Muslim congressman and The Bible

Yeah there is no one solution,...but generally I agree. I think some people here want to 'Blame America first,' as late Kirkpatrick famously said. I can't say I share your opinion on the religion itself. Christianity had it's own terrible times, but it's just a matter of modernization. A wee-bit harder with a documents expressing absolute righteousness.

Open up trade, flood in different media perspectives, and focus on education that specific to the trade (rather than religiously connected). Capitalism's odd feaures are mutally exclusive to moderation in perspective....if you can keep people economical semi-busy, and open different views to them, you can do quite a bit. I'm not quite sure the right or the left is idealogical connected enough with these simple principles....pure force or pure bendover status won't get the job done, imo.

This is why I'll never respect your political views.

 

I am an Amercian I believe in the sacred tenet of freedom of religion. I believe most muslims are certainly good folk, raising families, going to work, hoping one day to bounce their grandchildren on their knees. But they are good INSPITE of their faith not because of it. We Christians believe we are only good BECAUSE of our faith. And even then "our righteousness is as filthy rags."

What you apparently cannot get through your head is that we are not now at war with muslims, we are at war with the current predominance in the world arena of muslim fanatacism. They do not want equal rights, they want exceptional rights. It is they who wish to quash out other religions, not Christianity. And as the world stage demonstrates they will go to any lengths to do so.

They hate you. They want to kill you. They want your daughters to walk behind them with veils on their faces, and not be able to vote. They hate freedom in any manifestation. And you guys just don't get it, we are at one of the most dangerous chasms in the history of mankind. Bending over and holding your ankles is not going to stop it.

 

Ferret, that was uncalled for. All of the soldier's that die for there country should be respected with the up most respect, that is the only thing me and GTech's bandwagon will ever agree on. If they deverse anything it's respect.

 

The army is also for those who feel a responsibility to their country, and feel a need to keep the land where their family lives safe. The army is also for those wishing to aid in liberating the oppressed. The army might also be for those wishing to see diverse parts of the world, who cannot affourd multi-thousand dollar trips.

As for 'the dumb' I doubt very much that the Army would accept anyone mentally incapable to make important, informed snap decisions about their own actions in under a second in a life or death situation after they receive the training to do so. Some people who want to be soldiers -do- flunk out of the military.

 

if the army is so great why don't join up instead of being a cheerleader

you always says stuff like "what we are doing the middle east is important"

but of course not important enough for you to actually go be part of it, why don't head over there I'm sure they will give you lessons on flying helicopters.

Go be part of that important stuff that is going on over there, at least Gtech as much as he is crazy authortarian facist has the balls to actually serve, and encourge his children to serve.

Stop being pussy, rick and head over there and save those arabs!

 

yeah well the quote isn't in context, and either way someone was putting me down because I didn't enlist.

But either way whatever, go join if being a soldier is great, they need people. What are guys waiting for?

Enlistment age was raised to 42.

And what I said was true, at least in peace time, most soldiers at least all the ones I know, signed up for money, money for tuition or whatever. And yes regardless what you say there are some dumb soldiers, gtech was in in there wasn't he?

 

Did I say being a soldier is great for the soldier? No. I believe that being a soldier is a hard, dirty, and nearly thankless job where one gets berated for attempting to keep their homeland safe… but that it is one that needs to be done. Some do it for the money, I do not, and have not denied this, but some people enlist as a way of doing service for their nation. Either way, I am thankful that they are there protecting me.

What am I waiting for? I considered joining the military, however even a member of my family who –dreamed- of being able to fly fighters for the U.S. Air Force (sight restriction prevented it) as a step towards becoming an astronaut said that I am not one of those people who is cut out for military service. That does not make it any less honorable of a calling. I am better cut out to serve my nation as a craftsman and inventor rather than a warrior. That doesn’t mean that I do not sometimes dream of getting the training that soldiers receive. Learning, growing and training are three of my great passions.

And just because you and GTech disagree on things does not mean he is dumb. Rather, I find him to be someone that does a large amount of research. Even if I sometimes find him to be stubborn, or his logic to be flawed, or disagree with him on a subject, for that much at least I respect him. I also respect him for being one of those people that served our nation to keep it safe.

I also respect KLB for his research, and for his unwavering defense of the rights of others, even if I do not always like what people use those rights to do.

 

That's a good excuse for your sour opinion. Reminds me of a woman's response when she's wrong. Feign the guilt on the other person, and ignore their own shitty opinion/action. What a bitch....

Not that it's 'important', that it's practical. Vs the fantasy in your mind.

