This reminds me of when I questioned my late mother on whether she could turn to God to help her get through her bout with cancer. She told me, "I just can't, especially not now". This, to me, represents backwards thinking. Instead of reaching out to God for comfort and strength, non-believers blame God for their troubles. The last time I saw her alive, I held her hands and prayed, and when I was done, she looked at me and said, "there, do you feel better now?". Being a former atheist, I understand the mindset, and I also know that it would take a miracle for some atheists to turn to God. Perhaps out of this tragedy, as more people turn to the church because they don't know where else to go, we can find comfort as more find their way back from sorrow.

No one can be truly "Godless", since He is always there, waiting for us, whether one acknowleges or believes it.

One could argue one group that does "charitable work" for the rescue effort -- the United Way -- has strongly supported the killing of American babies for many decades.

The United Way ahs been a staunch support of that baby killing organization known as Planned Parenthood (or One Thousand Ways to kill to Your Unborn Baby).

Maybe Americans should ask the God not to come down too hard on American for being responsible for killing 50 million innocent American babies and trying to shove abortion down the throat of other countries of the world. God would have every reason to come in "Judgement" for the killing of innocent babies. Thos who have ears had better listen.

Let's see if we can divide and conquer -- ie, make distinctions that difuse the controversy. Does anyone doubt that the terrorists _perceived_ themselves as doing God's work, or that they were completely _sincere_ in that belief? I take it that, although they were misguided, they did _think_ they were doing what God wanted and they took their faith _very_ seriously. Next question: Does anyone in the US think they were right? I take it, the answer to that question is "HECK NO!!". So when you divide the issue like that, it's hard to see how there could be any disagreement. Moreover, it helps clarify an important point: One can believe in God and believe that one is doing God's will, and be as sincere as sincere can be, and still be wrong -- wildly wrong to the point that one is in fact quite evil.

God had NOTHING to do with the WTC/Pentagon attacks. He greives with us.

He has given each of us a FREE WILL. The terrorists made a free will decision to attack.

However, God is a master at making good from bad and we will see positives coming from our Nations response to the attack.

Those who choose to be "Godless" have made a poor choice.

Bump.

What a load of tripe.

I take major issue with this part of your comment above CL.I take it that, although they were misguided, they did _think_ they were doing what God wanted and they took their faith _very_ seriously.

The following is a post from Hugh Akston that makes very good sense and really shoots a major hole in the theory that OBL and his followers are so deep rooted in their religion and love of Allah that this is what drives them to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people...read it please..

Hughs Post Begins here:

that have a philosophy based on a medieval religion

I think this part is a little bit off, personally.

Their philosophy is Marxism with and via Allah. It is a perversion of both Islam and of Marxism, even though Marxism is itself a perversion of all that is good and right.

If you go to Marxists.org, you can see that if one expands Marxism beyond just the words of Marx, but also to other revolutionaries of the ilk such as Engles and Lenin, that religion was not considered the enemy:

Engels pointed out in his preface to The Civil War in France that "in relation to the state, religion is a purely private affair". Commenting on this, Lenin wrote in 1905: "The state must not concern itself with religion; religious societies must not be bound to the state. Everyone must be free to profess whatever religion he likes, or to profess no religion, i.e., to be an atheist, as every Socialist usually is."

Marx basically wrote hostility towards religion by the state into his theories mostly for practical reasons; the churches generally opposed them and as such were enemies. But if the state is the church, this problem goes away.

Even among the atheistic Marxists, there is recognition that religion is going to be needed to serve an important role in the (inevitable, in their eyes) revolution:

Similarly, among Moslems, the ideas of Marxism have begun to gain an echo, as the oppressed masses of the Middle East, Iran, Indonesia, begin to take action to improve their lives and look for a programme of struggle to overthrow their oppressors.

What is required is the overthrow of capitalism, landordism and imperialism. Without that, no way forward is possible. The only programme that can ensure the victory of this struggle is that of revolutionary Marxism. A fruitful collaboration between Marxists and Christians (and Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and followers of other religions) in the struggle to transform society is absolutely possible and necessary, despite the philosophical differences that separate us.

