Posted on 05/24/2004 7:26:37 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Useful questions, he said, might include: Do you condone or condemn those who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn the likes of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name as terrorist groups? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Do you accept that institutions that fund terrorism should be shut down?
bump
The key here is "in the past" and it is a long ago past and it is not part of Christian Belief. It is nowhere in the Gospels and the OT "genocide" was limited to specified groups in a specified location. With Islam the genocide is in the Koran. It is universal for non-Mohammedans and it is in practice now as it was in the 7th-17th centuries.
Of course it can. Haven't you heard it's Ameicans with traditional values that are the Enemy. Not even this evil will break the mindset of the Fascist/socialist/commie/evil dums and their fellow trevelers.
I have great difficulty with it, too.
In fact, I have given up the struggle against experienc-based bigotry.
In my book, there are two types of good Muslims: LAPSED, or dead.
I can no longer force myself to believe that any devout Muslim is "moderate"... or even CAN be.
a minor point of correction:
a radical is one who strives to go to/embody the roots (latin: radix = root).
from a strict etymological standpoint, islamicists are the true radicals.
from a worldly standpoint, practicing and devout Muslims seem to all be radicals.
from a lgical standpoint, this would seem to indicate that all practicing and devout Muslims are islamicists, and thus terrorists-in-waiting.
Enemies. In an openly declared war. Which has lasted for 1400 years.
The logic of this sequence is unimpeachable.
What does logic dictate one should do with such enemies?
As for the rest:
Yes, true: People who identify themselves as Muslim, but who are in truth moderate, are indeed apostates and heretics - not true Muslims. Such people do exist, though they are damned difficult to winnow from the chaff of their radical bretheren who simply play nice and live in stealth until moved to strike.
You are correct, in the distant past. However, in the present, most evangelicals are still hoping to convert the jews from their "lost " way, and save them! Their basic support for Israel is hinged on the fact that it will bring Jesus back, and will enable them to convert all the Jews to Christianity.
save for later
This clearly shows Allah is a false God. God would not wish the annihilation of his chosen people the Jews. Islam is a religion of hate, death and destruction, moderate or otherwise.
Red
The similarity in the thought process is apparent, isn’t it. The author could use this quote interchangibly.
One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.
Joseph Goebbels
The Jew, Der Angriff, 1/21/29
Yes, it's both apparent and chilling. That quote is amazing.
Probably the fastest growing segment of the Muslim population in America...convicted criminals...and their spouses, significant others, offspring, etc.
Here's the important difference; Christians seek to convert using irritating kids on bikes, while Muslims seek to convert using a knife to the throat.
"Live and let live" is a western, liberal (classic) concept. It is foreign to Islam, and was only raised to a status of core principle on the world stage with the advent of America.
In a strict sense, you are correct. Nevertheless, you haven't demonstrated why that's a problem. (Granted, the Jews might not appreciate it, but their lack of appreciation doesn't change the equation.) Either the Evangelicals are correct, or they are not; either way their support of the Jews cannot be withdrawn without repudiating their theology.
You misunderstood.There are missionaries and the rest tend to feel a little inadequate because they aren't missionaries themselves,i.e. they do not go to the foreign missions,etc. That is to compare it with the Moslem moderates, the ones who do not participate in jihad. Missionary work is the higher calling for evangelicals. Jihad is the higher calling for Moslems. The comparison is to demonstrate why it is that the moderate moslems do not condemn the jihadists.
It would seem a very fitting analogy.
I wonder, would you have any information on what evidence the moslems use to predicate their assertion that Judaism and Christianity have "strayed" from the path? It would seem to me in order to make such a claim valid, they would have to produce documentation showing a period or doctrine where both religions were more islam-like at some point prior to the seventh century and the rise of islam.
Screw 'em all.
First of all, it's the "Book of Revelation" not Revelations(s).
We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
Secondly, In Revelation, there is no anti - Church or anti - Gospel. The Pope should catch up on his reading.
The rest is such nonsense, (Bush or Clinton for that matter is the anti christ) , it's not worthy of a response.
Years ago, when I first heard of Muslim conversion taking place in prisons, I thought it was a great idea. Boy, did I dial the wrong number.
The biggest problem we have is trying to find a way to keep ourselves secure without sounding like racists :-(
If you even care, you've lost already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.