Muslims execute 13 teens
- Thread starter heelmanwilm
- Start date
Good post.
And you can add that it's been happening for 1400 years, not just since the late forties.
Only the old testament (which is irrelevant to evangelicals in terms of law ) condones violence for enemies. We (thats christians) live under a new covenant which commands us to love our enemies. So no, my bible does not condone violence to my enemies.
And fwiw the us govt is not acting on behalf of christians. Its acting on behalf of the us best interests financially and security wise.
And fwiw the us govt is not acting on behalf of christians. Its acting on behalf of the us best interests financially and security wise.
That's right! They sure are. So, how do we, as individuals and as nations, act in order to stem what could become a direct threat to us here in America or other peaceful societies? Do we act as a nation, or do we act as though we are all global citizens? Do we avoid them or do we endorse imposing a peaceful, more secular, ideology on people who clearly do NOT want that imposed upon them? I can appreciate autonomy, but these people are choosing to act in very dangerous and violent ways. I've never condoned their violence, but I want to differentiate the real culprits as much as possible.
You're exactly right! I am so glad you made that distinction. Because, when a military presence is felt over there (people die and people feel threatened by an occupying force), then that is where the retribution can harm us over here out of harm's way. And, it's not the "best interests if the US" either. It's the best interests of the handful that own this world. Like it or not, there are people who have no national allegiance, but manipulate many nations to get what they want. "Security" is also not high on the list. They're secure no matter what. It's DEFINITELY financial and power-related.
So you know that the MAJORITY of these people don't want to live in a more peaceful, more secular ideology or is it just a violent minority?
A very violent and vocal minority in Alabama didn't want to integrate and killed people for suggesting as much. Should we have let Alabama remain segregated?
That's a good point. I don't know what majority do or don't. Neither do you. I know they have a natural resource that is very appealing to those in power. I do know that much!
The people being oppressed in Alabama were a totally different situation. The violent whites also claimed to be Christians! It was also a more of a provincial situation. We spoke their language. We had a much more direct influence over their entire culture. It affected the rest of us here, in this country, much more directly.
Should we have let Russia invade and occupy America and let them handle Alabama and Mississippi, and Louisiana, and North Carolina? Or China, maybe? Did we handle it ourselves without them?
This is what the entire conversation revolves around. But somehow, Strum continues to ignore this one small fact.
You do realize the Kuwaitis asked us to come help in 1991, right? And that Lebanon has no oil, nor does Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, etc. And that the Iraqis want us there now. And so did many Afghans.
But a good point- we handled Alabama ourselves. Why don't they do as much? Why can't they fight these terrorists?
Oh, and oil is important to everyone, not just people in power. But let's say for instance that cold fusion is developed tomorrow and the need for oil is entirely eliminated. Do you think we would stop supporting the adversaries of terrorism to the same degree which we do now?
Ask them, not me. Maybe they would take care of it. For all I know, our meddling and occupation is only making it worse. I've heard the testimonies of a great many citizens over there who will attest to that. Some will disagree. I think it's a good possibility that is the case! It's not getting better! And, as far as "adversaries of terrorism", I think those lines get drawn much differently when the need for being there is less resource and more altruistic. I maintain that our responsibilities should be more concentrated on our home, not theirs. I use the standard I proposed about our domestic situations being better handled by us.
And, as far as these countries "wanting us" there in the past? No, I don't fully believe that they all wanted us there. I think those in power, who stood to lose or gain control and power might have been keen on the muscle the USA Military can provide. But, was it in the best interest of all the average people, some of whom might take it personal and join a terror organization? No, I don't know that. When big governments and people in power start investing manpower, and resource and hardware, I do not believe the motivation is to save the world. Sorry.
Sorry, just got back from a funeral, another soilder has gone home.
Here is how Jesus said to handle our enemies of Christ Followers.............................................
Matthew 5:43-44
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
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;
This is a TUFF ONE for all Christ Followers!
SHOW ME in the New Testament where it says we are to put our enemies to death. SHOW ME where Christ said that is what we are to do.
I'm not claiming Jesus said that at all. I have insisted the opposite. That is what I follow myself. That is one of the glorious aspects of Jesus Christ in my view! But, there are passages in "The Bible" that endorse it. You can cite that it's just the Old Testament, and I agree, but it's not always cut-and-dry where Christians draw the line between old and new. It's not always cut-and-dry the way any person draws the line or interprets Scripture. And, especially when you're interpreting the Scriptures and holy texts of religions you don't subscribe. I already addressed this in a previous response to you.
Dear lord...
Terrorists are bad. We cannot allow bad people to do bad things even when it's not directly in our face. If we allow it, it's almost endorsing it. And when the time comes that we need some help from someone, they may just let us go at it alone. Also, when terrorists commit atrocities, they gain momentum and confidence to spread their hate and violence across the world. That's exactly how this radical Islamic philosophy has become as prevalent as it has. Radical islamic thinking had success on 9/11. They grew afterwards. And even though we weakened Al-qaeda, radicalized Islam continues to grow. It will only stop growing when he drive a stake through the heart of it. How that's done is a mystery. But I at least know it has to be done instead of staying out of their way and trying to understand them.
So what I am gathering from your many posts on the subject is that no one knows anyone else's motivations and therefore we shouldn't ever help anyone if someone else is hurt by this gesture.
Also- don't ever trust anyone in power.
Am I right this time?
