Obama Endorses Mosque Project Near Ground Zero Site

[Dragoon68]

All I'm attempting to do is see if you understand that, whether we're Muslim, Christian, Mormorn, or Buddhist, we tend to be basically the same (added for clarity: Not in religions, but in human nature). It was an eye-opener for me to find out that the large number of Muslims in the countries I've visited don't actually hang out cursing the U.S. How many conversations I've had with the "Muslim on the street corner" who thanked us Americans for helping them get out from under oppression. Who are truly supportive of the American support, and are willing to sit and discuss differences in religion.

Not what you see on television, that's for sure.

You don't need to worry about my understanding of human nature! We're all born with the same sinful nature.

I'm sure you agree that Christianity and Islam have completely different natures. Christianity is based on the truth and Islam on lies. Therefore, Christians are following the truth while Muslims are following the lies. Read the book of Muslim lies and you'll see that it advocates violence against Christians. That doesn't mean every Muslim you meet is ready to carry it out today. It does mean that if they follow their leaders and become devout followers of Islam they are likely to either do so or, at the very least, look the other way.

I've spent a lot of time in other countries in both war and peace. I've found that people are often kind towards their most recent saviors or occupiers and you get a lot of smiles. We have a bad habit of becoming enamored by smiles and handshakes. I've found that the same people will change sides in a heartbeat. That's a lesson learned from experience.

And all those fit exactly into the generalization that you've painted?

I can't say exactly where the Muslims fit individually but, regardless, I don't trust them in general because of their professed beliefs as documented in the Koran. The others are just as much non-believers but they don't present the same threat of violence.

But there's a distinction there that you're not drawing. Unlike our country, theirs ties their politics and their religion together so tightly, they can't be separated. Many of them may disagree with something like stoning adulterers, and think it should be stopped (just as we don't); however, it hasn't been overturned in their laws.

Until they rise up to change their laws - religious or civil government - I must assume that both by their religion and their civil government they will act accordingly. That seems prudent to me!

Further, when you consider the literacy rate of places like Afghanistan, the additional problem you have is that the large percentages of the populations only know what their imams and spiritual leaders tell them that the Koran says. The fact that you've read it makes you decades--centuries?--ahead of them.

That seems like even more reason to believe they will act according to the directives of their leaders and are easily incited to do so.

We are conversing in print only; I simply wanted to make sure you weren't under the impression that simply because people have friends who are Muslims, doesn't mean that they're avoiding telling those Muslim friends about the Gospel.

I think that's what we're obligated to do and should want to do for those we befriend. I think it's difficult to do because you want to get through but not loose the opportunity by anger. I think it takes time, example, opportunity, and will happen only if the Lord moves on the persons heart.

Consider what is unwise? That there are peaceful elements of Islam? I'll agree with you that there appears to be a minority; but again, I'll point out that a lot of them, due to not being able to read the Koran themselves, are simply going by what their religious authorities tell them.

Sort of like the Catholics a few hundred years ago, ya know?

Because Islam is based on lies there can be no net good in it. Back to human nature: Of course, even the most evil people demonstrate some degree of concern, compassion, love, etc. in the human sense of the meanings. The Bible teaches us that. But their hearts are still evil. Islam is evil and so a follower of Islam is going to act accordingly. How that's manifested depends on lots of factors.

Nope. To come to that sort of conclusion is a stretch at best. The only implication I might be trying to draw is that your words are exactly the same as Muslims in other parts of the world, when they describe Christianity (and Baptists in particular), because all they see on television is the stories about the Westboro congregation.

The Bible defines Christianity - not the television or Westboro Baptist Church - and it also defines the false beliefs giving many examples of them. The Koran confirms the beliefs of Islam for what they are. What either side thinks in general doesn't change the truth. I can see that television can, and is, used to inflame people - in fact, I think that happens in America on a lot of issues.

In other words, if you were a Muslim with only a television to tell him about Baptists, your last paragraph would read like:

A Muslim will only learn the truth by reading the Bible - the same way you or I had to do it. In fact, we probably don't read it enough even as believers. What they see on television isn't going to change their hearts.

Islam is what it is and its followers believe the lies it teaches and follow the commands it gives. It's a dangerous threat to our world.

(Please don't edit my words when you quote them least someone else think I wrote it that way when I did not!)

Now, here's my point: Understand how the other side thinks. They *don't* think "let's kill every Christian we see"; they think, "there go professors of a false religion." Once you get it into your head how the "enemy" thinks, that his thinking is not really that much different than yours, then you can anticipate his arguments and his questions, and you can develop strategies that show him what the real truth of the matter is.

I've spent many years learning about a culture very different than my native culture - a follow on to war time experiences - so I can appreciate the concept of learning "how the other side thinks". If you're speaking about human nature then I think "it's not much different" with regard to daily needs and interactions. I remember concluding a long time ago in the middle of a war that "all the farmer wanted to do was get his crops planted and harvested" and that he "didn't care much which government was in control so long as it left him alone" and hence the reason for the smiles. It's been confirmed to me many times since. But, when you move beyond that to matters of the heart - in the Biblical sense of "heart" - then I think there are very fundamental differences. Christians - followers of Christ - are given a new heart and a consciousness of right and wrong as God defines it. Non-believers - all of us prior to salvation - don't have that. Aside for moral limitations of their culture they don't even know they're in sin. Those that live under religions like Islam are therefore governed by the dictates of that religion - not by the same thing that we are - and will, given the situation, act accordingly. Don't be fooled by the smiles.