It a matter of now or later, and that's the opinion which has been held by almost every wise consesus.

Medically they wouldn't accept me. I won't get into the details of it, but that's almost the thorough perspective of me throughout the military. Actually very odd, since it's not anything severe. The commercial aviation industry is a bit more lax, and it's a lot more likely I'll be accepted by them.

I know this because my friend was denied many years ago (for something very similiar), and I was told by him that they wouldn't accept me--period. So while I semi-considered it at one-time, I've long given up any thought of it. Personal research and other stuff....has validated that opinion.

Damn you are a bitch...make this about me.

You'll just attack me with your rather uneducate view on my life. Because you don't know what I've done or know. I wouldn't share that shit with you, anyways. You're an idealogue, trapped in a ivory tower...making shitty comments like Kerry, but you don't have the common sense to know your mistake when you make them.

Most servicemen are full-time ie they aren't specifically aiming to pay for an education....they want to be in the military for the rest of their life. I find you more of a moron than any military officer or solider I've ever met....and I've met a lot of them. Most of them have honor, you have this little snide personality of a guy whom works behind a computer and can't ever compare yourself to real man.

It seem to me you wouldn't shoulder any responsiblity but your selfish ass. Atleast that's what I've been garnering from your dumbass opinions on women, children, etc.

 

This probably was not your intention, but it seems as though you are deriding those that work in technology fields, implying that to work behind a computer means you cannot be a real man. Or perhaps I just inferred this and am being overly defensive.

 

yeah well, I should have qualified what I said it as most of the people I have known who enlist, enlist for money etc

I do know some total jackasses who have enlisted, but my personally experiences should not be used for blanket statements on the whole military, but whatever.

So answer me this Rick, do some people enlist for tutition? Have they lowered the intelligence standards on enlistements? Have they increased enlistment bonuses?

If those 3 statements are true then essentially there are people fighting for the money, and there are some dumb people enlisted in the military.

Anyways another thread derailed by myself and gtech,

I am still waiting for gtech to come out with his "final" solution to the muslims?

 

Hell, a person can be a man and work as a janitor for all I care. Being an computer savy person is fine, I just don't like the idea of someone making comments behind it...as though they have some sort of superiority. The key word in that sentence was 'snide'....

Real men have personal codes of ethics, whether they're in a military or not. They don't spend their time offending or trying to destroy people whom they depend on. Any reasonable man knows the military is built on legal structure in which we choose. They aren't disposable (without reason), and are vital to the stability of our nation.

Please don't take it as offense, as obviously this is a forum full of computer savy individuals. If you are an individual whom holds a reasonable sense of the world, and isn't trying to destroy things which are good...more or less trying to protect them in your own small or big way...you're a man in my view.

Every read 'The Fountainhead'? If you have, there are several characters in there that resemble the good side and bad side of man, imo. But hey, that's just my moral ethic, and we all have our own.

 

Well, that would have been far more appropriate. The whole 'dumb' thing was really unnecessary, though.

As do I, but they're a very small portion of the people I know. I grew-up around those in the military. Not necessarily family, just people close to my family.

Obviously, yes.

I'm not familiar with these questions, so I can't answer. They may have, but that doesn't imply something directly. I've known many companies whom lower their intelligience standards, but it doesn't mean they're dumb.

One must ask 'why' first. It could be a matter of political correctness from the top or structure.

Here's the thing, chief. Head military officials have been begging to go another way. To have more full-time recruitments, rather than these semi-serious people in the reserves. Congress is a bit off in where to direct funds, imo.

From what I've heard there's a lot of political correctness being thrown into the gallow. They're trying to impose different standards of physical ability on women and men, as though combat will treat them differently.

The military isn't about equality, it about defensive and offensive ability. This is not solely up to the military officials. If it was, we'd still have a huge full-time army, with incredibly high standards. But I'm not remotely saying that the average soldier giving his/her all isn't respectable. They are.

----------------------------------------------
On a side note: How many dumb people work in your line of work? Does it require a genius to do what you do?

Does that mean since there are some, that I should say there are dumb people in your industry? Or perhaps I should just rely on common sense, and recognize that nearly no field is without it's 'morons'.

He's already answered you. He doesn't have the full answer, he just doesn't want people to ignore/apologize for it.

I generally understand what he's saying, but I don't agree with his assessment on the muslim faith. I just fundamentally view that the general faith requires modernization...like MOST modern christians vs their past fallacies.

