http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

No matter how you defend it, or manipulate it, IT'S EVIL, and completely lacking love, or any sort of notion of peace.

This had been said before by people in the other thread you started.

Just because these terrorists call themselves "Muslims" does not mean they are, in reality, following the doctrines of Islam, in my opinion. In other words, these people are not representing Islam correctly (you have

said yourself, Digi, that some groups do not represent Christianity correctly, so why can this not apply to Islam, as well?)

The actions of the terrorists have never been condoned by the majority of the Islamic community. Most Islamic authorities world-wide condemn these actions.

It is also important to note that only 18% of the Islamic community world-wide is Arab, and most "Jihad" activites occur in Arab countries. Jihad extremeism does not command a large following in other Islamic countries, such as in Asia. (Again from Time magazine)



I posted an excerpt from Time magazine entitled "Does the Koran Condone Killing?" in your last thread, Digi, which nobody responded to, so I'll post it again:



"Does the Koran Condone Killing?



A look at how extremists justify their acts

By DAVID VAN BIEMA



Posted Sunday, September 5, 2004

On the very videotape with which he advertised his beheading of American communications-tower repairman Nick Berg in May, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, appended a theological message. Berg's murder, the masked man intoned, was sanctioned by Islam's holiest texts. "Has the time not come for you to lift the sword, which the master of the Messengers [Muhammad] was sent with?" al-Zarqawi asked. "The Prophet ... has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr ... He is our example."

Al-Zarqawi's letter was a clear sign of the extent to which religious zealotry has come to drive, or at least to rationalize, the actions of the insurgents in Iraq. Since April, the rebels have executed 23 hostages there. Eight of the victims have been decapitated, including at least one of the 12 Nepalese laborers whose slain bodies were shown on a website last week. Like al-Zarqawi, the killers have often claimed religious sanction. As reported in the New York Times, a videotape of the execution in Fallujah last month of Muhammad Fawazi, an Egyptian believed by his killers to have been aiding the Americans, shows an insurgent standing over Fawazi, quoting verses from the Koran. "He who will abide by the Koran will prosper, he who offends against it will get the sword," the man says, just before two others force Fawazi to the ground and sever his head.

President Bush consistently describes the terrorists and insurgents he battles as deviant hijackers of Islam, while they have just as avidly tried to prove they are upholding the teachings of the faith's holy texts. In fact, the insurgency has found considerable support among Islamic religious authorities, especially those who see the U.S. presence in Iraq as occupation rather than liberation. They cite Koranic verses that exhort Muslims to resist, such as, "Slay them ... and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out."

But does Islam also excuse al-Zarqawi-style atrocity? Well, one verse in the Koran condones beheading, but in the heat of battle. Some accounts of the Prophet Muhammad's life, called hadiths, record the execution—by what method is debated—of a tribe that had lived among Muslims and then betrayed them. Al-Zarqawi's specific bid to sacralize Berg's slaughter rests on an allusion to Muhammad's great victory on the battlefield of Badr.

According to some hadiths, Muhammad was left wondering what to do with the resulting prisoners. This, the texts claimed, was the context for God's Koranic statement "As to prisoners of war, we have not sent you as an oppressor of the land." One 10th century gloss further asserted that the Prophet took God's word to mean he should kill the captives so as not to continue to be a prisoner holder, and that is probably the proof text al-Zarqawi had in mind.

But according to Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Western and Islamic law at UCLA, that reading was discounted long ago. He says the vast majority of classical jurists subscribed to a more intuitively obvious version, whereby God's words prompted Muhammad to free his captives. They saw the "off with their heads" reading as insupportable. "Al-Zarqawi," says El Fadl, "searches for the trash that everyone threw out centuries ago and declares the trash to be Islam."

Indeed, most Islamic experts condemn the hostage murders for the same reason that—anti-American sentiment aside—they condemned the Sept. 11 attacks: the Prophet's prohibition on killing noncombatants, or, as he put it, "a woman or a child, or a hermit, a farmer plowing his field, [or] a person who is not carrying a weapon against you." Says Ingrid Mattson, vice president of the Islamic Society of North America: "Other than from the spokesmen for these different terrorist groups, everything I've heard is a complete rejection" of the beheadings. Scholars at Cairo's venerable al-Azhar seminary condemned Berg's fate. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the learned star of an al-Jazeera ask-the-cleric show, has rationalized Palestinian suicide bombings, but said— albeit with some equivocation—that Berg's execution was not justified. Most scholars agree that the recent executions also sin against bans on mutilation of enemy bodies and mistreatment of prisoners.

Whether such injunctions are apt to sway militants in Iraq and elsewhere is a different issue. "I've spent my life studying the sources of Islamic law," says El Fadl. "But the extent to which these people enter into questions of Islamic principles is questionable." Since religious study was discouraged for decades under Saddam Hussein, many of the younger insurgents are educating themselves as they go along.

If they accept as teachers theorists of terrorism like al-Zarqawi, the Koran may continue to be used to sanction atrocities no one could ever have imagined.

Really ? Then please logically explain to me the texts that I posted in the other thread.

If they were not meant as directives for the behaviour of modern-day Muslims, then who were they directives for ?

I have asked on numerous occasions to be shown, in an educated manner, that these verses were taken out of context, and are not to be followed (or taken literally) by modern Muslims.

No one has yet to do this, so I maintain my belief that they are to be adhered to, and thus paint a picture of Islam that is anything but peaceful.

You can defend them all you wish, but you have given no supporting evidence that would suggest something contrary to what I have posted.

quote:It is also important to note that only 18% of the Islamic community world-wide is Arab, and most "Jihad" activites occur in Arab countries. Jihad extremeism does not command a large following in other Islamic countries, such as in Asia. (Again from Time magazine)

And why is that even remotely relevant ?

A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. It matters nothing what race they are.

I don't see the correlation.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And why is that even remotely relevant ?

A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. It matters nothing what race they are.

I don't see the correlation.

I think it is highly relevant. You do not see the large Asian communities of Muslims declaring Jihad on other Asian countries in order to spread Islam. If spreading Islam by the sword is such a essential part of Islam, why is this not happening?

