon any man to receive, for fee or free, anything from any other man. The only things which God or Nature have bestowed upon Man, are the things which come from God/Nature. A Right to anything from another person is something which Man must bestow upon Man.
While I (and many others) tend to believe that Civil Rights must be created, others (Socialists and Communists) believe that Civil Rights have always existed, but were simply hard to realize without a government to force people to recognize them. The greatest problem with including Civil Rights in Liberalism is that many Civil Rights must infringe, to some extent, on Natural Rights. Comparing the two previous statements to the definition of Liberalism, and we see that Civil Rights could be anti-liberal, and maybe even Totalitarian.
Liberal / Progressive
'Liberal' is the most frequently misused term in all of politics. From the dictionary definition, it specifically refers to a person who believes in Liberalism (i.e. Liberty and Natural Rights), or the state of following ideas set forth in liberalism. Under that definition, anyone who believes in the freedom or Rights of the individual is a liberal, including such persons as Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (who are also Conservative or right).
Colloquially, we have all heard this term frequently used to talk about those with strange political ideologies. Usually, the target of the term is a leftist who believes in the Communist system, which is not even a 'true' liberal. In this case, the term actually derives its meaning from the non-political definition of liberal, looseness; usually applied to how the person defines 'Natural Rights' (i.e. 'Right to X' really means... you have no 'Right to X'), or handles factual information (i.e. loose with the truth). Two, more descriptive terms for these so-called liberals would be "Fascist" or "Stalinist", as these are the closest political ideologies to what they represent. A new term, "progressive", is being used to describe these faux-liberals. It originates from the idea that they are 'progressively destroying your Rights', which coincides with the 'progression of their movement'.
Left Vs. Right OR "Liberal" Vs. Conservative
Left and Right (or Conservative) are ideologies about changing an existing political system. The term "liberal" is frequently used to refer to someone with left-leaning ideas, but that is the word's only link to a left or right mentality. The term "Right" is a synonym for "Conservative". Left and Right are all about how a person views the status quo, and the process of change. The terms originate from the French tradition of seating distinguished guests to the right of the host. Frequently, less distinguished persons would be invited to an aristocrat's dinner as a form of charity (or amusement), and seated on the left. As people on the right side were commonly more conservative in their political ideologies, conservative ideas were known as 'coming from the right', and being conservative meant being 'on the right'.
Left and Right are entirely defined by adherence to Conservatism, so a definition of Conservatism is required to understand them, along with some examples. Conservatism realizes that a society is a complex system of interactions between government, laws, and citizens. If any one of the three is altered, the complexity of the interactions makes it difficult to predict how the change will affect the society. A change to bring about a benefit (i.e. prohibition) could result in a detriment (i.e. powerfull mobs). Before any change is implemented, its outcome should be predicted as precisely as possible, and justified. In other words, Conservatives believe two things: Politics is a Science, and "Don't fix something that isn't broken".
Non-conservatives (leftists) fail to see this complexity and tend to react to "problems" as they are seen, whether-or-not the problem actually exists, or deserves the solution. Because of this, their ideas are often seen as radical, and are poorly accepted. Being on the Left is generally not a good place to be, as it usually indicates a lack of intellect and/or understanding. Keep in mind that an idea held by the Left is not necessarily bad. The Left simply aims to implement their ideas before considering whether they are of benefit or detriment, or how well they might be tollerated. Take public welfare as an example. There was really no study on how welfare might affect the inner-cities, but it was pushed by leftists simply because it sounded like a nice (and therefore beneficial) thing to do. The end result; so-so neighborhoods were transformed into abhorrent eyesores.
The most important parts about whether an idea is Left or Right are; the level to which its implementation has been studied, and the relative change to the current system. For example, free pubic health care is an idea of the Left in the USA, because it has been studied, and would be detrimental to implement, but the Left still insists on it. In Canada it is a Conservative idea, because it has already been implemented, and the society is accustomed to it. Prohibition was a concept of the religious left(!) in the USA, but in a muslim country, allowing alcohol is insanity. An example of a good idea from the left was environmental regulation. Initially, to apply such regulations would have broken the traditions of Laissez faire industry, as well as placed extra financial burdens on struggling companies. However, after hard scientific evidence about the environmental impact of pollution, and the viability of pollution standards was collected, the Right adopted the ideas and regulations were passed. Of course, true to the definition of "Left", leftists are still demanding levels of regulation which are impractical to implement, and scientifically unnecessary.