"Every means available"? You care to elaborate on that a little more? Because here's your comment coming from an Islam point of view:

Sure, I can elaborate: I said starting with prayer. That prayer should be that we do whatever we do according to His will - the right thing the right way at the right time. I think we should seek to evangelize all non-believers by spreading the Gospel to them so they have an opportunity to "hear" the word of God. I think we should demonstrate Christianity in all that we say and do - walk the talk and show humility knowing that all we do is through Him. I think we should work to keep our nation a strong example of the results of God's blessing that was given to us at the time of our revolution. I think we should fight the rapid corruption of common morality in our society - the family, the workplace, the government, and the church. I think we should resist the growth of Islam in our nation under the guise of encouraging "diversity" and "religious liberty" - and rather should discourage it by making it clear we don't want it even if it is legally permissible.

(Again, please don't edit my words when you quote them least someone else think I wrote it that way when I did not!)

Tell me again how you're different than the Muslims?

It's not me verses them. It's God verses all false gods.

 

[Dragoon68]

Now, back to the point of this thread: I've said it before, I'll say it again. Putting a mosque in that particular location is not being inclusive and/or generating any type of understanding between peoples. And the fact that they refuse to meet with the governor to talk about other proposed locations is a strong indicator that they're more worried about location than about creating bridges of understanding.

Sure, back to the main point - not that the others aren't also important - of this thread: The President of the U.S.A. should not be using his office to encourage the construction of mosque anywhere and most especially not at the site of the terrorist attack that's been so widely supported by Muslims around the world. Further, the President should be aware of the close ties that the Islam movement in America has to terrorist organizations as has been revealed in a series of incidents since the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack and the underlying threat this poses to our nation's security.

 

[Dragoon68]

You pressed the flesh "Cool" so many of these windbags have not unfortunately :thumbs:

Earth, Wind & Fire! Cool!

 

[Don]

I'm sure you agree that Christianity and Islam have completely different natures. Christianity is based on the truth and Islam on lies. Therefore, Christians are following the truth while Muslims are following the lies. Read the book of Muslim lies and you'll see that it advocates violence against Christians. That doesn't mean every Muslim you meet is ready to carry it out today. It does mean that if they follow their leaders and become devout followers of Islam they are likely to either do so or, at the very least, look the other way.

You're missing the point. Take everything you say, and put it from the viewpoint of a Muslim. Trade their words for yours, and guess what -- you sound the same.

I can't say exactly where the Muslims fit individually but, regardless, I don't trust them in general because of their professed beliefs as documented in the Koran. The others are just as much non-believers but they don't present the same threat of violence.

So, based on that logic, there's no point in evangelizing any of them. If I follow that logic to its conclusion, there's no point in evangelizing Catholics or Mormons, either.

Until they rise up to change their laws - religious or civil government - I must assume that both by their religion and their civil government they will act accordingly. That seems prudent to me!

Do you protest abortion? Even though it's legal in our country? In other words, do you act accordingly to all our nation's laws?

But in one broad stroke, you expect all 1 billion Muslims to follow, without question, all of their laws?

You are aware that their are sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity? And that they don't all profess the same exact beliefs?

The Bible defines Christianity - not the television or Westboro Baptist Church - and it also defines the false beliefs giving many examples of them. The Koran confirms the beliefs of Islam for what they are. What either side thinks in general doesn't change the truth. I can see that television can, and is, used to inflame people - in fact, I think that happens in America on a lot of issues.

Yes, the Bible defines Christianity -- but if you don't have access to a Bible, or you're like most other people (somewhat lazy and willing to rely on what you see/hear for your information), then the only information you have about Christianity is what you've seen/heard, isn't it?

A Muslim will only learn the truth by reading the Bible - the same way you or I had to do it. In fact, we probably don't read it enough even as believers. What they see on television isn't going to change their hearts.

Okay, go back to the statement about illiteracy rates. How do you expect them to read the Bible?

(Please don't edit my words when you quote them least someone else think I wrote it that way when I did not!)

I made it quite clear that I was changing your words. I posted your original quote, then the altered. Anyone who thinks the words that I announced I was editing were yours, well, stupidity is not something I can do anything about.

Instead, I challenge you to refute what I said: That your words are exactly the same as a Muslim's, with certain words changed.

It's not me verses them. It's God verses all false gods.

Don't run away from the question: You sounded exactly like a Muslim if you only change one or two key words. So if you sound exactly like your enemy, exactly how are you different from your enemy?

Because you have the truth? But that's exactly what he believes about himself, too. So how are you going to prove to him that you have the truth? By talking about "using any means necessary"?

How about we just preach the Gospel, and stop using rhetoric about how much more evil one set of people is than another?

 

[Dragoon68]

You're missing the point. Take everything you say, and put it from the viewpoint of a Muslim. Trade their words for yours, and guess what -- you sound the same.

I understand the points very well.

So, based on that logic, there's no point in evangelizing any of them. If I follow that logic to its conclusion, there's no point in evangelizing Catholics or Mormons, either.

Well of course there's a point to evangelizing. How in the world did you conclude otherwise from what I wrote? I specifically listed it as one of several things Christians should and could do!

Do you protest abortion? Even though it's legal in our country? In other words, do you act accordingly to all our nation's laws?

Do you protest Islam even though it's legal in our country? Do you support or defend Islam because it's legal in our country?

But in one broad stroke, you expect all 1 billion Muslims to follow, without question, all of their laws?