 

There is no difference Islam allows for violence no more and no less than Christianity. The more I dig and the more I read on this subject in regards to the current threads, the more I see this to be true.

I invite people to do Google searches for "Christian Reconstructionists" and "Reformed Christian". It should scare the living hell out of any non-Christians. When I stumbled upon them the other day on my research of Islam, I was stunned beyond disbelief. We are talking the preaching of a belief system that makes the Spanish Inquisition seem tame.

They particularly like citing verses from Deuteronomy (the same book GTech tried to dismiss earlier), which is exceedingly violent. I only learned about Christian Reconstructionists in the past few days and I have only begun my research on them but they scare me way more than bin Laden and his kind. Among other things they promote the idea of stripping U.S. citizenship from non-Christians, changing the U.S. Constitution in regards to the First Amendment, and spreading of Christianity via the "sword". As I trace down avenues of research and find examples of their beliefs from their own words I will publish what I find.

Here is an example of their preaching, this is from the website of the Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church in Southfield Michigan (http://www.reformed.com/pub/polytheism.htm):

To argue that a nation can be a Christian nation while permitting the open worship and propagation of false religions is a repudiation of the first commandment. There is only one God-Jehovah. To permit the open worship of Baal, Marduk, Amon-Re, Krishna, etc. is to strike at the very root of God’s law order for society.
.....
Not only is political polytheism a rejection of the first commandment in the political and judicial life of a nation, but it also is an explicit denial of the moral-civil case laws set up to protect a God-honoring nation. In Deuteronomy 13:1-18, false prophets, seducers to idolatry, and cities given over to idolatry are all condemned to death.
.....
In a Christian nation people are not forced to go to church or to believe in Christ, but, the open practice of idolatry is forbidden. It is a capital offense (Dt. 17:2-7).​

So, all we are to execute any religious or political leader who does not believe in the right thing or anyone who tries to openly practice their non-Christian beliefs (does this remind you of anyone, like say maybe the picture posted by Ferret77?

Continuing from same writings:

When a person is told that theft, rape, homosexuality, adultery and murder are wrong he needs to be told why such activities are immoral. A society that says that a man, or a court, or a legislature has decided to outlaw certain activities for the greater good of the community without any recognition of God the creator and lawgiver has made man the god of that society. ​

If you are a homosexual if they had their way you wouldn't just have to worry about the afterlife, you have to worry about your present life (hmmm.... remind you of anyone?).

Continuing from same writings:

If pluralism is the norm for all nations except Israel then why did God judge heathen nations for idolatry? The severe judgments that God meted out on the heathen nations for idolatry presuppose that God expects every nation to obey the first commandment in civil, social and cultural affairs.
....
Civil authorities are to use their power for the welfare of the Church. This was the common, standard Protestant interpretation. Calvin wrote, “He compares ‘kings’ to hired men who bring up the children of others, and ‘queens’ to ‘nurses’, who give out their labor for hire. Why so? Because ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ shall supply everything that is necessary for nourishing the offspring of the Church.
.....
There are many prophetic passages which teach the establishment of Christianity among the nations. Psalm 72:11-12 says that “all kings shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him.” In Isaiah 56:6 we are told that the Gentiles will keep the Sabbath. Isaiah says that Gentiles will embrace the Gospel. “Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Isa. 60:3). Kings shall minister to the church (v. 10) and the wealth of the Gentiles will flow into it (v. 11). ​

Oh goody, let's force the citizens of our nation support the Church (their church) via taxes. It certainly makes collecting those tithes easier (are you atheists reading this?).

Continuing from same writings:

After all, wasn’t Israel a theocracy? Didn’t Israel have a special covenant relationship to Jehovah? Shouldn’t modern nations be religiously pluralistic? Isn’t the open practice of one’s religion a fundamental human right? Although it is true that Israel was a theocracy and had a special covenant relationship to God there is abundant scriptural evidence that the law system in Israel was to serve as a paradigm, a model for all nations. This was noted in our examination of Deuteronomy 4:5-8. If Israel’s law system served as a model for the heathen nations during the old covenant era, then it also serves as a model for nations today. Furthermore the great commission (Mt. 28:18-20) implies that whole nations will submit to Christ and become explicitly Christian nations. The goal of the great commission is that whole nations will be discipled, whole nations will make a covenant with Jesus Christ. This means that the behavior of the Old Testament kings does serve as an example of how Christian magistrates should or should not behave. What was most pleasing to God? Kings who permitted freedom to openly practice heathen religions—who permitted open religious pluralism—or, kings who suppressed the open practice of false religions? A brief examination of some of the kings in Israel and Judah will prove that God hates religious pluralism.
....
Under the godly leadership of the priest Jehoiada the wicked government of Athaliah was overthrown and replaced by Jehoash. “Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD, the king, and the people, that they should be the LORD’s people, and also between the king and the people. And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars” (2 Kgs. 11:17-18). Did God think that the actions of Jehoash and Jehoiada were unfair or harsh? On the contrary the Bible says, “Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the LORD all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him” (2 Kgs. 12:2).
....
One of the primary lessons from the book of Kings is that righteous civil magistrates uphold true religion by enforcing the penal sanctions against idolatry, witchcraft, sorcery, astrology, etc.; that is, all false religions which by nature enrage Jehovah and defy His law order. Contrary to Christian socialists and certain paleopresbyterians, one does not observe these Old Testament godly kings establishing public schools, hospitals, welfare programs, orphanages, and so on. In accordance with the law and Romans 13:1-6, the righteous kings wield the sword against the wicked and praise the righteous. They execute and banish those who openly practice false religions; they obliterate all idols and the remnants of idolatry; and they completely destroy all idolatrous temples.​

Forget about public schools, welfare programs, hospitals, etc. The job of government is to "wield the sword against the wicked" executing those who openly practice false religions.

Continuing from same writings:

That the Old Testament does not countenance political polytheism is easy to prove from Scripture. This fact, however, does not impress most Christians today for they simply dismiss these proofs as Old Testament teachings. They argue that the New Testament does not forbid political polytheism; in fact, they say the New Testament endorses political polytheism as the normal state of affairs until the second coming of Christ. Those old Puritans and Presbyterians were led astray by their postmillennial eschatology and their over dependence on the Old Testament. They also argue that in the New Covenant era the civil magistrate’s power is restricted to the second table of the law. With regard to these typical comments we ask the following questions. First, where in the New Testament are the responsibilities of civil magistrates annulled or altered? Second, where in the New Testament does God endorse political polytheism? Third, where in the New Testament does God restrict the civil magistrate’s power to the second table? Fourth, how can a person who claims to be Reformed dismiss the Old Testament teaching on the civil magistrate and demand a proof exclusively from the New Testament without becoming a dispensationalist? If Reformed persons are going to dismiss the Old Testament teaching on the civil magistrate simply because it is an Old Testament teaching, then how shall they defend infant baptism, Sabbath keeping, covenanting and covenant theology?​

This is one thing I've always wondered, how can one embrace the New Testament, the Ten Commandments and the convenient parts of the Old Testament while dismissing the rest of it? I've just never thought about this question in such diabolical ways.

Continuing from same writings:

All civil magistrates have a moral duty to submit to and publicly serve Jesus Christ. “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Ac. 17:30). Rulers must “bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Lk. 3:8).​

You can kiss the third paragraph of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution good bye if these folks had their way.

Continuing from same writings:

.... a covenantal nation would require church membership in a Trinitarian orthodox Christian church for all judges and office holders. ​

Forget about a representative government; Jews, Quakers, Mormons, Atheists, Secularists, etc. would be bared from holding public office.

Continuing from same writings:

..... This passage no more forbids the use of sword by a Christian magistrate to punish idolatry, than it forbids a stick to Christian parents to spank their disobedient children.​

Okay lets not only spread Christianity with the point of a sword, but child abuse for their own good is okay to.

Continuing from same writings:

If Christians accept religious pluralism and refuse to apply the word of God to all areas of life including judicial and civil affairs, then the state will continue to use its power to promote false religion. Public (i.e., state) schools promote evolution, fornication, abortion, homosexuality, new age mysticism, native American animism, feminism, socialism and so on. Christians are portrayed in schools, universities, modern music, television and movies as hate mongers, idiots, bigots, unscientific and anti-intellectual fools.
.....
If Christians refuse to be salt and light to culture (cf. Mt. 5:13-14) and reject the biblical teaching that the state has a responsibility to obey and enforce God’s law, then they will have a state that is a nursing father to sodomites, lesbians, atheists, pornographers, perverts and criminals of every sort. There is no neutrality!​

So much for freedom of speech and thought, science sites like mine would be banned. Native Americans would no longer be allowed to practice their traditional dances, etc. There would be no more freedom to debate anything that might question the church. Forget about the wide variety of thought on TV and at the movies.