Have you considered the option that the Arab terrorist's goals are more political in nature than religious, because of their resentment of the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, where there is a large Arab population?

So, I guess what I'm asking is, how would you explain the fact that only the Arab population of Islam is supporting Jihad to such a degree, and not the whole population?

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:



Just because these terrorists call themselves "Muslims" does not mean they are, in reality, following the doctrines of Islam, in my opinion.

Somebody has no idea what the shar'ia entails.

These terrorists are the ONLY ones truly following Islam.

Peace doesnt mean lack of combat...That would leave the warriors restless and not at peace, wouldnt it? Muslim peace means Peace in the sense of a relaxation of inner tension and cessation of spiritual restlessness.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Have you considered the option that the Arab terrorist's goals are more political in nature than religious, because of their resentment of the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, where there is a large Arab population?

You mean religion and politics aren't necessarily totally separate entities? My world is collapsing in on me! My reality is shattered! Blasphemous lies!

Shit guys. Every religion is ridiculous to the same magnitude, it's the society around it and the interpretation of it that leads to all these problems.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

You mean religion and politics aren't necessarily totally separate entities? My world is collapsing in on me! My reality is shattered! Blasphemous lies!

Shit guys. Every religion is ridiculous to the same magnitude, it's the society around it and the interpretation of it that leads to all these problems.

A lot of people like to believe that politics and religion are seperate. While it may be "basic knowledge" on this board, you'd be surprised how many people refuse to acknowledge it, they believe their religion is somehow above the "petty issues" of politics.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

A lot of people like to believe that politics and religion are seperate. While it may be "basic knowledge" on this board, you'd be surprised how many people refuse to acknowledge it, they believe their religion is somehow above the "petty issues" of politics.

I've been cavorting with intellectuals too much; I need a refresher bout with the "salt of the earth", just hope it doesn't shrivel my brain.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Somebody has no idea what the shar'ia entails.

These terrorists are the ONLY ones truly following Islam.



If these terrorists are truly following Islam, as you say, then why do the majority of Muslim scholars (experts on shar'ia or "Islamic law", I'm sure) condemn the actions of these terrorists? Are they lying to us because we're "Infidels", so that the master plan of Islam (world domination) can be carried out under our noses, all while assuring us "Infidels" that this is not the true goal of Islam?

To me, this just seems like another crazy conspiracy theory that people have been cooking up for ages. Instead of communism trying to take over the world in the 20th century, now we're got Islam trying to take over!

Does anyone else think that the ghost of Sniper Piper is using Digital Saviour's computer?

First of all, Nick Berg was a Muslim.

Ijtihad was forgotten years ago.

Islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism, it's followers are much more zealous however.

There are plenty of verses in the old and new testaments that advocate the same thing as Islamic Extremists. Yet there are plenty of verses that condemn it, such is the case with the Qu'ran.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia/practical.shtml

Wahhabi = munafiq Wahhabi = kaffir

Much of modern western thought, and medicine is based on texts from the Arabs, and Islam.

Possibily that the people who did this were CIA, just like those who killed Nick Berg were people used by the CIA.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-21-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

No matter how you defend it, or manipulate it, IT'S EVIL, and completely lacking love, or any sort of notion of peace.

You are correct. Christians are full of shit, and I tell them so regularly,but they don't cut my fucking head off! Islam is a cancer that must be stopped.

Actually, Digital, Loc Dogg dealt with the issue in another one of your posts. Further debate revealed you had read it, but you completely and utterly failed to even attempt to demonstrate how it didn't utterly refute your position. Until you do so, your just shouting air and less-than-bullshit.

Does anyone else think it kinda strange that theirs a smiling chinese woman advertising shares half way down?

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Somebody has no idea what the shar'ia entails.

These terrorists are the ONLY ones truly following Islam.



THAT was EXACTLY my point ! Thank you...well said.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

If these terrorists are truly following Islam, as you say, then why do the majority of Muslim scholars (experts on shar'ia or "Islamic law", I'm sure) condemn the actions of these terrorists? Are they lying to us because we're "Infidels", so that the master plan of Islam (world domination) can be carried out under our noses, all while assuring us "Infidels" that this is not the true goal of Islam?

To me, this just seems like another crazy conspiracy theory that people have been cooking up for ages. Instead of communism trying to take over the world in the 20th century, now we're got Islam trying to take over!

Well, that's exactly the scenario that unfolded which lead up to the events of 9/11.

These Muslims hated us so much that they would sacrifice their own lives, and kill thousands of others, yet they could stomach living amongst us long enough to be trained as pilot's by Americans, and be educated in American institutions ?

It must have made them writhe in disgust to live here, but they did it, in order to accomplish their terrorist goals.

It is VERY plausible.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Does anyone else think that the ghost of Sniper Piper is using Digital Saviour's computer?

LOL !

No, please...don't say that !

First, I'd have to endure a sex-change operation.

Second, I would have to have been fighting with myself a while back, because I don't agree with much that that guys says.

Third (and last), he is a vengeful, angry "Christian", and believ it or not, I am here out of love for you guys...I know that sounds corny, but I won't elaborate here on this thread.

Needless to say, I found that slightly offensive.

I think I am a bit more rational, and level-headed than he is...not to mention more informed.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Actually, Digital, Loc Dogg dealt with the issue in another one of your posts. Further debate revealed you had read it, but you completely and utterly failed to even attempt to demonstrate how it didn't utterly refute your position. Until you do so, your just shouting air and less-than-bullshit.

No, he didn't. He plagerized someone else's work, and I haven't yet had time to respond.

I didn't attempt it...that's true. Because it deserved a relevant, well-studied response, which I haven't had time for.

You wouldn't know about those kind of posts, though, so I don't know what you're yelling at ME about.

Again, stop responding to me if I am so worthless.

You are making a mockery of yourself, not to mention a hypocrite.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

If these terrorists are truly following Islam, as you say, then why do the majority of Muslim scholars (experts on shar'ia or "Islamic law", I'm sure) condemn the actions of these terrorists? Are they lying to us because we're "Infidels", so that the master plan of Islam (world domination) can be carried out under our noses, all while assuring us "Infidels" that this is not the true goal of Islam?