I can't say that each and every one would do so but I can't trust which ones will and which ones won't. There are too many examples of cases where one that appeared to be "peaceful" suddenly exploded to manifest the worst of their teaching. Ft. Hood comes to mind again! I have to suspect that the majority will follow their leaders and their god. I know that they have no obedience to God and their principles no relation to Christianity.

You are aware that their are sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity? And that they don't all profess the same exact beliefs?

Yes, and there are also several "versions" of the Koran just as there are of the Bible but, in the end, there is a belief in Alah and his teachings verses a belief in God and his teachings.

Yes, the Bible defines Christianity -- but if you don't have access to a Bible, or you're like most other people (somewhat lazy and willing to rely on what you see/hear for your information), then the only information you have about Christianity is what you've seen/heard, isn't it?

That doesn't change the substance of Islamic belief. Most of the world didn't have access to the Bible until a few hundred years ago. But God's word was still in force throughout the world and ignorance of it has never been an excuse.

Okay, go back to the statement about illiteracy rates. How do you expect them to read the Bible?

I don't! That brings us back to the need for evangelism to bring the word to them. This isn't limited to Islam. There are many corners of the world where people are unable to read. There are also many corners of the world where people are very literate and still don't read the Bible.

I made it quite clear that I was changing your words. I posted your original quote, then the altered. Anyone who thinks the words that I announced I was editing were yours, well, stupidity is not something I can do anything about.

Instead, I challenge you to refute what I said: That your words are exactly the same as a Muslim's, with certain words changed.

I asked you politely not to post something I did not write in quotes as if I did. Things can get separated and re-posted and I don't want someone reading something I didn't write thinking I did. Can you just acknowledge and respect that?

No, I'm not saying "exactly the same as" the Muslims.

Don't run away from the question: You sounded exactly like a Muslim if you only change one or two key words. So if you sound exactly like your enemy, exactly how are you different from your enemy?

Watch your words, buddy! I haven't "run away" from your questions and I've been real clear about my position. I'm neither ashamed of it nor bashful about it. I call tell you don't agree and that's okay but, no, what I'm saying isn't anything like what my "enemy" says.

I repeat: It's not me verses them. It's God verses all false gods.

It's up to us to proclaim that in spite of our many failings and short comings. It's up to us not to fall for the argument that you're making which, by the way, can be said of any position of any issue. We can only point to the Bible as the authority - not to ourselves. Then what we say is in no way the same as Islam or any other false belief.

Because you have the truth? But that's exactly what he believes about himself, too. So how are you going to prove to him that you have the truth? By talking about "using any means necessary"?

I listed the "means" per your previous questions. Did you read them? In the end, I cannot "prove" anything to anyone. Only the Holy Spirit can convince a person to believe. I can tell them about God's word if they well listen but I cannot make them understand or believe.

How about we just preach the Gospel, and stop using rhetoric about how much more evil one set of people is than another?

You cannot tell a non-believer about the word of God without it offending them in some way or another. God is offended by sin and when we're saved we are overcome with guilt over than sin. We know just how fallen we are and that, man for man, we're no better than any other sinner. We know that our only hope is in Christ Jesus. That message is certain to offend Islam but it's no less applicable to its followers than it was to us before we believed.

I don't think preaching God's word to others is the same as preaching that we're less evil than others or that our society is superior whether it is or is not in various aspects.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244106/muslims-against-mosque-matthew-shaffer

Why aren't we hearing more of this on Fox News or CNN?

Answer: Because both are more concerned about inciting emotions, and thus raising ratings.

Again Son you have you act together.:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Dragoon68]

State Department program sponsoring Ground Zero imam’s trip to the Middle East

"... Amidst the contentious debate surrounding the building of a mosque and Islamic community center at Ground Zero
, it was revealed that the imam behind the project – Feisal Abdul Rauf – will soon be departing on a State Department-sponsored trip to the Middle East — and American taxpayers will be footing the bill.

The State Department released further information about the trip Wednesday, disclosing that it will cost roughly $16,000, with Rauf — who has been criticized for refusing to call Hamas a terrorist organization and saying that American actions in the Middle East were ”an accessory to the crime” of the 9/11 attacks — receiving $3,000 in speaker fees."

Just like a "moderate" Muslim, the Islamic leader refuses to condemn the terrorist organizations back home while claiming to stand against terrorism here.

Isn't it strange that our government is directly involved in a "Muslim outreach program" in the name of "tolerance and religious diversity"? Where are all those arguments about church and state on this issue?

You cannot compromise with Satan. He will chip away a little at a time until you don't even realize what you're doing or where you are. The first step is to make you think it won't hurt you.

We really do need to wise up about Islam.

 

[Dragoon68]

"... non-Muslims seeking to understand the Islamic religion to overcome a negative perception of the same."

That's a quote from a review of the ground zero Inam's book. It's typical of the rhetoric many are using today. It seems so "tolerant" doesn't it?

Why would Christians want to "overcome a negative perception" of Islam? There is certainly no benefit to the Lord Jesus Christ in our doing that, is there? There is, of course, a benefit to Islam to first break down the objections to it. It's the first step in recruiting converts! It makes it seem it's "good" or "cool" to be "tolerant" and "diverse" in our thinking. It introduces the "softer" - the moderate - evil first. It is the classical approach Satan takes to weaken us and lead us down his path.

We need to maintain a totally negative perception of Islam and all other false gods. We need to be firm in our own belief!

 

[Don]

I understand the points very well.