If you think the Left is unfairly portrayed in the above paragraphs, let me assure you, it isn't. The Left is NOT a well respected place to be. Remember; the ideas of the Left are usually radical and poorly accepted. This is why polititians are frequently embarrassed when they are identified as being on the Left. Have you ever seen a politician embarrassed about being a Conservative? No.
This is at the far "right?" end of liberal systems. In short, an anarchy follows the belief (in complete opposition to totalitarianism) that every individual inherently knows how to work cooperatively in a functional society, and will chose to do so of their own accord. To that end, any amount of government would only limit the Natural Rights of the individual, and is therefore undesirable, so Anarchy is the absence of government.
This is one of the philosophical "traps" in Liberalism and liberal systems. In practice, most people do have a good sense of right and wrong, and will try to work cooperatively to solve any problems that may arise between them. However, there are enough people that want things 'their way' that they would step on the Natural Rights of others to attain their own desires. If these people are numerous enough and stronger than those they step on, then the Rights of many people may be lost, and the overall liberty of the community reduced, all due to a lack of government to establish rules of conduct (i.e. laws). Due to a lack of government to implement them, there are no Civil Rights in an Anarchy.
Liberalism
Liberalism is a philosophy, but there are many socio-economic systems which can be used to attain it. Basically, I am using this range to indicate where an established government exists which has created laws to prevent (and/or punish) the infringement of a person's Natural Rights. Usually, the government, regardless of its form, has some sort of constitutional or chartered contraint. Also, the government may create some Civil Rights, if it is felt they do not infringe on Natural Rights, which further increases the liberty of the citizens. Truly liberal governments seek a point of "Optimum Liberty", where as few laws as possible exist to assure that as many Natural Rights as possible are preserved (with some Civil Rights possibly created). Currently, there are two political parties which desire liberal governments; Libertarian and Republican.
Socialism / Socialist
Basically a Communist system, but one which has realized the trap of Communism. This system still aims to become full-blown communism, but it can only effectively implement Civil Rights to which their is benefit, and public consent to implement. Depending on the individual citizen's definitions of 'benefit' and 'public consent', a Socialist government may be a tad "left" to far left of Optimum Liberty. The political party which best exemplifies belief in this system is the Democratic Party.
Communism / Communist
This is at the far "left?" end of liberal systems. A communist believes not only in Natural Rights, but Civil Rights as well. In fact, a communist believes so strongly in Civil Rights, that they believe Civil Rights have always existed, but lacked a government to force recognition of those "Rights" on the citizens. To me, it seems a lot like an 'omelet before the egg' philosophy, but there are many who believe it.
The most unfortunate aspect of Communism is that it is a philosophical "trap" in Liberalism. The more people there are who are unwilling to bestow a Civil Right, which has been created and bestowed by the government, then the more the overall liberty of the community is reduced. Even more disturbing, is that Communism can appear more like a Totalitarian idea than a Liberal idea. In practice, the closest anyone has ever gotten to implementing a large-scale Communist system has been under Totalitarian regimes.
Maximizing Liberty
Why have I used " 'trap' in Liberalism" in the previous definitions of Anarchy and Communism? In truth, the entire range of liberal systems has no point at which all Rights exist without infringement. There is only a point of 'Optimum Liberty', where Government power and the citizen's belief in the Rights of the individual have balanced to optimize the number of individual Rights. This point may actually be rather blurred, depending on the willingness of the populace to implement Civil Rights, but it usually lies somewhere near to where no Natural Right is wholly infringed, and the laws of the land very closely reflect seven of the Ten Commandments. I do want to make one thing very clear here. I am not using the Ten Commandments as anything more than an example. Seven of the Ten Commandments VERY closely reflect the core societal beliefs of a great many civilizations, both ancient and modern. They are perhaps the first written, universal laws. Remove the three references to worshiping God, and you might think they had been written by some great and just, ancient king.
The word 'trap' is used when referring to Anarchy and Communism because, while their philosophy may value liberty, their implementation usually involves nothing even remotely similar to liberty. In practice, an Anarchist or a Communist could hardly be called a Liberal.
In Anarchy, the trap comes about because there is no government to prevent individuals from impairing the Natural Rights of other citizens. In the end, while it is a VERY natural system, it can quickly degrade into multiple Tyrannies, and can only be restored with cooperative efforts to destroy those Tyrannies, which usually requires another government-ish body. So not only does Anarchy fail to protect Natural Rights, but it is short lived as well. The trap comes about because it seems, on paper, that Anarchy should guarantee Liberty, but in practice it falls on its face.