Both of the above excerpts were from this bit of writing over there

I encourage you to go and read again (or for the first time) some of the interviews that have been done with Bin Laden. Compare it to the recommended rhetoric for Marxists to use (look around on the Marxists.org webpage- they have articles about it) to help bring about the revolution.

They have taken a medieval religion, mutated it, and grafted it on to Marxism. This is what their philosophy is based on, and they have allies everywhere there are Marxists

Hugh..I hope you don't mind my hijacking of your post to point something out to CL here.

That's interesting. Can you link me to Hugh's post? I'd be interested and would read it carefully.

I'm not going to link because I'm in IE right now which runs like a tank on my puter.

Hit self search and you will see I "pinged" you to the thread.

No, I don't think the terrorists were "sincere" in their belief that they were doing God's will. Sincerity requires a person to have his heart in the right place. A sincere person would pray to God with pure intent, with his whole soul turned to God. He would ask God for God's will and direction; he would not substitute his own will for God's.

I believe the terrorists made a pact with the Devil.

I think you're conflating being sincere with being correct. People can have sincere but mistaken beliefs about any number of topics.

I'm frankly amazed the point is even contentious, and can only wonder if people think something interesting follows from the fact that someone has a sincere belief. It's as if they want to leave room to argue "I sincerely believe X, and I'm _very_ sincere in that belief, therefore X is true", but that can't be it. No one thinks that.

Just what part of the Koran, or words of Ali, made these heathen frequent tiddy bars and partake from Jack Daniels?</font face="comic sans ms"></font size=2>

Who knows God? One needs to know themselves first, then one would wish to know where one comes from... Then comes the true search for God.... or whatever you wish to name 'that

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do"
Problem is, wheather we acknowlege it or not.... 'we are all spiritual beings trying to have a human experience' and this existance is alien to our inner essence.... God....

God is omnipotent, there is no space without 'that'....it could not exist.

AND as we know, if given the choice even a dog would not lie in a dirty place.... so what makes one think that God could abide in a place that is so filled with hate and detest. Uncover your true self.... Clean the thick coal from the diamond soul....

I remember someone once saying to me: "I learned how to fight so I don't have to fight" I said "We can love so we don't have to fight" He was dumbfounded!

All is perishable.... even science has proven everthing comes down to pure energy. This means everything is an illusion, everything! So many times we have heard that the human body is the temple of the lord. So many times we have desicrated the bodily temples. A justification is but a justification and nothing more. Even a temple perishes, only the lord is permanant. That energy that lies in the very fabrc of all stuff.

Good must exist with the bad... it's called balance. Too extreme either way ends in destruction.To negate one is to boost the other....

"In God we trust"
Trust already, and pray to understand and have the stamina to carry on....
Carry on....

What part of the Bible made Jimmy Swaggart masturbate in motel rooms while prostitutes stripped and talked dirty to him?

I think you're conflating being sincere with being correct. People can have sincere but mistaken beliefs about any number of topics.

FR was down for me most of the day yesterday, so I hadn't a chance to reply until now. Sorry for the delay.

You are right that sincerity does not mean correct. That, however, is not what I meant. Sincerity refers to a person's intentions, which must be good in order to be sincere. Indeed, the Latin word for sincere, sincerus, means clean and pure.

The intention of the terrorists could not be considered clean and pure. Their intent was to do an evil act, to murder. Even under the pretense of "religion," this could not be considered "sincere."

I don't know latin. A few phrases stick -- like "a fortiori", but there never seemed to be a big payoff. Computer languages were "cleaner" -- well, not the ones you've heard about, but there are clean and elegant languages out there -- and there weren't any girls I could talk Latin with in the backseat of my parents car. So, I'll just have to trust you on the latin. But in English, the contrast is between sincere belief and a mere pretense of belief.

I did learn a little Italian once -- but there was a compelling inducement ;-)