I don't think you do.

Well of course there's a point to evangelizing. How in the world did you conclude otherwise from what I wrote? I specifically listed it as one of several things Christians should and could do!

You definitely said that evangelizing is something Christians should do; but then you turned around and said that you don't trust any of the muslims you know. The impression I get when I read such things is that you don't think it's worth the time to preach to such people.

You know who else went out and evangelized people, but didn't think they deserved salvation, nor that they would receive it? Noah.

Do you protest Islam even though it's legal in our country? Do you support or defend Islam because it's legal in our country?

Answer my question first.

I can't say that each and every one would do so but I can't trust which ones will and which ones won't. There are too many examples of cases where one that appeared to be "peaceful" suddenly exploded to manifest the worst of their teaching. Ft. Hood comes to mind again! I have to suspect that the majority will follow their leaders and their god. I know that they have no obedience to God and their principles no relation to Christianity.

You know why you can't trust the muslims you know? Because you're apparently not taking the time to get to know them.

Yes, and there are also several "versions" of the Koran just as there are of the Bible but, in the end, there is a belief in Alah and his teachings verses a belief in God and his teachings.

So you understand that some sects do really strange things, and some sects are more peaceful than others?

That doesn't change the substance of Islamic belief. Most of the world didn't have access to the Bible until a few hundred years ago. But God's word was still in force throughout the world and ignorance of it has never been an excuse.

What does the substance of islamic belief have to do with it? I was describing why muslims think the way they do about Christians--which is, a large number can't read, so they have to rely on what they see/hear.

I don't! That brings us back to the need for evangelism to bring the word to them. This isn't limited to Islam. There are many corners of the world where people are unable to read. There are also many corners of the world where people are very literate and still don't read the Bible.

I tell you about illiteracy rates, then you say they need to read the Bible to get to know Christianity. I remind you about illiteracy rates and ask how you expect them to read it, and you say you don't expect them to read.

I asked you politely not to post something I did not write in quotes as if I did. Things can get separated and re-posted and I don't want someone reading something I didn't write thinking I did. Can you just acknowledge and respect that?
No, I'm not saying "exactly the same as" the Muslims.

Not until you acknowledge that I only changed one or two words, which made you sound like a fanatical muslim--which means, guess how you sound when you leave the original words in?

And yes, you do sound exactly the same as muslims. You just refuse to either see it, or admit.

Watch your words, buddy! I haven't "run away" from your questions and I've been real clear about my position. I'm neither ashamed of it nor bashful about it. I call tell you don't agree and that's okay but, no, what I'm saying isn't anything like what my "enemy" says.

I repeat: It's not me verses them. It's God verses all false gods.

It's up to us to proclaim that in spite of our many failings and short comings. It's up to us not to fall for the argument that you're making which, by the way, can be said of any position of any issue. We can only point to the Bible as the authority - not to ourselves. Then what we say is in no way the same as Islam or any other false belief.

The last part of what you wrote is very clear.

What you've written before, and what I'm trying to point your attention to, is your use of phrases such as "use any means necessary."

When you use such rhetoric, how does it sound to someone who doesn't personally know you?

What do you think about when you hear a muslim say "use any means necessary"?

Why do you think the muslim should think any differently about you when you say "use any means necessary"?

I don't think preaching God's word to others is the same as preaching that we're less evil than others or that our society is superior whether it is or is not in various aspects.

EXACTLY. So go back and read your words here. Have you been talking about how we're going to go out and preach the Word to them, or have you been talking about how evil people who follow islam are?

BTW: The reason I posted a link to a news article was because you basically stated that few, if any, muslims were actively standing against the mosque.

I posted a news article that proves that some muslims, somewhere, are publicly voicing that the location of the mosque is wrong; in other words, showing that you're incorrect with your position about the muslim opposition to the mosque. Your response? You post more news articles about how wrong the mosque is.

I've given you everything I can to show you how you appear to others: Not much different than the people we should have a "negative perception of." I ask you one last time: Why shouldn't we have a negative perception of you, since you basically sound the same as them?

 

[Dragoon68]

I don't think you do.

Okay! Guess what? I don't think you do. So that makes kind of even, doesn't it? That's not unusual in these kinds of threads!

You definitely said that evangelizing is something Christians should do; but then you turned around and said that you don't trust any of the muslims you know. The impression I get when I read such things is that you don't think it's worth the time to preach to such people.

You know who else went out and evangelized people, but didn't think they deserved salvation, nor that they would receive it? Noah.

I don't trust Muslims so long as they are in their faith which is based on lies and which advocates violence against Christians. I cannot! But, if an individual Muslim converts to Christianity then that changes everything.

God passed judgment on the earth in Noah's time and deemed only he and his immediate family would be spared. His reasons for doing so were not based upon the merits of Noah verses the demerits of the rest because all mankind since Adam has deserved nothing but eternal separation from God. It was God's decision to save Noah to fit His sovereign plans.

If God desires to change the heart of any man - Muslim or anything else - He will do it. That is not for me to judge. What I can judge, however, is the difference between a faith built on the truth and one built on lies. I judge Islam to be built on lies and, thereby, its followers are hopelessly lost in it.

Answer my question first.

I answered your question with my question. Anything else would take us down another bunny trail.

You know why you can't trust the muslims you know? Because you're apparently not taking the time to get to know them.

I don't trust Muslims because as such they will follow Islam which stands against Christianity. I cannot trust them.