If you think I quoted a lot from that manifesto or took anything out of context read it yourself, but be fore warned it is nearly 20,000 words long and could require a couple hours of reading. The only difference between what they are preaching and what is being enforced in Iran or by the Taliban is that instead of it being a fundamentalist Muslim society it would be a fundamentalist Christian society. Beyond that the end result is identical only the groups being persecuted would be different. Do you really think that this is some wacked out fringe group? No it's not. It is part of a larger Christian religious movement that is bent on establishing the U.S. as a Christian theocracy where openly expressing your non-trinity Christian beliefs is a capital offense.

This manifesto exposed more violent religious passages from the Bible that call for the spreading of religion by the sword and the killing of those spreading false religions than I could have ever hoped to dig up on my own. The manifesto is vile and painstakingly strings together biblical verse after biblical verse to call upon the destruction and persecution of non-believers and the suspension of our civil liberties. Does it promote the kind of country you really want to live in?

There is an enemy among us that is a threat to us, our country and the principles it was founded upon, but they do not come from distant shores and they do not speak a foreign language. They come from within our own country, speak our own language and look just like us and their holy scripture is not the Koran.

 

I'll add my voice to this sentiment. We owe our freedoms to those who have given their lives to defend them. We don't have to agree with our government's policies, but we do owe those who voluntarily risk their lives to defend our country a debt of gratitude and respect.

 

Wow!!! Absolutely hilarious. This is just getting goofy. Let' see now... Christ gave His life for all. Mohammed killed folks. Flat out killed them. Once he wiped out a town of 900 jews, men women and children. But he kept the prettiest girl there for his concubine. Very Christ-like, eh?

Honestly, KLB, I can't even read the rest of your bullshit.

 

Is that the best you can do? Why not refute the evidence I provided in the form of my quoting and commenting on the manifesto published at
http://www.reformed.com/pub/polytheism.htm by the Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Nope it's just easier for you to just throw out off the cuff remarks than to form a researched rebuttal. At least GTech has the fortitude to read, research extensively and then rebut. I'm actually very interested in hearing what GTech's comments are about that church's manifesto.

 

Maybe because some things don't even command the attention. When a little child has a fit, sometimes it is best to ignore them and when they learn it doesn't work they stop.

So why recognize every whackjob out there? There are small groups scattered everywhere using the Bible as the excuse to do wrong things by NOT believing the whole Bible, but picking and choosing parts that you like. Nazis pick out the part about Jews killing Jesus, yet they miss everything else that matters, while not realizing it was a very small group of jews that had anything to do with killing Him or that He allowed it.

We need to keep an eye on these wacko's but not tell the whole world about them, they love the publicity - look at the President of Iran!

Also, KLB, you may find that many here have done much research on islam and that is why you will find them to be so loud about the evil that is present within the religion. Maybe start reading the koran and tell me where the peace is (not pieces)

 

KLB, I've not read the bulk of your stuff on this topic (too much volume), but I'm sure if your arguements based on domination violence....that there is some of that idealogy floating around. Interpetation in religion is and will always be a problem.

But Jesus and Mohammed were extremely different (if we're to take the gospel as true). There's quite a bit of history on Mohammed, and to remotely compare him to the gospel Jesus,...well, that would be extremely hard.

One that said, 'be like a wise serpent, but as harmless as a dove,' while the other had quite a violent history. It's almost as the gospel and the koran are completely two different levels of religious perception. One could even say that about the gospels and old testment. It seems fairly different at first glance. But then again, maybe 'perception' and interpetation are bigger enemies than we think.

But overall, I must say that Jesus in the gospel is wildly different than the historical Mohammed;....and according to that text, I deeply respect Jesus in the gospel,...while historically I wonder what was going-on in Mohammed's head.

Now I'll say my koran knowledge is fairly limited, but take a look at Mohammed's history...then listen to the mp3's of Jesus in the Gospel.

http://www.thewords.com/translations/englishnarration.php
or read it
http://www.thewords.com/english/index.htm

One can't help to say either the gospel's a lie or the Koran is (or if your an athiest perhaps both). Frankly I'd much rather believe the gospel's truth, no matter the reality of Jesus....I just find it far more moral of a story. I just can't bear the thought of a 'god' whom almost appears to defend offensive violence. If there is a 'holy authority', I really do hope it's Jesus.

If none of them are true, I still find Jesus's view compelling, and hopeful. I could never live like Mohammed.

 

Wow, Rick, well written. And thank you debunked for saying so much better than I what needed to be said.

 

Thank you for the clarification Rick, it helped.

And no I have not read it. I have a book case almost stuffed with books yet to read. I move books out of it to other book cases when I'm done with them.