obama and the National Prayer Breakfast ramblings

[GACMAN]

I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

 

[BillyL]

Originally posted by GACMAN:

I might respect him more . .

. . . . . . . I stopped reading after this part.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by GACMAN:
I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

It's trying to show a parallel in the understanding of the involvement of religion in this. There are a few stubborn members of rival religions, in civilized western society, that just won't allow themselves to see beyond religion and realize humans act and react to other circumstances, and that the name of their religion is mostly irrelevant. All religions are a subjectively-interpreted construct, as well as the texts they use. Most people living here, if subjected to the same perpetual foreign invasions and involvement, would react harshly to their invaders and, if they were fervently religious, would gladly use the harsh, vengeful verses of their religion to bolster their resolve. But, the religion is not the culprit... the people and circumstances/roles of those participating are the culprits. Not to mention, it's good for business to keep people of different religions (and nations) suspicious of each other on a basic level. It could get messy for the owners if average citizens of different nations and religions realized that they're more alike than they are different.

The OP would only respect Obama if Obama began parroting the political propaganda he's bought into.

 

[GACMAN]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by GACMAN:
I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

It's trying to show a parallel in the understanding of the involvement of religion in this. There are a few stubborn members of rival religions, in civilized western society, that just won't allow themselves to see beyond religion and realize humans act and react to other circumstances, and that the name of their religion is mostly irrelevant. All religions are a subjectively-interpreted construct, as well as the texts they use. Most people living here, if subjected to the same perpetual foreign invasions and involvement, would react harshly to their invaders and, if they were fervently religious, would gladly use the harsh, vengeful verses of their religion to bolster their resolve. But, the religion is not the culprit... the people and circumstances/roles of those participating are the culprits. Not to mention, it's good for business to keep people of different religions (and nations) suspicious of each other on a basic level. It could get messy for the owners if average citizens of different nations and religions realized that they're more alike than they are different.

The OP would only respect Obama if Obama began parroting the political propaganda he's bought into.

same old drivel from strum...different thread!

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by GACMAN:
I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

It's trying to show a parallel in the understanding of the involvement of religion in this. There are a few stubborn members of rival religions, in civilized western society, that just won't allow themselves to see beyond religion and realize humans act and react to other circumstances, and that the name of their religion is mostly irrelevant. All religions are a subjectively-interpreted construct, as well as the texts they use. Most people living here, if subjected to the same perpetual foreign invasions and involvement, would react harshly to their invaders and, if they were fervently religious, would gladly use the harsh, vengeful verses of their religion to bolster their resolve. But, the religion is not the culprit... the people and circumstances/roles of those participating are the culprits. Not to mention, it's good for business to keep people of different religions (and nations) suspicious of each other on a basic level. It could get messy for the owners if average citizens of different nations and religions realized that they're more alike than they are different.

The OP would only respect Obama if Obama began parroting the political propaganda he's bought into.

I guess jihad isn't a tenet of Islam?

 

[DeanFor President]

No, of course not. It's all hugs and teddy bears.

 

[DeanFor President]

Interesting quote by Obama at the prayer breakfast:

"We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Note the "our" religion when referring to Islam.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by GACMAN:
I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

It's trying to show a parallel in the understanding of the involvement of religion in this. There are a few stubborn members of rival religions, in civilized western society, that just won't allow themselves to see beyond religion and realize humans act and react to other circumstances, and that the name of their religion is mostly irrelevant. All religions are a subjectively-interpreted construct, as well as the texts they use. Most people living here, if subjected to the same perpetual foreign invasions and involvement, would react harshly to their invaders and, if they were fervently religious, would gladly use the harsh, vengeful verses of their religion to bolster their resolve. But, the religion is not the culprit... the people and circumstances/roles of those participating are the culprits. Not to mention, it's good for business to keep people of different religions (and nations) suspicious of each other on a basic level. It could get messy for the owners if average citizens of different nations and religions realized that they're more alike than they are different.

The OP would only respect Obama if Obama began parroting the political propaganda he's bought into.

I guess jihad isn't a tenet of Islam?