It would be like Elisha trusting Baal priests and entering in to an interfaith alliance with them verses standing firmly against everything they stood for. Instead he called them out before God and by His hand they were proved to be false prophets.

I tell you about illiteracy rates, then you say they need to read the Bible to get to know Christianity. I remind you about illiteracy rates and ask how you expect them to read it, and you say you don't expect them to read.

It doesn't matter whether they are illiterate or not. Ignorance is not an excuse in God's eyes and that is made clear in the Bible. He said that all men are without excuse because His glory is revealed to all men by His very creation. It may not seem fair but that's the way it is. That, I think, is one reason many evangelical efforts are also accompanied by efforts to improve the literacy of converts so they read the Bible for themselves and not be misguided by corrupted leaders.

Not until you acknowledge that I only changed one or two words, which made you sound like a fanatical muslim--which means, guess how you sound when you leave the original words in?

It was your error, my friend, not mine. I asked you politely not to misquote my writing. How difficult is that to respect? If you're too proud to acknowledge it, then I can't do much about it from this end.

And yes, you do sound exactly the same as muslims. You just refuse to either see it, or admit.

Perhaps to you I do but it's not that way and so there's nothing for me to admit. I think, instead, you've become perhaps a bit too close to the issues to see the difference in the position of Islam and of Christianity.

You seem more concerned with defending your "moderate" Muslim friends than proclaiming the lies of their faith. I understand how close friendships can develop. That's what triggered your initial response. You took personal offense to it. You should not because, first, it was directed at the Islamic faith - not individual human worth - and, second, as a Christian you should know that non-believers are always "offended" by the word of God because it runs counter to all they believe and want to justify. Islam hates Christianity because they cannot accept Jesus Christ for who He is. He is an "offense" to them and any of His followers are as well. The Bible tells us that's what we can expect, doesn't it?

What you've written before, and what I'm trying to point your attention to, is your use of phrases such as "use any means necessary."

When you use such rhetoric, how does it sound to someone who doesn't personally know you?

What do you think about when you hear a muslim say "use any means necessary"?

Why do you think the muslim should think any differently about you when you say "use any means necessary"?

I've already explained what this meant. There's no need for me to repeat it again. Either you understand or you don't.

I think we need to do everything that is necessary to counter the growth of Islam in America both for the cause of Christianity but also for the good of the nation. That does not imply acts of violence or any other sinful conduct.

I posted a news article that proves that some muslims, somewhere, are publicly voicing that the location of the mosque is wrong; in other words, showing that you're incorrect with your position about the muslim opposition to the mosque. Your response? You post more news articles about how wrong the mosque is.

I read the article and some others like it. It doesn't "prove" anything but does show that there are Muslims in this country who represent themselves to be moderates. But, as I pointed out, that's the first step towards gaining acceptance and it doesn't change the underlying ideology which is the basis of their faith. They will, in my opinion, become more militant in time as their strength grows. Many will be deceived by this tactic. They also speak with two voices - one to the outside world and another within their own. Hence, for example, the different translation of book titles used by the ground zero mosque leader.

I've given you everything I can to show you how you appear to others: Not much different than the people we should have a "negative perception of." I ask you one last time: Why shouldn't we have a negative perception of you, since you basically sound the same as them?

Who is "we"? That would be you and maybe a few others - like the wind parrot - here and there. I think you're presuming yourself to be the spokesman for everyone else. I'm certainly not convinced everyone has a negative perception of my position or me. Even so, it doesn't matter if they do. The truth is still the truth. I often find myself outnumbered and that's actually a good thing.

I've also tried to get you to see the truth in my position. I certainly understand some of your points and perspective but I don't agree with your overall position.

 

[Don]

God passed judgment on the earth in Noah's time and deemed only he and his immediate family would be spared.

Okay, I feel really, really stupid. I went back and saw where I wrote "Noah." Did anyone else catch on that I should have written "Jonah"?

 

[Don]

I answered your question with my question. Anything else would take us down another bunny trail.

No, not really. You stated that as long as they live under islam, they abide by the dictates of islam.

My question to you was: do you abide by each and every dictate of the society in which you live. If you're honest, you'll probably say, "no."

So the question is: Why do you expect others to do what you yourself don't?

I don't trust Muslims because as such they will follow Islam which stands against Christianity. I cannot trust them.

It would be like Elisha trusting Baal priests and entering in to an interfaith alliance with them verses standing firmly against everything they stood for. Instead he called them out before God and by His hand they were proved to be false prophets.

Very bad analogy. It would be better to say "Elisha trusting any follower of Baal." Then you could logically argue whether each and every follower of Baal actually followed each and every precept of that false religion.

It doesn't matter whether they are illiterate or not. Ignorance is not an excuse in God's eyes and that is made clear in the Bible. He said that all men are without excuse because His glory is revealed to all men by His very creation. It may not seem fair but that's the way it is. That, I think, is one reason many evangelical efforts are also accompanied by efforts to improve the literacy of converts so they read the Bible for themselves and not be misguided by corrupted leaders.

I agree with you about ignorance not being an excuse; but I don't think you've drawn that out to its conclusion. If you were born and grew up in a back village of India, for example, where everyone was Hindu and practiced Hinduism, and knew nothing but Hinduism; but you, knowing only Hinduism, somehow knows that it is wrong...what are your options? What do you do?

It was your error, my friend, not mine. I asked you politely not to misquote my writing. How difficult is that to respect? If you're too proud to acknowledge it, then I can't do much about it from this end.

What error? Acknowledge what?