Because they are in abolutley no hurry to give up their McDonald's and be herded into internment camps.

They don't agree with the actions, but the terrorist's goals ARE in agreement with the goals of Islam.

quote:To me, this just seems like another crazy conspiracy theory that people have been cooking up for ages. Instead of communism trying to take over the world in the 20th century, now we're got Islam trying to take over!

Too simplistic, I'm afraid.

These type of guys have been around since the 1700s, and their goals have not changed.

Plus, Islam's been trying to take over the world since Mohammed took Mecca. Don't fall for the bullshit and misleading lies the media tells you about Islam to keep us from burning Muslim shops, this is the truth.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, he didn't. He plagerized someone else's work, and I haven't yet had time to respond.

I didn't attempt it...that's true. Because it deserved a relevant, well-studied response, which I haven't had time for.

You wouldn't know about those kind of posts, though, so I don't know what you're yelling at ME about.

Again, stop responding to me if I am so worthless.

You are making a mockery of yourself, not to mention a hypocrite.

How am I being a hypocrite? I'm not the one supporting the violent deaths of civillians and claiming to be a christian?



I guess it's just an obsessive compulsive thing. See idiot -> counter.

It is hyposcritical to say that someone is not a worthy opponent, and then insist on opposing them.

Don't talk to me, if you think I am so stupid.

GET IT, NOW ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Oh, and I don't support innocent people's deaths.

This is a perfect indication that you have no clue what I am talking about, and refuse to try and comprehend it.

So, stop wasting my time.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

These Muslims hated us so much that they would sacrifice their own lives, and kill thousands of others, yet they could stomach living amongst us long enough to be trained as pilot's by Americans, and be educated in American institutions ?



They sacrificed their lives to make people in their countries hate America. It didn't work nearly as well as they wanted because the Americans did a better job of not hitting civilian targets and distrubution propaganda than in the past. Hating America was a secondary reason, and understandable.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Oh, and I don't support innocent people's deaths.

This is a perfect indication that you have no clue what I am talking about, and refuse to try and comprehend it.

So, stop wasting my time.





You do support it when you support Bush. You do support it when you agree with his plan of action. Period. You haven't refuted the argument, hence that is the only logical explanation until then.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is hyposcritical to say that someone is not a worthy opponent, and then insist on opposing them.

Don't talk to me, if you think I am so stupid.

GET IT, NOW ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Oh, and I don't support innocent people's deaths.

This is a perfect indication that you have no clue what I am talking about, and refuse to try and comprehend it.

So, stop wasting my time.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-21-2004).]

No. The fact that you will never awknowledge a single point anyone else makes simply makes argueing with you frustrating as all hell, as I said. It's not an enjoyable debate, but one I will continue, as long as you continue to post bullshit and contradictions.

And by supporting this war, you support the deaths of innocents. I don't think thats a bad thing in and of itself. Sometimes people must suffer for no reason, so that a greater good may be accomplished. I'm calling you a hypocrite for trying to have you cake and eat it too. Either admit that innoscent people died, and you think it was necessary, and in the process effectively renounce being a Christian, or hold to your claim that killing is wrong in any context, and withdraw your support of Bush. If you can't see how that contradicts, then yes, you are an idiot.

And if you respond with a post about how the Iraqi war was justified because we needed to free the Iraqi people and Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction.... it's like argueing with a brick.

Also, I like the demand that I stop wasting your time. Building yourself an out now, in preperation for arguements you know you can't deal with in the future? One thing the various incarnations of you that have come up in this forum have in common is the ability to bullshit a few issues, to obscure the fact that they blatantly ingore others.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

No matter how you defend it, or manipulate it, IT'S EVIL, and completely lacking love, or any sort of notion of peace.

It's as EVIL as any other religion. It's not the religion itself as much as it is the situation in Arab countries. Where are the Malay Extremists, or the Berbers? Even in non-Arab Muslim countries, Arabs are usually the ones who perpertrate attacks. Visit Saudi Arabia one day, or any other country. You'll see why these Wahhabi scum extremists have so much power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Wahhabi = munafiq



[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-22-2004).]

Good luck visiting Saudi Arabia if you're not going on business or the hajj.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Good luck visiting Saudi Arabia if you're not going on business or the hajj.

Something tells me you wouldn't be welcome to conduct any type of business in Saudi Arabia.

Something tells me you'd be right on.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Also, I like the demand that I stop wasting your time. Building yourself an out now, in preperation for arguements you know you can't deal with in the future? One thing the various incarnations of you that have come up in this forum have in common is the ability to bullshit a few issues, to obscure the fact that they blatantly ingore others.

Nope...ignorance and anger is not a good combination, and you can't seem to have a decent, level-headed convseration.

Doesn't exactly make me want to "debate" with you.

I surely can combat your misinformed statements, but why ? You don't care, and never will.

I think I have proven well beyond any expectations that I can, and will hold my own on my views.

I knew you'd opt for that childish tactic, but no...you don't scare me, and no, you aren't smarter than me, and no, you can't prove that what you say is true any more than I can.

I wish I was as skilled and manipulative as you have portrayed me to be...I could be the first female president.

Adieu.

What I am posting here now is going to bother most of you tremendously.

I caution you now, if you are weak of stomach, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.

This is the actual video of the beheading of Eugene Armstrong, an innocent man.

- http://4.78.57.43/ogrish-dot-com-eugene-armstrong-beheading-video.wmv

Though these men do not represent the Nation of Islam as a whole, I believe that they are upholding the values put forth in the Qu'ran, thus making them "true" Muslims.

In all honesty, this made me sick to my stomach, and I cried for about 5 minutes following the conclusion of the video.

These people are INSANE.

I pray for them, even though my flesh prompts me to hate them...I tremble with fury at what these people have done.

But I guess we should just sit around on our butt's doing nothing while an entire nation ruled by a dictator who is like-minded plots against us.

I suppose now I will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist again.

(by the way, this man, and the other two hostages will be beheaded as a way of getting the US to release Iraqi women hostages. Women, whom hold NO MERIT whatsoever in the everyday lives of the Iraqi people. Women, whose sole purpose is to bear children. Women who are stoned to death for removing their facial garments in public.)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Nope...ignorance and anger is not a good combination, and you can't seem to have a decent, level-headed convseration.