Is "An Eye for an Eye" a tenet of Christianity? I guess it depends on the Christian and the circumstances under which it comes into question. I've seen many, many Christians fervently endorse "An Eye for an Eye." It just depends on the situation. How is "jihad" translated to English? How is it understood by every individual Muslim? My guess is differently for each and every one... just like "An Eye for an Eye" is different for each and every Catholic or Protestant. I'm not sure if all Jes take that literally or not, but I highly doubt it. Holy Texts can be tricky. The original Greek Texts of the Ne Testament make no reference or remote reference to homosexuality, but modern English translations seem to be more specific. However, homosexuality and divorce are more widely accepted in society and the church now than they were 100 years ago in spite of the translations of the text.

This boils-down to the natural resource that is abundant in that part of the world. The west was never any concern of Islamic people- extremist or not- in that part of the world until the west decided it needed to start overthrowing governments and democratically-elected leaders in favor of heads-of-state who would give them a better deal for the oil. Americans fail to realize the ramifications of Operation Ajax. Overthrowing a democratically-elected Mossadeqh in Iran in 1953, and reinstalling the Shah, has had immeasurable consequences. That was just one of many interventions that have helped fan the flames of these peoples' hatred. Keep focusing on just their religion and I guarantee it will get worse and worse.

 

[DeanFor President]

Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

How can this possibly be offensive to anyone? You would have to be an idiot. Hands, please?


As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

 

[prlyles]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

 

[DeanFor President]

He won't agree to anything that will force his eyes open.

He rants about the Muslims' animosity toward the west as having originated from our mid 20th century foreign policy.
What was their animosity caused by when they tried to overrun Europe prior to the Crusades, or did that not happen?
What was their animosity caused in 1800 when they were taking American ships, and killing and enslaving American crews? Was that really about oil, and US foreign policy in 1960?
In 1800, ransom and tribute payments to the Barbary states totaled 20% of the US federal governments budget But that probably never happened either, right?
We sent diplomats there to demand they stop taking slaves and killing Americans, and the Pasha LAUGHED at them- saying their behavior wasn't something they DID, it was WHO THEY WERE, like birds singing, and lions being predators.
They finally agreed to a treaty, and broke it before the ink was dry. You see, Muslims are forbidden from entering into treaties with infidels. Or better stated, forbidden from HONORING those treaties- they can enter into them, but they have no intention to honor them from the outset.
But that nice muslim in his neighborhood seems so reasonable, so this must all be made up.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

Acting-out violently and killing people? Sure. I could put that common thread with a whole ocean of groups throughout history- big and small. I still don't buy that Islam is some automatic blueprint for murder.

If you want to believe that since these Muslims are dangerous, then all Muslims are potential threats, fine. Go ahead and implement a Final Solution-type structure like the Nazis put on the Jewish religion. If you think these few Muslims are bent on annihilating all other religions, then I guess all of the religions better step-up the pace and start killing each other faster than their competitors. I see this as isolated groups who are motivated by many different factors. I believe that they use their religious beliefs to base their resolve, but I don't think that Muslims are genetically violent, or violent by hereditary, or are a threat to civilized society because of their religion. If people would try to better understand why some of these Muslims are so unhinged that they will murder for kicks it might help reduce the incidences. To simply chalk-it-up to "Well, that's what Muslims do" is naive and just flat-out wrong. I realize it's profitable to perpetuate that lie, but it's still a lie.

 

[DeanFor President]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
How can this possibly be offensive to anyone? You would have to be an idiot. Hands, please?


As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

If you can't see how that is offensive, I cannot help you, and doubt anyone can.
History is not the issue, NOW is the issue.

For him to invoke the Crusades is offensive, and highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

 

[prlyles]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

Acting-out violently and killing people? Sure. I could put that common thread with a whole ocean of groups throughout history- big and small. I still don't buy that Islam is some automatic blueprint for murder.

If you want to believe that since these Muslims are dangerous, then all Muslims are potential threats, fine. Go ahead and implement a Final Solution-type structure like the Nazis put on the Jewish religion. If you think these few Muslims are bent on annihilating all other religions, then I guess all of the religions better step-up the pace and start killing each other faster than their competitors. I see this as isolated groups who are motivated by many different factors. I believe that they use their religious beliefs to base their resolve, but I don't think that Muslims are genetically violent, or violent by hereditary, or are a threat to civilized society because of their religion. If people would try to better understand why some of these Muslims are so unhinged that they will murder for kicks it might help reduce the incidences. To simply chalk-it-up to "Well, that's what Muslims do" is naive and just flat-out wrong. I realize it's profitable to perpetuate that lie, but it's still a lie.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

Acting-out violently and killing people? Sure. I could put that common thread with a whole ocean of groups throughout history- big and small. I still don't buy that Islam is some automatic blueprint for murder.