Perhaps to you I do but it's not that way and so there's nothing for me to admit. I think, instead, you've become perhaps a bit too close to the issues to see the difference in the position of Islam and of Christianity.

You seem more concerned with defending your "moderate" Muslim friends than proclaiming the lies of their faith. I understand how close friendships can develop. That's what triggered your initial response. You took personal offense to it. You should not because, first, it was directed at the Islamic faith - not individual human worth - and, second, as a Christian you should know that non-believers are always "offended" by the word of God because it runs counter to all they believe and want to justify. Islam hates Christianity because they cannot accept Jesus Christ for who He is. He is an "offense" to them and any of His followers are as well. The Bible tells us that's what we can expect, doesn't it?

Did you or did you not say on page 11 of this thread say that muslims cannot be trusted? That there is no credibility in anything they say or do? That all "true" muslims have a desire to destroy America and Christianity?

Did you not, with those statements, identify each and every person in a 1 billion-person religion (even if it is a false one)?

Did you not later state that we shouldn't say hateful things towards individuals? Yet you continue to say that you cannot trust them?

You continue to double-speak, friend. You can't say "you can't trust any of them" and then say "I only meant their faith." Either you address their faith, or you address them.

I've already explained what this meant. There's no need for me to repeat it again. Either you understand or you don't.

I think we need to do everything that is necessary to counter the growth of Islam in America both for the cause of Christianity but also for the good of the nation. That does not imply acts of violence or any other sinful conduct.

Until you actually say "without the use of violence," it does, indeed, imply acts of violence. How else do you explain the murders of abortionists?

I read the article and some others like it. It doesn't "prove" anything but does show that there are Muslims in this country who represent themselves to be moderates.

So you acknowledge that your statement that there are no muslims protesting the mosque was incorrect.

But, as I pointed out, that's the first step towards gaining acceptance and it doesn't change the underlying ideology which is the basis of their faith. They will, in my opinion, become more militant in time as their strength grows. Many will be deceived by this tactic. They also speak with two voices - one to the outside world and another within their own. Hence, for example, the different translation of book titles used by the ground zero mosque leader.

You do realize that the group in the article was disagreeing with the ground zero mosque leader?

So yet again you paint every muslim with the same paint brush, thus ignoring the individuals within the muslim community. In other words, the ideas that you present are that we should disagree with every muslim simply on the basis of islam--without actually knowing what each individual actually knows or thinks about islam.

Who is "we"? That would be you and maybe a few others - like the wind parrot - here and there. I think you're presuming yourself to be the spokesman for everyone else. I'm certainly not convinced everyone has a negative perception of my position or me. Even so, it doesn't matter if they do. The truth is still the truth. I often find myself outnumbered and that's actually a good thing.

I've also tried to get you to see the truth in my position. I certainly understand some of your points and perspective but I don't agree with your overall position.

What, in your perception, is my overall position?

The truth of your position is that islam is a false religion. We all got that. No one is arguing that.

I totally agree that islam is a false religion. BUT I completely disagree with you that every muslim on this planet is untrustworthy.

Of course, I also happen to believe there are saved people in Catholic churches; they just haven't found a good Baptist church yet.

The difference between you and me is, you wish to condemn based on a generalization; I prefer to judge based on the individual.

 

[Dragoon68]

No, not really. You stated that as long as they live under islam, they abide by the dictates of islam.

Yes, really! If they are Muslims then by definition that abide by the dictates of Islam. If they don't then they must not be true Muslims.

My question to you was: do you abide by each and every dictate of the society in which you live. If you're honest, you'll probably say, "no."

So the question is: Why do you expect others to do what you yourself don't?

Generally, I'd say we're all required to abide by civil law to the extent it does not conflict with God's law. Who are you to say I don't?

Very bad analogy. It would be better to say "Elisha trusting any follower of Baal." Then you could logically argue whether each and every follower of Baal actually followed each and every precept of that false religion.

I think it's a good analogy of my point. Whether or not all of the 450 prophets of Baal followed each and every precept of that false religion they all suffered the same end because they all stood against God and lost. That will be the same result, ultimately, for every Muslim who does not convert to Christianity. You carry the label of those you align yourself with and, if don't align, you'd better find a different group.

I agree with you about ignorance not being an excuse; but I don't think you've drawn that out to its conclusion. If you were born and grew up in a back village of India, for example, where everyone was Hindu and practiced Hinduism, and knew nothing but Hinduism; but you, knowing only Hinduism, somehow knows that it is wrong...what are your options? What do you do?

That's part of the "mystery" of election, Don, and I don't know that it can be fully explained by any man. It's God's sovereign choice to do what He wills with His creation. We have several examples in the Bible where it seems certain persons were predestined to be non-believers yet still did so by their own choice. It's a concept too big for our little minds.

I have family that lived in back villages of another country and grew up in another false religion. They had, from a human perspective, no real opportunity to know Christ and all they knew were the traditions handed down to them. It's very sad and my deepest regret is that I was not able to break through to the ones that have already passed. If I live long enough and can prepare well enough and it is God's will I do hope to make a difference for others in that same land some day. I can at least try to get God's word to them.

What error? Acknowledge what?

It's simple: Just don't change what I write and then put it inside quotations that make it look like I wrote it. I'm not saying you did it to purposefully make it look that way. I know you were just making your point. But, I asked you not to do that because of the possible it could be read out of context by someone else later on. It was a simple and polite request, Don, and I see no reason why you couldn't just accept it.