Doesn't exactly make me want to "debate" with you.

I surely can combat your misinformed statements, but why ? You don't care, and never will.

I think I have proven well beyond any expectations that I can, and will hold my own on my views.

I knew you'd opt for that childish tactic, but no...you don't scare me, and no, you aren't smarter than me, and no, you can't prove that what you say is true any more than I can.

I wish I was as skilled and manipulative as you have portrayed me to be...I could be the first female president.

Adieu.



The poster Surahahriman is clearly not ignorant. You always use the tactic of calling intelligent people ignorant, because you know that gets to them.

anywho, I posted a link for you,http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm proving that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, and you didn't even respond. I'm so hurt.

[This message has been edited by WolfinSheepsClothing (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



But I guess we should just sit around on our butt's doing nothing while an entire nation ruled by a dictator who is like-minded plots against us.

You "guess"? You shouldn't be guessing. You should KNOW that. If you're a Christian, if you follow the words of the Christ then you must "sit around and do nothing" if by that you mean, "not result to military intervention or violence".

quote:

I suppose now I will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist again.

Why would you? You have evidence of that happening. What you don't have evidence of (absolutely no evidence) is that CBS or Dan Rather released the papers because of their anti-Christian bias.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Nope...ignorance and anger is not a good combination, and you can't seem to have a decent, level-headed convseration.

Doesn't exactly make me want to "debate" with you.

I surely can combat your misinformed statements, but why ? You don't care, and never will.

I think I have proven well beyond any expectations that I can, and will hold my own on my views.

I knew you'd opt for that childish tactic, but no...you don't scare me, and no, you aren't smarter than me, and no, you can't prove that what you say is true any more than I can.

I wish I was as skilled and manipulative as you have portrayed me to be...I could be the first female president.

Adieu.

Wow. Way to prove me completely right. I called that you'd do exactly this. Claim that you've utterly refuted all of my arguements, when in fact you have refuted none, then claim that I'm too ignorant to be worth responding too. After you accused me of claiming you an unworthy opponent. Once again, get an actual position to stand on.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

No. The fact that you will never awknowledge a single point anyone else makes simply makes argueing with you frustrating as all hell, as I said. It's not an enjoyable debate, but one I will continue, as long as you continue to post bullshit and contradictions.

And by supporting this war, you support the deaths of innocents. I don't think thats a bad thing in and of itself. Sometimes people must suffer for no reason, so that a greater good may be accomplished. I'm calling you a hypocrite for trying to have you cake and eat it too. Either admit that innoscent people died, and you think it was necessary, and in the process effectively renounce being a Christian, or hold to your claim that killing is wrong in any context, and withdraw your support of Bush. If you can't see how that contradicts, then yes, you are an idiot.

And if you respond with a post about how the Iraqi war was justified because we needed to free the Iraqi people and Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction.... it's like argueing with a brick.

I think innocent people have died, from both sides, and it was unecessary.

I think man is a warring race, and that all conflicts are only seen as resolved when a war has been used to settle the score.

I think Military FORCE was necessary in gaining some sort of control and order in Iraq. The first bullet that was shot was the first one shot in err.

I never said I supported war. I support reform. I support the regime change. I also support the rebuilding of Iraq.

I don't think Bush aimed to go around killing innocent people. I think he had a goal, and it has been accomplished. I may not necessarily agree with the method, but as you said...

We know Saddam did not have WMD's...I have only said that this was one of many reasons Bush decided to go into Iraq.

I am a Christian, but politics and Christianity do not often converge in a copacetic fashion.

I guess the one thing I could do is clearly indicate when I am speaking from a Christian perspective, and when I am strictly appealing to American Democratic beliefs.

The war is against my beliefs as a Christian. But the removal of a tyrannical rule and unabashed maltreatment of Iraq's people is neither Christian, nor non-Christian. And that is the stand I take.

It's a fine line, I know...and I guess I can see how that might be confusing, to a non-Christian.

I acknowledge all kinds of points...I am on the receiving end of the majority of the attacks. I do the best I can to defend my position to EVERYONE, and shed light on the perspective I hold. It is no easy prospect.

I don't see anything offensive about that. I do, however, see something offensive in your disrespectful accusations that I am "stupid".

I am becoming less inclined to speak with you, because your posts are derived out of anger. There is nothing constructive, whatsoever, in them...and they're are counter-productive to the issues presented, AT BEST.

So, you can accuse me of running from your debates out of fear, or lack of ability to withstand them, but you are invariably incorrect.

And no amount of taunting, or name calling, is going to force me into further exchange.

I am not a man, and I am not apt to participate in pissing contests.

These issues are real to me, and I believe them with my whole heart to be as I present them.

I am sorry that you feel that because my convictions are different from yours, I must be stupid.

That just doesn't make sense.

"But I guess we should just sit around on our butt's doing nothing while an entire nation ruled by a dictator who is like-minded plots against us."



This would NOT be happening if Saddam were still in charge of Iraq. If you remember, he kept the chicken shiites contained, like they should be. Saddam was in charge of a nation that could be retaliated against. Who do we strike now? Quick, spot the terrorist in the crowd of civilians.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Wow. Way to prove me completely right. I called that you'd do exactly this. Claim that you've utterly refuted all of my arguements, when in fact you have refuted none, then claim that I'm too ignorant to be worth responding too. After you accused me of claiming you an unworthy opponent. Once again, get an actual position to stand on.

There you go, twisting my words again.

You need therapy...truly. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I don't think you are too ignorant to reply to...I think you are too hostile to have a valuable opinion worthy of a response. Your ignorance lies in the "facts" you believe in (in my opinion).

I did not once say that I have utterly refuted all that you have said. Please quote me on that...I believe I said I have proven that I can hold my own. I run from nothing.

I didn't need to accuse you of anything. You have made it abundantly clear that my intelligence is nothing to be spoken of, so I was wondering why you bothered arguing with someone as "idiotic" as I am.

You are far too passionate about debating me to not care about what I am saying...so, I find that ironic, and hypocritical. It is not HOW I am saying things that bothers you (which is what you are claiming), it is WHAT I am saying that burns, so I don't know why you can't just admit that, and stop making personal attacks on me. Deal with the issues, and leave the rest out of it.