If you want to believe that since these Muslims are dangerous, then all Muslims are potential threats, fine. Go ahead and implement a Final Solution-type structure like the Nazis put on the Jewish religion. If you think these few Muslims are bent on annihilating all other religions, then I guess all of the religions better step-up the pace and start killing each other faster than their competitors. I see this as isolated groups who are motivated by many different factors. I believe that they use their religious beliefs to base their resolve, but I don't think that Muslims are genetically violent, or violent by hereditary, or are a threat to civilized society because of their religion. If people would try to better understand why some of these Muslims are so unhinged that they will murder for kicks it might help reduce the incidences. To simply chalk-it-up to "Well, that's what Muslims do" is naive and just flat-out wrong. I realize it's profitable to perpetuate that lie, but it's still a lie.

You didn't answer my question.

yes, i did

 

[prlyles]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

Acting-out violently and killing people? Sure. I could put that common thread with a whole ocean of groups throughout history- big and small. I still don't buy that Islam is some automatic blueprint for murder.

If you want to believe that since these Muslims are dangerous, then all Muslims are potential threats, fine. Go ahead and implement a Final Solution-type structure like the Nazis put on the Jewish religion. If you think these few Muslims are bent on annihilating all other religions, then I guess all of the religions better step-up the pace and start killing each other faster than their competitors. I see this as isolated groups who are motivated by many different factors. I believe that they use their religious beliefs to base their resolve, but I don't think that Muslims are genetically violent, or violent by hereditary, or are a threat to civilized society because of their religion. If people would try to better understand why some of these Muslims are so unhinged that they will murder for kicks it might help reduce the incidences. To simply chalk-it-up to "Well, that's what Muslims do" is naive and just flat-out wrong. I realize it's profitable to perpetuate that lie, but it's still a lie.

You didn't answer my question.

yes, i did

No you didn't. Example: "Yes they are similar" or "No they are not alike"

 

[Heels in Space]

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
For him to invoke the Crusades is offensive, and highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

What about Puritans in Massachussetts who tortured, maimed, and yes, burned alive not only non-believers but other Christians whose interpretations of the gospel differed from their own? Was Christianity to blame for that? Or were they just fundamentalist extremists?

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by DeanFor President:

For him to invoke the Crusades is ... highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

That was precisely his point. Maybe I'm not understanding yours.

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by GACMAN:
I might respect him more if he would simply come out and say that he is muslim and that he hates Christians....this game he is playing is beyond old! I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

This guy obama is a joke....

It's trying to show a parallel in the understanding of the involvement of religion in this. There are a few stubborn members of rival religions, in civilized western society, that just won't allow themselves to see beyond religion and realize humans act and react to other circumstances, and that the name of their religion is mostly irrelevant. All religions are a subjectively-interpreted construct, as well as the texts they use. Most people living here, if subjected to the same perpetual foreign invasions and involvement, would react harshly to their invaders and, if they were fervently religious, would gladly use the harsh, vengeful verses of their religion to bolster their resolve. But, the religion is not the culprit... the people and circumstances/roles of those participating are the culprits. Not to mention, it's good for business to keep people of different religions (and nations) suspicious of each other on a basic level. It could get messy for the owners if average citizens of different nations and religions realized that they're more alike than they are different.

The OP would only respect Obama if Obama began parroting the political propaganda he's bought into.

I guess jihad isn't a tenet of Islam?

Is "An Eye for an Eye" a tenet of Christianity? I guess it depends on the Christian and the circumstances under which it comes into question. I've seen many, many Christians fervently endorse "An Eye for an Eye." It just depends on the situation. How is "jihad" translated to English? How is it understood by every individual Muslim? My guess is differently for each and every one... just like "An Eye for an Eye" is different for each and every Catholic or Protestant. I'm not sure if all Jes take that literally or not, but I highly doubt it. Holy Texts can be tricky. The original Greek Texts of the Ne Testament make no reference or remote reference to homosexuality, but modern English translations seem to be more specific. However, homosexuality and divorce are more widely accepted in society and the church now than they were 100 years ago in spite of the translations of the text.