The "trap" of Communism can be a little harder to see, but recall that the creation of a Civil Right may impair a Natural Right. Take the Right to "Free" Health Care as an example. Why have I put "free" in quotes? Because, "free" is not really free, as in free-of-charge. In this case, "free" means "no charge immediately visible to the user of the Right". Let us investigate what happens when Peter uses his Right to "Free" Health Care. What really happens when Peter uses the Right, is that he is using everyone else to pay for it. If Paul, Dick, and Harry do not want to give money for Peter's health care, then Peter is effectively stealing from Paul, Dick, and Harry, thusly infringing on their Natural Rights. However, if Lisa, and Joe feel perfectly fine in paying for Peter's treatment, then there is no infringement of their Natural Rights. When the creation of Civil Rights is pushed as far as Communism demands, the end result is a wholesale erradication of Natural Rights, which violates the tenants of Liberalism.
"So let’s look at the tenants of liberalism. Specifically the moral relativism and nihilism that prevades liberal thought. Figure that since moral absolutes were kicked out of school - along with God, from 1960 (the age of modern liberalism begins) to 2005 violent crime rose 560%.
Liberalism’s greatest belief is in the murdering of the unborn for the ‘convenience’ of the Mother. Since 1973 over 55 million babies have perished in this genocide. Because of liberalism this country recently had the Supreme Court decide whether or not killing a baby by sucking it’s brains out half way through birth was “constitutional”. Talk about numbing of senses brought about by the tenants of a liberalism.
Rick Santorum brought the wrath of the Great Alcoholic Ted Kennedy when in 2002 he said, ‘’It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm” of the clergy sexual abuse scandal. He was right and they knew it."
Come visit Canada someday if you want to see a truly multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious group of people who have found a way to peacefully co-exist. Do these groups have their differences? Of course. Are they killing one another over them? Thankfully, not on a large scale, although isolated incidents do arise, as they will anywhere.
The only way I would ever go to you bastion of Liberalism is if God told me to. I prefer to sty in the of the land of the free and enjoy freedom speech.
Are there militant Muslims? Yes. Are there militant Christians? Yes. Should we condemn an entire religion based on the actions of a few?
Funny, I haven't seen any Christians flying passenger jets into sky scrapers, killing thousands of innocent people. When is the last time you saw a born-again Christians cutting off someone's head? That you would even compare Christianity to Islam demonstrates your total lack of discernment.
I'm not Muslim myself, but I respect the right of each person to believe and worship as they choose.
The free exercise of their religion is killing Chrtistians. Interesting that you support this.
And I don't go around condemning them and spouting hateful rhetoric.
Neither do I. In hopes of censoring free speech, Liberals always call the truth hatred. Anything they don't agree with is hate speech and they do everything they can to eliminate what they think is hate speech. A good Canadian example of this is that Canada doesn't allow their televising preachers to preach against homosexuality. They think homosexuality is an acceptable thing and freeing propel from this sin is hate speech.
I wonder if they still get the 40 virgins when they end up in hell.
A little humor for you.
When Osama bin Laden died, he was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"
Actually, I was referring to your attitude towards Muslims... I mean, they are obviously persecuting us and are definitely to be counted as our enemies....
You shouldn't refer to my attitude because you obviously have no understanding of my attitude. Glad to see you know who our Countries enemies are.
Actually, I am a conservative, for the record. And what I am truly saying, is that if I wasn't a Christian and I came in here and read your posts, I would be totally turned off and I would just leave. There is a reason that so many people believe that Christians are judgmental and condescending, and the things that you have been saying about/towards the Muslims are some of them.
I never would have guessed you to be a conservative. I think that you have little understanding how turned off I am by your posts. People always bad mouth Christians. So what. They do it be cause they first hate Jesus. Read your Bible. Speaking the truth always offends many.
I never said anything about being hateful, though it is quite true that you haven't yet said one thing that could even come close to representing Christ's love.
This is an absurd statement. The truth just offends you, so I guess you will have to just be offended.
It is possible to disagree with a religion, but still care about and have a heart for those who are deceived and follow it.
For some reason you seem to think I don't love people who are Muslims. You are wrong. I will say it again just for your ears, so listen up. I hate Islam which is the religion Muslims follow. Like most liberals you can't differentiate between hating sin and hating the sinner.
And Jesus wasn't being hateful when he rebuked the pharisees, that was a thing called "righteous anger."
No kidding. Gee, I would never have figured that out if you hadn't told me. I guess you think He was saying, I'm sorry to have to whip you with this throng of cords you poor misunderstood Pharisee and Sadducee" ; on the contrary, he called them a bunch of thieving, murdering vipers, which was the truth. You know, that pesky thing, the TRUTH!