I don't think anyone else here is buying your BS.

By the way, I have noticed tendencies that you possess which emulate a certain other individual on this site...

One who has suddenly become the "perfect gentleman", as opposed to the "raging deviant".

Shall I say hello to you, yet again, Sir Rust ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The war is against my beliefs as a Christian. But the removal of a tyrannical rule and unabashed maltreatment of Iraq's people is neither Christian, nor non-Christian. And that is the stand I take.

It is completely against Christianity, and you, after days if not weeks of debate, have yet to show otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



One who has suddenly become the "perfect gentleman", as opposed to the "raging deviant".

Shall I say hello to you, yet again, Sir Rust ?



Yes. It was a choice of either giving you ammunition (because you're easily offended) or removing that at the risk of constraining my vocabulary.

As anyone with good vision should see, since I've stopped "insulting" you, you have yet to refute anything. Even worse, you don't even reply back. It's working like a charm.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:



The poster Surahahriman is clearly not ignorant. You always use the tactic of calling intelligent people ignorant, because you know that gets to them.

anywho, I posted a link for you,http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm proving that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, and you didn't even respond. I'm so hurt.

[This message has been edited by WolfinSheepsClothing (edited 09-22-2004).]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?!

My references to ignorance do not directly correlate to their level of intelligence. Lack of understanding or knowledge that is UNINTENTIONAL...that is the true definition of "ignorance".

I don't ALWAYS do that...it is used, when in context.

I am repeatedly told I am stupid, a pretentious whore, and a moron.

I don't see you defending ME when these things are said, so be fair, ok ?

And I am sorry about the link...I believe I replied to that, stating that only a 1/3 of Americans are truly Christian.

People can claim they are Christian all they want, but if your statistics were correct, our country would not be in the state it is in.

There wouldn't be any hungry, or poor.

My church does so much in the small town we live in to assist those in ANY sort of need, that I am forced to believe that if this mentality was shared by the majority of Americans, our country would TRULY be the greatest nation on the planet to live in.

'the iraq war is illegal' u.n. secretary general khofi annan

'the iraq war is a mistake' former secretary of defense robert macnamara

'civil war is now possible in iraq' - CIA

the number of insurgents in iraq increases on a daily basis. as of yesterday, 36 sections of iraq were under insurgent control. the need for re-instituting the draft is increasing. already there are bills pending in congress.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You "guess"? You shouldn't be guessing. You should KNOW that. If you're a Christian, if you follow the words of the Christ then you must "sit around and do nothing" if by that you mean, "not result to military intervention or violence".

Why would you? You have evidence of that happening. What you don't have evidence of (absolutely no evidence) is that CBS or Dan Rather released the papers because of their anti-Christian bias.

From a Christian perspective, YES. It is obvious that I would know that.

But this country is not being ran by Christian Fundamentalist principles, now is it ?

How can I truthfully recommend action that is clearly non-Christian, based upon my Christian beliefs ?

I am strictly approaching this situation from a political standpoint...and I would even go so far as to say that my views are pro-American, rather than pro-Christian.

Though my opinions are dominated by my Christian beliefs, at times, they simply don't apply (to pagan ideology).

Not because the Bible says so, but because the audience here at Totse would find it ridiculous to do so.

I am not a fanatic, and try my best not to construe myself as such.

And there are other evidences of anti-Christian reporting on news stations such as CBS.

Besides, I believe I was clear on the point that I was of the opinion that Dan Rather is anti-Christian. I did not say it was fact, though I have read a book authored by a gentleman that worked with Dan Rather, and his experiences in that environment conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rather is anti-Christian.

I will TRY to remember the book...it was long ago that I read it.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

"But I guess we should just sit around on our butt's doing nothing while an entire nation ruled by a dictator who is like-minded plots against us."



This would NOT be happening if Saddam were still in charge of Iraq. If you remember, he kept the chicken shiites contained, like they should be. Saddam was in charge of a nation that could be retaliated against. Who do we strike now? Quick, spot the terrorist in the crowd of civilians.

It is true, our enemy is relatively unseen...but that is due to SKILL, not lack of existence.

Saddam was a terrorist to his OWN PEOPLE. That was my point.

You say he kept the Shiites (sp?) under control (and he actually just murdered them relentlessly), but what really happened was that there WERE no Americans to fight. So, no war.

As I said before, if our presence in Iraq would have been enough to convince the people that they needed a regime change, then that would have been an optimal situation.

However, if you had sent over 10,000 unarmed troops, they would all be dead, without hesitation on the part of the murderers.

Just because they didn't make it to US soil doesn't mean they weren't a threat. It meant they didn't have the ability to come...at least, not at that time.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

From a Christian perspective, YES. It is obvious that I would know that.

But this country is not being ran by Christian Fundamentalist principles, now is it ?

Irrelevant. I didn't ask you if it was. You can support non-violence, pacifism, "sitting around on your butt all day long" or whatever else you want to call it, without there being a Christian Fundamentalist in office.

quote:

How can I truthfully recommend action that is clearly non-Christian, based upon my Christian beliefs ?

Hence... the conundrum... hence all the debate...

quote:

I am strictly approaching this situation from a political standpoint...and I would even go so far as to say that my views are pro-American, rather than pro-Christian.

Though my opinions are dominated by my Christian beliefs, at times, they simply don't apply (to pagan ideology).



Sorry, but you cannot pick and choose when to support a Christian standpoint and when not to, and still call yourself a Christian. The moment you support something that goes against the very essence of Christianity, you, by definition, cannot be a Christian. Period. There in lies the problem; you call yourself a Christian.

quote:

Not because the Bible says so, but because the audience here at Totse would find it ridiculous to do so.

Great, so you're undermining you faith because of people here might believe? Nice.

quote:

And there are other evidences of anti-Christian reporting on news stations such as CBS.

Wonderful. Then you wont mind showing us.

quote:

Besides, I believe I was clear on the point that I was of the opinion that Dan Rather is anti-Christian. I did not say it was fact, though I have read a book authored by a gentleman that worked with Dan Rather, and his experiences in that environment conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rather is anti-Christian.