This boils-down to the natural resource that is abundant in that part of the world. The west was never any concern of Islamic people- extremist or not- in that part of the world until the west decided it needed to start overthrowing governments and democratically-elected leaders in favor of heads-of-state who would give them a better deal for the oil. Americans fail to realize the ramifications of Operation Ajax. Overthrowing a democratically-elected Mossadeqh in Iran in 1953, and reinstalling the Shah, has had immeasurable consequences. That was just one of many interventions that have helped fan the flames of these peoples' hatred. Keep focusing on just their religion and I guarantee it will get worse and worse.

1)- No. "An Eye for an Eye" is not a tenet of Christianity. Christians are bound by a new covenant, the New Testament.

2)- Jihad isn't open for interpretation. The Koran and Hadiths are specific on this. Jihad is martial in nature.

3)- Mossadegh wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed and later disbanded the parliament that appointed him. He was an ally of the USSR, we supported a natural uprising against him and installed the Shah.

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
For him to invoke the Crusades is offensive, and highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

What about Puritans in Massachussetts who tortured, maimed, and yes, burned alive not only non-believers but other Christians whose interpretations of the gospel differed from their own? Was Christianity to blame for that? Or were they just fundamentalist extremists?

Since the Puritans were Christians, where in the New Testament did the Puritans get their basis for their actions?

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by prlyles:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
Educate yourself about the Barbary pirates. It was two hundred years ago. They almost overran Europe a thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with oil. But you know that.
Continuing to ignore reality just makes you uninformed.

You hate Muslims and your right-wing propagandists feed it... I get it. Forgive me if I don't sh*t myself over the Barbary Pirates incident. You keep denying it's not over oil and ownership and control and ignore the reality that makes you uninformed.

The actions of ISIS and the Barbary pirates are similar. You will agree on that, right?

Acting-out violently and killing people? Sure. I could put that common thread with a whole ocean of groups throughout history- big and small. I still don't buy that Islam is some automatic blueprint for murder.

If you want to believe that since these Muslims are dangerous, then all Muslims are potential threats, fine. Go ahead and implement a Final Solution-type structure like the Nazis put on the Jewish religion. If you think these few Muslims are bent on annihilating all other religions, then I guess all of the religions better step-up the pace and start killing each other faster than their competitors. I see this as isolated groups who are motivated by many different factors. I believe that they use their religious beliefs to base their resolve, but I don't think that Muslims are genetically violent, or violent by hereditary, or are a threat to civilized society because of their religion. If people would try to better understand why some of these Muslims are so unhinged that they will murder for kicks it might help reduce the incidences. To simply chalk-it-up to "Well, that's what Muslims do" is naive and just flat-out wrong. I realize it's profitable to perpetuate that lie, but it's still a lie.

Why would some Muslims call for a reform of Islam? Islam is a religion of peace.

 

[GACMAN]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
How can this possibly be offensive to anyone? You would have to be an idiot. Hands, please?


As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

Again…...I'm sorry for what Christians did hundreds of years ago during the Crusades! I am sorry for what Christians did during the 1800's to slaves although I am Thankful for the sacrifice of 1000's of Christians during that same time as they gave their lives fighting to free slaves! I had NOTHING to do with any of that back then...nor did anyone living today.....why is that used as an excuse today to explain away what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam? And why use the National Prayer breakfast to point all of this out?

Why can you NOT admit that this guy is a muslim apologist?

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- No. "An Eye for an Eye" is not a tenet of Christianity. Christians are bound by a new covenant, the New Testament.

2)- Jihad isn't open for interpretation. The Koran and Hadiths are specific on this. Jihad is martial in nature.

3)- Mossadegh wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed and later disbanded the parliament that appointed him. He was an ally of the USSR, we supported a natural uprising against him and installed the Shah.

1) I know many, MANY Christians that fervently subscribe to "An Eye For An Eye." They pick and choose what they abide by in the Old and New Testaments. It's subjective.

2) It's absolutely open for interpretation, just like every other holy text from every religion. That's why all people of each religion act differently.