Did you or did you not say on page 11 of this thread say that muslims cannot be trusted? That there is no credibility in anything they say or do? That all "true" muslims have a desire to destroy America and Christianity?

Did you not, with those statements, identify each and every person in a 1 billion-person religion (even if it is a false one)?

Did you not later state that we shouldn't say hateful things towards individuals? Yet you continue to say that you cannot trust them?

You continue to double-speak, friend. You can't say "you can't trust any of them" and then say "I only meant their faith." Either you address their faith, or you address them.

You sound like a attorney in cross examination! I don't get tripped up by that kind of talk. I've been there many times.

I'm not double-speaking about anything here! I say Islam is a lie and all its followers are going along with the lie. They cannot be trusted to deal in truth because there is no truth in them. Man has a fundamentally evil nature and cannot be trusted until he has a new heart given him by the Lord. Muslims don't believed in Christ so they cannot be trusted to know or speak the truth. They seek to follow Allah - not God!

Until you actually say "without the use of violence," it does, indeed, imply acts of violence. How else do you explain the murders of abortionists?

What on earth does the murder of abortionists have to do with this? Nothing was said or implied by me about going out and killing anyone. I listed the things I meant in the first posting on the subject. Either you're just making something out it for the purpose of argument or you're thinking about the Koran and what it has to say about killing infidels.

So you acknowledge that your statement that there are no muslims protesting the mosque was incorrect.

No, I don't acknowledge any such thing! I haven't seen any protest by Muslims against the mosque! I have heard of some Muslims claiming they don't agree with the extremists amongst them but I question that because, again, I don't trust them because of their religion.

I think there are certainly some that desire to be perceived as moderate but I think it's all part of a grand scheme to gain ground inch by inch. In their hearts they hate Christ and His followers and given the opportunity they will chose to stand against Him. It is part of Satan's plan to convince Christ's followers that they Islam is really a "peaceful" religion that has "commonality" with Christianity. It will only lead to compromise of our beliefs to accommodate theirs. It is Islam's goal to change us.

You do realize that the group in the article was disagreeing with the ground zero mosque leader?

It's meaningless disagreement! In the end they'll all side with Allah and that cannot have any "good" result.

So yet again you paint every muslim with the same paint brush, thus ignoring the individuals within the muslim community. In other words, the ideas that you present are that we should disagree with every muslim simply on the basis of islam--without actually knowing what each individual actually knows or thinks about islam.

I paint every Muslim with the color of Islam because that is what they are. Do they claim otherwise?

If you're suggesting we can work with Muslims in matters other than religion then that's a different issue. Certainly we can, as Christians, work with non-believers. We do it every day of our life. We will find common ground even in some areas of morality. We should treat them kindly in so far as we are able.

What, in your perception, is my overall position?

The truth of your position is that islam is a false religion. We all got that. No one is arguing that.

I totally agree that islam is a false religion. BUT I completely disagree with you that every muslim on this planet is untrustworthy.

Untrustworthy in what sense?

Of course, I also happen to believe there are saved people in Catholic churches; they just haven't found a good Baptist church yet.

Okay. We have at least one couple in that category in our church. We also, by the way, have another couple that are converted from Islam.

The difference between you and me is, you wish to condemn based on a generalization; I prefer to judge based on the individual.

The difference between you and me is that you're telling me what I believe, what I've written, and what it means and you're totally wrong about all three.

I prefer to judge things on the facts available to me and measure them against the truth of the Bible. I'm not so confident to think that I always get that right because I'm still a sinful person with many faults. But that's my standard and it has no faults.

Therefore, I'm making two judgments. The first is that Islam is an enemy of God and there is no good in it. The second is that Muslims who are by definition following Islam are also enemies of God and not really our friends at all in the sense of brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the case of Islam it has become closely linked to terrorism. Is every Muslim a terrorist - no, not yet. Is every terrorist a Muslim - yes, as far as I can recall. There's an uncomfortable connection. It's based in the Koran and its application by Islam. You can say it's just the extremists but I'm not convinced that a larger majority isn't supportive of it and the rest are rather passive about it. You can say that some moderates oppose the extremists but I'm not seeing that displayed to any meaningful degree. I have to conclude they don't really oppose it because, in their hearts, they also are bound to the same Koran.

I can certainly agree that individually there well be people who profess to be Muslims but don't actually believe all the teachings of Islam just as there are people who profess to be Christians but don't actually believe in Christ Jesus. Both are in name only and both are also the enemies of God.

What makes Islam of greater concern than other non-believers is their published agenda of violence towards Christians. That's a big problem for me trusting its followers. There have been too many examples where people have been deceived on this.

 

[Dragoon68]

Okay, I feel really, really stupid. I went back and saw where I wrote "Noah." Did anyone else catch on that I should have written "Jonah"?

Who doesn't make such mistakes? I can't believe some of the spelling, grammar, and even contextual mistakes I make.

Regardless, I kind of liked the Noah angle!

 

[Don]

Generally, I'd say we're all required to abide by civil law to the extent it does not conflict with God's law. Who are you to say I don't?

The question wasn't "are you required to abide by civil law." The question was, do you always follow all the laws of our country. Please stop changing the wording of my questions.

For some reason, you're avoiding this question. It's almost like you know that if you admit one way or the other, you're caught at something. That's not my intention, to "catch you at something." I'm just looking for an acknowledgment that it's possible that not all muslims follow the precepts of islam 100%.