And? I was merely stating a fact. That being, that you have no evidence to support that opinion. I might as well say that Jesus was a green alien from the planet Gorthok-5.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is completely against Christianity, and you, after days if not weeks of debate, have yet to show otherwise.

No, it's not. The METHODS of that removal, however, ARE.

The desire for change is not anti-Christian.

The proposal for a better life for those living in Iraq is not anti-Christian...

Don't you think if a humanitarian approach would have worked, that we would have used it ?

It wasn't possible...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, it's not. The METHODS of that removal, however, ARE.

The desire for change is not anti-Christian.

The proposal for a better life for those living in Iraq is not anti-Christian...

Don't you think if a humanitarian approach would have worked, that we would have used it ?

It wasn't possible...



That's the problem! You aren't just supporting change. You're supporting change by force. Like it or not, by saying you support Bush's decisions, you are supporting change by force. Moreover, by voting for him or by supporting his campaign you are once again supporting change by force.

THAT is against Christianity.

"I am repeatedly told I am stupid, a pretentious whore, and a moron."

__________________________________________________ ___-

Here Or in spurious? I'm not a fan of arguing ad hominem against anyone, unless I just feel like being a wise-ass. I agree nobody should call you a whore, at least not without citing sources http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I'm joking.

"And I am sorry about the link...I believe I replied to that, stating that only a 1/3 of Americans are truly Christian."

__________________________________________________-

No, I said 70% of Americans were christian, you laughed and said you wanted sources. I can quote the entirety of your comments if you like.

Here:

"70% of Americans are Christians ? LMAO !! Show me some stats...I have reputable sites thatI have posted before, showing that only a third of Americans consider themselves Christian, and of those, very few are practicing." +1 for me eh?

[This message has been edited by WolfinSheepsClothing (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Irrelevant. I didn't ask you if it was. You can support non-violence, pacifism, "sitting around on your butt all day long" or whatever else you want to call it, without there being a Christian Fundamentalist in office.

That wasn't even remotely my point, and you know it.

This country is ran in the fashion that it is, which is without Christian beliefs.

Knowing that, how can I suggest what should be done in Iraq from a Christian perspective, with a straight face on ?

From MY Christian perspective, we oughtn't to have gone to war.

We shouldn't have killed ANYONE, in the name of reform.

We should be against abortion, and gay marriage, and against the death penalty.

But who cares ? Christians are stupid, and idealistic.

So, I won't produce acts of futility. I felt I was appealing to the "pagan" perspective, even as I was opposing it.

Sorry, but you cannot pick and choose when to support a Christian standpoint and when not to, and still call yourself a Christian. The moment you support something that goes against the very essence of Christianity, you, by definition, cannot be a Christian. Period. There in lies the problem; you call yourself a Christian.[/b]

I didn't pick and choose...I was CLEAR when I said I abhorred the deaths of the people involved in this war, American and Iraqi alike

I was CLEAR when I said that ACTION was necessary, but just WHAT action was not clear.

On that point, I asked for legitimate, logical alternatives to war, and none were given, except "not invade". Yes, very ASTUTE ! Doesn't solve the problem though, now does it ?

quote:Great, so you're undermining you faith because of people here might believe? Nice.

Nope...trying to appeal to the vast majority, while not compromising one's beliefs is a proverbial tight rope.

I see now that I failed miserably at it.

For that, I apologize. My intentions were honorable, and not in the least bit derived from any sort of embarassment for my religious affiliations.

quote:Wonderful. Then you wont mind showing us.

Why are YOU exempt from doing your own research ? I do enough to cover EVERYONE here on Totse...if you truly want to know, which you don't, look it up yourself.

I acn provide the proof, but I am getting pretty tired of this hare chase.

quote:And? I was merely stating a fact. That being, that you have no evidence to support that opinion. I might as well say that Jesus was a green alien from the planet Gorthok-5.

No, you were accusing me of presenting that opinion as FACT, which I was clearly not.

And I have plenty of evidence, but again..why should I do all the research here ?

"Because it is YOUR burden of proof." I'll hit that nail on the head before you do, since I know it is coming anyway.

That's getting old...LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF !

And your comment about Jesus is getting old, too. That si the third time, that I can remember distinctly, that you have used that planet, and that illustration.

But, to appease you, if I wanted to find out whether or not Jesus truly was from planet Gorthok-5, I would do the research.

But I know he isn't, so I don't want to. So, in a way, I guess I am guilty of the same thing you are. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

How the hell did a Christian woman, of all people, end up posting on totse?

You'd think the content of the main page alone would scare such a person away.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes. It was a choice of either giving you ammunition (because you're easily offended) or removing that at the risk of constraining my vocabulary.

As anyone with good vision should see, since I've stopped "insulting" you, you have yet to refute anything. Even worse, you don't even reply back. It's working like a charm.



Actually, it should have occured to you by now that I am simply tired of you.

Not because I can't continue...I just don't have the desire.

I lost it, when you called me a whore.

If you consider THAT to mean that I am easily offended...

It speaks volumes of your character (as if I shouldn't have been offended by that !)

So, are you admitting that I refuted you, while you were insulting me ?

LMAO

*snag*

If your purpose is to get me to not reply to you, then don't say anything to me at all.

Now THAT will work like a charm !

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

How the hell did a Christian woman, of all people, end up posting on totse?

You'd think the content of the main page alone would scare such a person away.

I don't scare easily.

I am Irish, among many other things. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am Irish, among many other things. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Unless you were born in Ireland, no you're not. Go ask somebody who was.

I had to learn their hatred for Irish-Americans the hard way. Fuck the Irish. I've disowned them from my blood.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

hat wasn't even remotely my point, and you know it.

Then don't say that. It's irrelevant.

quote:

This country is ran in the fashion that it is, which is without Christian beliefs.

Knowing that, how can I suggest what should be done in Iraq from a Christian perspective, with a straight face on ?

That's EXACTLY what you should do. If you have any convictions on your beliefs that is.

quote:

From MY Christian perspective, we oughtn't to have gone to war.

We shouldn't have killed ANYONE, in the name of reform.