3) WRONG He was elected after his appointment. I'm reading it was an overthrow, a coup d' 'etat. And, it doesn't really matter because the USA/CIA were involved and it was over oil... period. If our country were invaded or some other country's secret op overthrew our government and installed a puppet, for our natural resource, some people here (generations later and after enduring oppressive life) might resist and might do it with heinous acts of violence. Empathy- put yourself in their place.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
For him to invoke the Crusades is offensive, and highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

What about Puritans in Massachussetts who tortured, maimed, and yes, burned alive not only non-believers but other Christians whose interpretations of the gospel differed from their own? Was Christianity to blame for that? Or were they just fundamentalist extremists?

Since the Puritans were Christians, where in the New Testament did the Puritans get their basis for their actions?

I guess you'll need to ask them. You'll have to yell really loud.

 

[eec212020]

1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:
For him to invoke the Crusades is offensive, and highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

What about Puritans in Massachussetts who tortured, maimed, and yes, burned alive not only non-believers but other Christians whose interpretations of the gospel differed from their own? Was Christianity to blame for that? Or were they just fundamentalist extremists?

Since the Puritans were Christians, where in the New Testament did the Puritans get their basis for their actions?

I guess you'll need to ask them. You'll have to yell really loud.

Why should I ask? I already know they had ZERO basis for their actions. Political correctness is only going to get people killed.

You seem to have a difficult time understanding the difference between somebody behaving a certain way versus a book telling you to behave a certain way.

 

[DeanFor President]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Originally posted by DeanFor President:

For him to invoke the Crusades is ... highly ironic, since the Crusades were a defensive reaction to hundreds of years of Muslim atrocities and conquest.

That was precisely his point. Maybe I'm not understanding yours.

No, it wasn't his point. He was using the crusades as examples of Christian violence, when if the Muslims hadn't been intent on conquering the world, as they are now, there would have been no violence from the Christians. There would have been no crusades but for Muslim agression.

And historically, many people have killed in the names of their various gods, but we aren't talking about history, we are talking about the twenty first century.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:
I already know they had ZERO basis for their actions.

And, yet, they did it anyway. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that different people interpret things (especially things they read that were written hundreds or thousands of years before them) differently? I know too many Christians that pull-in the Old testament any time they feel the need to justify killing another human being. I will concede that Jesus seemed to be all for forgiveness and peaceful existence, but not all PEOPLE are all for it- even people who claim to be a follower of Jesus.


Christians act out violently, too...

All other Christians are not accountable for the wacky things some of them are doing either.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

1) And, yet, people pick and choose ALL THE TIME! Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

2) I don't keep up with what Muhammad "settled." Even if I did, it might not be in alignment with what you think he settled. You feel fairly certain? Who made you the authority? You feeling certain answers the question for YOU! Believe it or not, some people interpret ancient holy texts in an allegorical sense. Some take them literally. Some do a little of both. Some people ignore them entirely and make up their own. The Holy Bible for Catholics is very different for Protestants (see the Apocrypha).

3) If Wikipedia is wrong, then correct them. History is also subjective. Change places with your alleged adversaries and you might see things differently. Or, be stubborn and continue being afraid of a religion.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Bet Old Darrel will not be invited back..................................







Former NASCAR driver and noted hall-of-famer Darrell Waltrip was
just feet away from President Barack Obama when he delivered a pointed
message to an audience that included the Dalai Lama: "If you don't know
Jesus Christ as your lord and savior … you are going to hell."

Waltrip was the keynote speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast on
Thursday, where he talked about how his Christian conversion transformed
his life, recalling that he previously lived a life in which he
primarily sought personal satisfaction.

"I did everything to satisfy me," he said.

When his wife, Stevie, tried to get him to go to church, he responded, "I just don't have time for this church stuff."


President
Barack Obama laughs alongside US Senator Bob Casey (C), Democrat of
Pennsylvania, as former NASCAR driver Darrell Waltrip (R) tells a story
during the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, February 5,
2015. AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB

Then he was in a severe crash during a race and everything changed.

"I realized that wreck knocked me conscience," Waltrip said. "It
scared the hell out of me. I mean that literally. I realized, what if I
had lost my life that day at Daytona? Would I have go to heaven or would
I have gone to hell? I thought I was a good guy, but folks, let me tell
you something: good guys go to hell."