It's simple: Just don't change what I write and then put it inside quotations that make it look like I wrote it. I'm not saying you did it to purposefully make it look that way. I know you were just making your point. But, I asked you not to do that because of the possible it could be read out of context by someone else later on.

So what was the error I should acknowledge?

It was a simple and polite request, Don, and I see no reason why you couldn't just accept it.

Because, as I pointed out, I announced what I was doing before I did it. From that point forward, anyone who tried to say those were your words would be a bald-faced liar. At no point have any of the words I've changed been attributed to you. Additionally, my posts announcing what I was doing are still freely available to use as proof that those weren't your words. And for anyone to assume that you've said Christianity is a dangerous religion...well, stupidity is the only word that comes to mind (not you, the person(s) who might attribute such stupid stuff to you).

You sound like a attorney in cross examination! I don't get tripped up by that kind of talk. I've been there many times.

I have no intention of "tripping you up." I'd just like to you actually answer a question I asked, rather than re-word it or avoid it by talking about how I'm trying to trip you up.

What on earth does the murder of abortionists have to do with this? Nothing was said or implied by me about going out and killing anyone. I listed the things I meant in the first posting on the subject. Either you're just making something out it for the purpose of argument or you're thinking about the Koran and what it has to say about killing infidels.

Do you deny you said something at one point that could have been construed in a number of different ways: "by any means necessary"?

If you don't see how that could be construed as being taken to mean through violent methods, you're just being dense.

Yes, you later qualified it by stating without violence. But this is the problem: The Army of God uses the same words you do (before you added "without violence") to justify killing abortionists. Fred Phelps uses the same words you do (before adding "without violence") to justify saying it's a good thing American soldiers are being killed. And extremist muslims say the same thing you do (before you added "without violence").

My caution to you is to be careful how you say things.

No, I don't acknowledge any such thing! I haven't seen any protest by Muslims against the mosque! I have heard of some Muslims claiming they don't agree with the extremists amongst them but I question that because, again, I don't trust them because of their religion.

I think there are certainly some that desire to be perceived as moderate but I think it's all part of a grand scheme to gain ground inch by inch. In their hearts they hate Christ and His followers and given the opportunity they will chose to stand against Him. It is part of Satan's plan to convince Christ's followers that they Islam is really a "peaceful" religion that has "commonality" with Christianity. It will only lead to compromise of our beliefs to accommodate theirs. It is Islam's goal to change us.

(sigh) Understood. In your mind, there is no hope for any of them, none of them are trustworthy, until they convert to Christianity.

By the way: Are all Baptists trustworthy?

It's meaningless disagreement! In the end they'll all side with Allah and that cannot have any "good" result.

I paint every Muslim with the color of Islam because that is what they are. Do they claim otherwise?

Untrustworthy in what sense?

If you're suggesting we can work with Muslims in matters other than religion then that's a different issue. Certainly we can, as Christians, work with non-believers. We do it every day of our life. We will find common ground even in some areas of morality. We should treat them kindly in so far as we are able.

This last paragraph is exactly what I was after from my very first post.

It's possible that you and I have been arguing past each other, because this is what I've always been on about; while you apparently have been focused on matters of religion.

The difference between you and me is that you're telling me what I believe, what I've written, and what it means and you're totally wrong about all three.

I prefer to judge things on the facts available to me and measure them against the truth of the Bible. I'm not so confident to think that I always get that right because I'm still a sinful person with many faults. But that's my standard and it has no faults.

Therefore, I'm making two judgments. The first is that Islam is an enemy of God and there is no good in it. The second is that Muslims who are by definition following Islam are also enemies of God and not really our friends at all in the sense of brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the case of Islam it has become closely linked to terrorism. Is every Muslim a terrorist - no, not yet.

"Not yet." Wow. Just, wow.

You know, people used to talk about blacks, Chinese, and American Indians the same way.

 

[Dragoon68]

I'm convinced there are some people who have already been deceived into believing Islam really isn't all that bad. They will be the defenders of the very ones who seek to destroy us. It's amazing and very sad!

 

[Dragoon68]

... It's possible that you and I have been arguing past each other, because this is what I've always been on about; while you apparently have been focused on matters of religion. ...

Yes, Don, I'm focused on matters of religion.

 

[Dragoon68]

The question wasn't "are you required to abide by civil law." The question was, do you always follow all the laws of our country. Please stop changing the wording of my questions.

For some reason, you're avoiding this question. It's almost like you know that if you admit one way or the other, you're caught at something. That's not my intention, to "catch you at something." I'm just looking for an acknowledgment that it's possible that not all muslims follow the precepts of islam 100%. ...

No, Don, I'm not the least bit "caught at something" here and I'm not avoiding the questions. I'm right on the track I need to be. I've answered the questions - you're just not able to accept the answers. I can't help you with that! I think you're caught up in defending your Islamic friends and are missing the grave threat their fundamental beliefs are to both Christianity and our nation. That's really sad!

 

[Dragoon68]

... So what was the error I should acknowledge? ...

The one you made and that I've described several times not! Stop being so proud of yourself and just say "Okay, I honor your polite request and won't misquote what you wrote." like any gentlemen should do.

 

[Dragoon68]

... I have no intention of "tripping you up." I'd just like to you actually answer a question I asked, rather than re-word it or avoid it by talking about how I'm trying to trip you up. ...

You cannot trip me up, Don. Stop over-rating yourself! I'll answer your questions with my answers. You can take or leave it but I'm not going to answer the questions with the answer you want me to say.