Then that's exactly what you should support... but you don't. Hence, you're not a Christian.



quote:I didn't pick and choose...I was CLEAR when I said I abhorred the deaths of the people involved in this war, American and Iraqi alike

I was CLEAR when I said that ACTION was necessary, but just WHAT action was not clear.

On that point, I asked for legitimate, logical alternatives to war, and none were given, except "not invade". Yes, very ASTUTE ! Doesn't solve the problem though, now does it ?

You still don't get it. The point is, if you were a Christian you WOULDN'T NEED ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN "NOT INVADE". That's the point.

That you would choose "invade" over "not-invade" already proves that you are not a Christian.

quote:Nope...trying to appeal to the vast majority, while not compromising one's beliefs is a proverbial tight rope.

I see now that I failed miserably at it.

For that, I apologize. My intentions were honorable, and not in the least bit derived from any sort of embarassment for my religious affiliations.

Appeasing to the majority? Isn't that what you accused Kerry of? Does that then make you a hypocrite? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Why are YOU exempt from doing your own research ? I do enough to cover EVERYONE here on Totse...if you truly want to know, which you don't, look it up yourself.

I acn provide the proof, but I am getting pretty tired of this hare chase

Simple. Because you made the claim.

If not then I could say, "Hey, DS, look for information about Jesus being an alien. I cover all of Totse.. blah blah blah".

quote:

No, you were accusing me of presenting that opinion as FACT, which I was clearly not.

Really? Quote me where I used the word fact please.

quote:

And I have plenty of evidence, but again..why should I do all the research here ?

"Because it is YOUR burden of proof." I'll hit that nail on the head before you do, since I know it is coming anyway.

That's getting old...LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF !

THAT is getting old. It's your burden of proof. That you don't want to bring evidence just serves to show us your childishness.

quote:

And your comment about Jesus is getting old, too. That si the third time, that I can remember distinctly, that you have used that planet, and that illustration.

It's effective. Tried and True if you will.

quote:

But, to appease you, if I wanted to find out whether or not Jesus truly was from planet Gorthok-5, I would do the research.

But I know he isn't, so I don't want to. So, in a way, I guess I am guilty of the same thing you are. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Hehehe... No. You are supposed to bring evidence to back up your claim. I never claimed Jesus was an alien, that was merely a rhetorical argument meant to show how childish it is to not provide evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Actually, it should have occured to you by now that I am simply tired of you.

Not because I can't continue...I just don't have the desire.

I lost it, when you called me a whore.

I stopped and you still "lacked desire".

quote:

If you consider THAT to mean that I am easily offended...

It speaks volumes of your character (as if I shouldn't have been offended by that !)

You were "being offended" before I even said that. THAT'S why you're easily offended.

quote:

So, are you admitting that I refuted you, while you were insulting me ?

LMAO

*snag*



No. I'm admitting it looked that way because you began complaining.

quote:If your purpose is to get me to not reply to you, then don't say anything to me at all.

Now THAT will work like a charm !

My purpose is for you to admitt that you're not a Christian. Either by virtue of your own words, or by virtue of your telling silence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Everything Digital_Savior has said since my last post.



"... and then the left side of my brain turned to the right side of my brain and said, 'It's dark in here. And we may die.'"

I can't do this any more. It's almost physically painful. Rust, I'll leave this in your more level-headed hands. From the times we're debated, I trust you'll do the opposition justice.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Actually, Digital, Loc Dogg dealt with the issue in another one of your posts. Further debate revealed you had read it, but you completely and utterly failed to even attempt to demonstrate how it didn't utterly refute your position. Until you do so, your just shouting air and less-than-bullshit.

Damn straight. I won't bother plagarizing another person's info. So here's a little something that will stop your "MUSLIMS ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL INNOCENT PPPLZ!!!111":

As for anyone who kills a mumin deliberately,

his repayment is Hell,

remaining in it timelessly, for ever.

Allah is angry with him and has cursed him,

and has prepared for him a terrible punishment.

(Qur’an : 4. 92)

Do you understand? If any Muslim kills an innocent person, they go to HELL! Allah prepares a punishent for them! Now please, stop with your garbage.

[This message has been edited by Loc Dogg (edited 09-22-2004).]

Mercy is considered the height of character, and forgiveness is valued and urged by the examples of the prophets.

These people are not only killers of innocents not only of Americans, but also of other Muslims, and people everywhere regardless of background.

Nothing stops them from attacking Mosques or killing other Muslims during worship, nothing stopped them when they killed many Muslims in recent attacks.

They are munafiq, they use Islam, and struggle as a shield to commit their actions, thus they are hypocrites, slanderers, and blasphemers. For killing the innocent, and for not having mercy of any sort, they are destined to what Loc Dogg described above.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Unless you were born in Ireland, no you're not. Go ask somebody who was.

I had to learn their hatred for Irish-Americans the hard way. Fuck the Irish. I've disowned them from my blood.

I was born in Limerick, though quite by accident (military story).

I didn't live there, but I am the third generation to live here in the US.

My family came over on a boat to Newfoundland, and ended up in Pennsylvania.

So, anyway...yes, I am Irish. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

(I'm sorry you feel that way about the Natives...the Irish don't get along with ANYONE, so I wouldn't take it personally.)

To RUST:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Whatever...here we go again...this ends up about YOU and ME, and not the topic at hand.

Yes, I am a Christian, and you can try to manipulate my words and opinions all you want, but that fact won't change.

You don't listen...ACTION does not mean murder. I supported action, not murder.

I SUPPORTED ACTION NOT MURDER.

Shall I say it again ?

You conveniently ignore key points, of which I felt I have been completely honest, in order to paint this picture of the kind of "monster" you have convinced yourself that I am.

You know why I am a Christian ? Because I know Christ died for my sins, and I accept his forgiveness.

I forgive others, when I think it is NOT possible to do so.

I TRY not to lie, and I DON'T cheat or steal.

I give to others when I have nothing left to give.

I repent of my sin to a God who was merciful enough to give me the one thing I couldn't give to myself...salvation.

I thank Him every day for his mercy, justice, and redemption.

I come to places like Totse (and places in the real world) to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, because that is what I have been told to do.