He continued, "If you don't know Jesus Christ as your lord and
savior, if you don't have a relationship, if he's not the master of your
life, if you've never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you
of your sins, or if you are just a pretty good guy or a pretty good
gal, you're going to go to hell."

Waltrip also made a less than subtle reference to Ben Carson, a brain
surgeon and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who gave a
controversial keynote address at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

Jokingly, Waltrip said he wondered why he would be asked to be the keynote speaker.

"I thought about it Mr. President, and I got it: I'm not a brain
surgeon and I'm not running for office, so I'm the perfect guy to be
here," he said to laughter. "I hope that's OK. My wife told me I
shouldn't say that, but she's sitting down there shaking her head now."

Speaking right after Waltrip, Obama pointed out that the Dalai Lama was in attendance.

"There aren't many occasions that bring his Holiness under the same
roof as NASCAR," Obama said to laughter. "This may be the first. But God
works in mysterious ways."

 

[Baby Debo]

How are Christians not bound to the Old Testament teachings???


Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17 that "I came to fulfill the teachings of the Old Testament, not to destroy the law or the prophets." Paul teaches in Romans 7:6, that we have been released from having to follow the letter of the law, and that we serve in newness of Spirit.

Christians are not bound by the circumcision, punishments written in the Old Testament, but we are still held accountable to the verses in our study and actions.

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:


I already know they had ZERO basis for their actions.

And, yet, they did it anyway. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that different people interpret things (especially things they read that were written hundreds or thousands of years before them) differently? I know too many Christians that pull-in the Old testament any time they feel the need to justify killing another human being. I will concede that Jesus seemed to be all for forgiveness and peaceful existence, but not all PEOPLE are all for it- even people who claim to be a follower of Jesus.


Christians act out violently, too...

All other Christians are not accountable for the wacky things some of them are doing either.

Because a Christian can't base any violence they commit on the New Testament. A Muslim can commit acts of violence based on the Koran or Hadiths. When it's in print, it's kind of hard to deny it.

Also, why would Islam need a reform movement if Islam is a peaceful religion?

I do agree with your position that the US needs to quit meddling in other countries affairs.
This post was edited on 2/7 4:39 PM by eec212020

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

1) And, yet, people pick and choose ALL THE TIME! Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

2) I don't keep up with what Muhammad "settled." Even if I did, it might not be in alignment with what you think he settled. You feel fairly certain? Who made you the authority? You feeling certain answers the question for YOU! Believe it or not, some people interpret ancient holy texts in an allegorical sense. Some take them literally. Some do a little of both. Some people ignore them entirely and make up their own. The Holy Bible for Catholics is very different for Protestants (see the Apocrypha).

3) If Wikipedia is wrong, then correct them. History is also subjective. Change places with your alleged adversaries and you might see things differently. Or, be stubborn and continue being afraid of a religion.

I think you said you followed Ron Paul. If so, check out Mike Scheuer. He created the bin Laden unit within the CIA and the rendition program. He wrote a biography on bin Laden. Read his part on jihad. Jihad is a settled issue for Muslims. Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

 

[eec212020]

Because

Jesus stated in Hebrews 8:13 that "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Christians aren't bound by the old covenant but the new covenant. So "turn the cheek" takes precedent over an "eye for an eye".

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

1) And, yet, people pick and choose ALL THE TIME! Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

2) I don't keep up with what Muhammad "settled." Even if I did, it might not be in alignment with what you think he settled. You feel fairly certain? Who made you the authority? You feeling certain answers the question for YOU! Believe it or not, some people interpret ancient holy texts in an allegorical sense. Some take them literally. Some do a little of both. Some people ignore them entirely and make up their own. The Holy Bible for Catholics is very different for Protestants (see the Apocrypha).

3) If Wikipedia is wrong, then correct them. History is also subjective. Change places with your alleged adversaries and you might see things differently. Or, be stubborn and continue being afraid of a religion.

I think you said you followed Ron Paul. If so, check out Mike Scheuer. He created the bin Laden unit within the CIA and the rendition program. He wrote a biography on bin Laden. Read his part on jihad. Jihad is a settled issue for Muslims. Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

Yep, and Scheuer made it very clear that it is the West's involvement over there that is their motivation for their actions of terror and resistance. Not all Muslims are the same. Not all Muslims are as committed to what you claim. Same with any religion.