Jesus would have called abortionists, ABORTIONISTS; liars LIARS, thieves, THIEVES, etc. ..He would also tell you to quit falsely accusing me of anything other than speaking the truth.
Do you really think that Christ was angry at how the children of Israel were behaving? Yes, He rebuked them, but like a parent rebukes a child - out of love, with a feeling of sorrow at the fact that the child has gone astray.
When is the last time you took a knotted plow line to your children back and called them a bunch of thieving, murdering vipers?
Is it possible for God to be hateful?
You assign hatred as my motive, but you are wrong. As I said, mind reading isn't a gift of the Spirit. Did you know that the devil is always assigning false motives to people action in hopes of manipulating them. You have falsely accused me.
Doesn't that contradict when the Word says that God is love? All that is done by God, is done out of love for His creation...
I'm sorry, but I haven't been properly feminized, nor will I ever be.
I was not reading your mind, I was making logical conclusions based on the compilation of everything that you have posted on this thread.
You certainly weren't reading my mind and you conclusions are presumptive, based on your preference as to how you believe and prefer people should interact with each other. Well, I don't agree with your social imperatives so you can will have to just take or leave what I say, but if you leave it, then please do so without making more false accusation on you way out the door.
Can you look back and see even one thing that shows even a pang of concern for the people who have been deceived into believing these lies?
Stating the truth is having concern for them and for their victims.
You have made no discernment between the religion, and those who have been deceived by it.
I have no requirement to make any such distinction. I was addressing specific aspects of this issue in response to another poster, and you took it upon yourself to hoist your false accusations on me. ...aren't you sweet.
...but just for you. A thief is a sinner who steels. Muslims practice a religion of hatred and murder. The thief needs Jesus. The Muslims need Jesus. God love the Muslim and God loves the thief. Now if I were talking to a Muslim, I would still tell them the truth, which is God loves them and they need Jesus as I would the thief.
What I was addressing was their action and the threat they pose to this Country and Israel. God said to love them not sleep with them.
Hate the religion, hate thier beliefs, but if you're going to express it so vehemently then make a strong distinction between the religion and those who are currently sentenced to hell due to the deception.
How about I will express myself they way I choose and you can do the same. ...just more of you underhanded false accusation.
Again, I was referencing everything that you have said on this thread... Also, I get out a lot more than you'd think, and I don't come into this argument with little knowledge about Islam. I have attended world religion classes, with an emphasis on Islam through a WoF outlet, as well as having spent numerous hours doing research on my own through credible sources (ie: published journals, etc.... Just because a respected pastor says something or an article online says it doesn't mean that I'm going to believe it - I'm going to go out and see what information I can find on the topic and come to my own conclusions). I don't just hear, see, or think something and accept it as truth.
Well, good for you. So what is this to me?
My apologies - I misunderstood/read your responses.
You have misunderstood me completely.
No, I do not think that we should pull out of Iraq, but I also don't believe that what our soldiers are doing over there are doing anything to get to the root of the problem. They can work on keeping the peace in the physical world, and that's their job.
This is nonsense. peace keeping in not a mission for a soldier. Soldiers should only be used to subjugate this county's enemies. Once subjugated, then we can extend the olive branch. Furhte, we sahouls use every weapon in our aresenal to get the job done without before shedding a single soldiers blood.
Our is to step up and show love to all of those hurting, deceived people. As Christians our responsibility is to get down on our knees and pray for God to move in the situation. Again, just because they are striking out at us physically, doesn't mean that that is where our battle lies. Let the world take care of the problems that have enbroached upon their territory, but why don't we focus on our part in this war?
So why should our soldiers be there at all. They are not missionaries, they are soldiers. All people who live in this coutry have an obligation to contribute to the defense of this country in prayer and in the nasty hear and now.
Further, Christians should serve in the military and feel real free to use lethal force on this country's enemies when instructed by proper authorities to do so.
I'm just going to give up on this front. That's fine if you want to say that they're worshipping the devil.
Oh you mean I have your permission to tell the truth, that Muslim worship the devil? ...how kind of you.
I mean, I know that they don't worship God, but for me to classify everyone that doesn't worship God as a devil-worshipper seems a bit harsh. If you want to view it that way, then whatever, I just don't care about this point anymore.
Please point out to me where I said that everyone that doesn't worship God is a devil-worshipper?
If you can't do that, then I expect you will be apologizing for falsely accusing me of being a bit harsh by accusing all who don't worship God of being a devil-worshippers.
Linear Mode