I think this goes back to Strum's point about culture and environment. Western Christians routinely engaged in the very same behaviors before their cultures developed. 17th-century puritans in Massachussetts regularly maimed, tortured, and killed not only non-believers but other Christians who didn't adhere to official doctrine as interpreted by the state. The English Civil War was fought between Catholic and Protestant factions. As the West developed, though, these practices gave way to greater tolerance of religious differences.
I think Strum was suggesting that violent radical behavior in the Middle-East would similarly dissipate if those countries began to enjoy the same economic, educational, and cultural advantages that we have in the West.
Strum could be right. But in the absence of that possibility, what are we to do? Sit back and wait for that to happen and allow radical Islam to run amok?
Fine... go blow the place up. You sound like a right-wing pundit. Are you getting paid at least?
You've gathered wrong, but i think you're doing it on purpose. Go help whomever you like. Be sure you know exactly who "we" are when the help is supplied and to whom the help is going. Of course, that's practically impossible to know unless you're in charge, and you're not.
Trust whomever you like.
I'm done with you in this thread.
No, I'm not doing anything I purpose. I have absolutely no idea what your point is, other than everyone who follows Islam is not a radical. I agree with that.
The issue is what to do about the radicals. I have yet been able to figure out your solution, although I am certain that you think the present course of action regarding military aid is unacceptable.
Educational and cultural advantages? That's just hilarious! Don't you realize that one of the main thrusts of radical Islam is NO EDUCATION FOR WOMEN. That's why Malala was shot, that's why Boko Haram is kidnapping girls and selling them as sex slaves, that's why the schoolkids were massacred in Pakistan. They have the opportunities- That's part of what the extremists are upset about! They don't want the culture to advance, that's why they don't want education for women. That's why they practice genital mutilation- to keep women as chattel. They don't want to advance the culture, they want to impose their 7th century barbarism on the rest of the world. That's what this is all about. Islam means submission.
I laid-out in great detail, in this and other threads, what I would suggest. You don't want to do that. You want to vote for politicians who will fix it for you. That's a mistake to me. I have found maybe a handful that weren't bought-off completely. Invading and occupying their homeland is not going to bring them around. And, it's declining our own liberties here at home. A police state everywhere before long. But, by all means, go for it.
Politely... I'm done.
Not at all. I think the point is just that a lack of development and education is a contributing factor to religious extremism. So instead of solely blaming the religion and extrapolating the nehavior of radicals to all Muslims, we should vigorously defend ourselves from extremists while trying to foster and encourage economic and educational development in the Middle East. That's the long-term solution.
I think that's actually pretty close to current US policy, but it seems to be at odds with the thinking of a lot of people on here.
You really DO think you have to have the last word don't you?
What's the name for that......................................................................in my house it's "wife".
What's the name for that......................................................................in my house it's "wife".
This is exactly my point. Extremism thrives in desperate, oppressed, and ignorant environments. That's why radicals want to deny education and progress to people. It keeps them in power. Most people in the Middle East, though, do want progress, economic security, and freedom. Regardless of what the Quran says, if those things are achieved, then support for and participation in extremism will erode, just like it did for Christians when their cultures progressed.
You lay out a great deal in a great number of words, to be certain, but I am still not sure of your proposals.
You have repeatedly said what does not work. That's easy. It would be nice to know what would work.
As far as wanting to vote for politicians who will fix things, your assumption is incorrect.
And as far as invading with the goal for forcibly bringing them around, I agree, that won't work. I just think they need a level playing field so they can chose their own course, which does not exist with radical terrorists running amok.
Don't kid everyone either- we all know you have at least 5 more pages in you.
How is it imperialist? I'm not talking about expanding US power or influence in the Middle East. I'm talking about providing support for internal factions that seek to increase education and economic development. The Arab Spring shows that there are significant numbers of people in the region with these interests.
And wasn't the Taliban created as an outgrowth of the Soviet invasion? I admit my Afghan history is a bit rusty.
This post was edited on 1/22 5:37 PM by Heels in Space
Assuming that what people in the west need is exactly the same as what people in the Islamic world need. The Arab Spring shows nothing. It would be the same as saying most African-Americans believe and vote like Herman Cain. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Muslims want to live under Islamic law. Muslims want Islam.
The Taliban were created because the US imposed western, secular laws on the Afghans after the Soviets left. The US created a vacuum. The Taliban filled it.
And the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world do not engage in violent extremist behavior. This goes back to my analogy with Christianity. Christian societies used to deny rights to women, subjugate and enslave minorities, and maim and kill non-believers, but they don't anymore (for the most part), even though they're still Christian.
Islam, like Christianity, is subject to interpretation unless you're a fundamentalist. My point is simply that as education and economic opportunity in the Middle East improves, more and more Muslims will adopt a form of Islam (and government) that rejects fundamentalism and extremism.
Most Muslims don't commit acts of violence and live completely peaceful lives. Most Muslims also live in countries where their clerics are prevented from teaching what is religiously required of them. Unless you think the Saudis, Egyptians, or etc will allow them to teach that Muslims have a responsibility to overthrow corrupt and un-Islamic governments?
Islam isn't subject to interpretation. You either obey or not. al Qaeda is a Salifi Islamic group. Meaning they follow the example of Muhammad and his companions.
You can't be a member of most Islamic groups without being highly educated. All of al Qaedas members are college educated. In the west, people believe education equals moderation. In the Islamic world, education could mean Islamist.
I have to disagree. That's the same thinking that said that if we gave the Native Americans some Anglo clothing, combed their hair, and taught them English that they would become civilized and realize what a swell bunch we were and want to be just like us. They were instead miserable. They didn't want to wear our clothes or go to our schools- they wanted to be natives and continue to live their lives the way THEY chose.