 

[eec212020]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

1) And, yet, people pick and choose ALL THE TIME! Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

2) I don't keep up with what Muhammad "settled." Even if I did, it might not be in alignment with what you think he settled. You feel fairly certain? Who made you the authority? You feeling certain answers the question for YOU! Believe it or not, some people interpret ancient holy texts in an allegorical sense. Some take them literally. Some do a little of both. Some people ignore them entirely and make up their own. The Holy Bible for Catholics is very different for Protestants (see the Apocrypha).

3) If Wikipedia is wrong, then correct them. History is also subjective. Change places with your alleged adversaries and you might see things differently. Or, be stubborn and continue being afraid of a religion.

I think you said you followed Ron Paul. If so, check out Mike Scheuer. He created the bin Laden unit within the CIA and the rendition program. He wrote a biography on bin Laden. Read his part on jihad. Jihad is a settled issue for Muslims. Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

Yep, and Scheuer made it very clear that it is the West's involvement over there that is their motivation for their actions of terror and resistance. Not all Muslims are the same. Not all Muslims are as committed to what you claim. Same with any religion.

And what has he stated about Islam and jihad? What has he said about bin Laden being considered a good Muslim? I never stated all Muslims are the same.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by eec212020:
1)- Its not subjective. You can't pick and choose. A Christian isn't bound to the Old Testament. See Hebrews 8:8-13. The Koran and Hadiths are completely different than the New Testament.

2)- So Muhammad, the founder of Islam, hasn't settled this? I'm fairly certain he claims God gave him his word. Not debating why people choose to act differently within each faith, just saying jihad is a tenet of Islam. If you choose to remain clueless on this subject, feel free to delude yourself.

3)- Wickipedia??? Iranians feel differently on this issue. But I guess the people who live in the country wouldn't know as much about this issue as somebody living in another country. He wasn't elected, he seized power, disbanded the parliament, a natural uprising began, and the US installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has talked about this.

1) And, yet, people pick and choose ALL THE TIME! Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

2) I don't keep up with what Muhammad "settled." Even if I did, it might not be in alignment with what you think he settled. You feel fairly certain? Who made you the authority? You feeling certain answers the question for YOU! Believe it or not, some people interpret ancient holy texts in an allegorical sense. Some take them literally. Some do a little of both. Some people ignore them entirely and make up their own. The Holy Bible for Catholics is very different for Protestants (see the Apocrypha).

3) If Wikipedia is wrong, then correct them. History is also subjective. Change places with your alleged adversaries and you might see things differently. Or, be stubborn and continue being afraid of a religion.

I think you said you followed Ron Paul. If so, check out Mike Scheuer. He created the bin Laden unit within the CIA and the rendition program. He wrote a biography on bin Laden. Read his part on jihad. Jihad is a settled issue for Muslims. Sorry if you refuse to accept that.

Yep, and Scheuer made it very clear that it is the West's involvement over there that is their motivation for their actions of terror and resistance. Not all Muslims are the same. Not all Muslims are as committed to what you claim. Same with any religion.

And what has he stated about Islam and jihad? What has he said about bin Laden being considered a good Muslim? I never stated all Muslims are the same.

At least we agree on the foreign intervention policy. It is obvious that these particular Muslims have a literal conviction, but I don't think we, as a nation, should try to alleviate it by sending troops or having very much direct involvement at all. I madee a comparison of the USA's civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's being a domestic problem that we, as a nation and society, had to solve. We didn't need the "help" of foreign nations.

 

[Louigi]

This thread, liberals, and President Obama always throw out false moral equivalency comparisons to help justify the actions or inaction's they take or advocate.

Most here have veered off the road of Truth into examining those false moral equivalency straw man arguments and gotten into religious comparison that are, quite frankly, irrelevant.

To bring it back to here and now: Obama and liberals are refusing to confront terrorism (religious or otherwise) in a way that a lot of us predict will result in a larger conflict or terrorist activity in the future. Just like Clinton treated terrorism as a small police action and we ended up with 9/11. They are out Churchilling Churchill.