I know the Bible better than anyone on this forum (and that is not arrogance...this has, sadly, been proven over time), and it's not because I am anal retentive and like to memorize things in order to use them against people later.

As far as my political points of view are concerned, I don't think anyone should have died over this situation in Iraq...I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. You are blatantly ignoring that I have said that in order to prove that I am NOT a Christian, and I am beginning to think you are just trying to get a rise out of me.

Why ? Because why the hell do YOU care what I think ? Why does it bother you so much that I am a Christian ?

Why can't you focus on the issues, and not on the person presenting them ? (more specifically, me)

Because you don't care about these issues. You want to prove that Christianity is a fallacy. (if you cared about the issues, you would present some respectable evidence showing why you feel the way you do)

It appears that you would also like to prove that those who call themselves Christians truly aren't. In some cases you may be absolutely right, but in THIS one, you are wrong.

Well, you are right, from one angle. We can NEVER be exactly like Jesus...we're human, and we are apt to sin. From the minute we are born, until the minute we die, we are tempted, and urged, and plagued by the enemy to commit sin. Lucifer knows that it creates a barrier between us, and the Lord.

I could allow myself to get upset that you continue to question my faith, but I'm not going to. I almost did, and then I started thinking about what a sad, lost little lamb you are, and how all you need is a one-on-one with God. I was there once...I remember this hatred. I recall this animosity.

That's not my fault...*shrugs* So I am not going to take responsibility for it.

I think that one day you will recognize from whence your misguided anger comes, and that will be an awesome day.

Until then, I am not going to get involved in these ridiculous go-rounds with you anymore.

If you can't actively participate in the thread, then speak to me all you want, but don't expect a response.

You HAVE cleaned up your mouth, but that ONE name (WHORE) was enough to keep me from giving two cents about what you have to say.

I have been answering, unwillingly.

I think it is obvious to everyone else on this thread what you are all about, and I don't need to defend myself anymore. It's silly, and it's childish. I let you drag me down into your pit, and I think I'll just climb out now.

*brushes herself off*

Good eve, Rust.

Have fun arguing with yourself.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You don't listen...ACTION does not mean murder. I supported action, not murder.

I SUPPORTED ACTION NOT MURDER.

Shall I say it again ?

You supported Bush's action. What was his idea of "action"? WAR. Hence you supported war. That you plan on voting for him, or support him in any way means that you are either directly or indirectly supporting War.

That you need another a plan of action other than "not invade" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not a Christian. Conveniently, you decided to evade that part.

You also decided that instead of giving a part by part refutation, you would make a long rant, ignoring my arguments.

quote:As far as my political points of view are concerned, I don't think anyone should have died over this situation in Iraq...I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. You are blatantly ignoring that I have said that in order to prove that I am NOT a Christian, and I am beginning to think you are just trying to get a rise out of me.

I'm not ignoring anything. I know you said that. The point is your actions, and your words, speak otherwise.

If you support Bush then you support his plan of action, which is War, hence you support war. Period. There is no way around it. The fact that you haven't refuted this speaks greatly of your willingness to ignore this to save yourself from the embarrassment.

quote:Why ? Because why the hell do YOU care what I think ? Why does it bother you so much that I am a Christian ?

It bothers me that you claim to be a Christian when you're clearly not.

quote:Why can't you focus on the issues, and not on the person presenting them ? (more specifically, me)

Because that IS part of the issue. You're arguing that Muslims are violent. I'm showing you your hypocrisy inherent in that argument.

quote: I almost did, and then I started thinking about what a sad, lost little lamb you are, and how all you need is a one-on-one with God. I was there once...I remember this hatred. I recall this animosity.

There you go... judging me and insulting me. Very Christian of you.

quote:I think that one day you will recognize from whence your misguided anger comes, and that will be an awesome day.

Who the hell says I'm angry? I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

quote:Until then, I am not going to get involved in these ridiculous go-rounds with you anymore.

YOU not wanting to argue any more!?!?!

Well, that was a complete surprise! That took me completely off-guard! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

How many times is that now? 3? 4? 5 times?

quote:If you can't actively participate in the thread, then speak to me all you want, but don't expect a response.

I am actively participating in it. You just don't like the way I'm going about it because it's pointing out your evident hypocrisy.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-23-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

No matter how you defend it, or manipulate it, IT'S EVIL, and completely lacking love, or any sort of notion of peace.



I hope you don't speak when you go to church. If you do, your are a disgrace in God's eyes.

I Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not premitted unto the to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.



[This message has been edited by Jasper Jones (edited 09-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Jasper Jones:

I hope you don't speak when you go to church. If you do, your are a disgrace in God's eyes.

I Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not premitted unto the to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

[This message has been edited by Jasper Jones (edited 09-23-2004).]

Good quote. The bible is full of them.



And yet people still tout their Christian "Values".

quote:Originally posted by Jasper Jones:

I hope you don't speak when you go to church. If you do, your are a disgrace in God's eyes.

I Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not premitted unto the to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

[This message has been edited by Jasper Jones (edited 09-23-2004).]

Yes, except you are completely ignorant of the context in which this verse was given.

In olden times of the Jews, women would sit in the back of the church, and men in the front.

This command was given, because the women would ask questions, and because of their distance from the "teacher", they would have to shout.

This caused much disturbance, and took away from the teaching. It was also viewed as disrespectful. (they were women, after all)

So, instead of allowing these questions to occur INSIDE the temple, they were permitted to ask their spouses, ONLY in the privacy of their own home.

The epistles contain two mutually exclusive practices:

- The promotion of Christ's revolutionary message, in which women and men (and prostitutes, and the hated tax collectors etc) were treated equally.

- The rejection of Christ's message, in which women's roles are once more restricted as women were restored to their former inferior status as seen in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

The author of the verse you are misinterpretting is PAUL.

Here is another verse, written by Paul:

"Acts 9:36: In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas[1] ), who was always doing good and helping the poor." (NIV)

Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.

DISCIPLE: One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.

*raises an eyebrow*

ACTS 21:7-9: "We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day. 8 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied."

PROPHETESS: A woman who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

OR

The chief spokeswoman of a movement or cause.

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess.

MINISTER - One who is authorized to perform religious functions in a Christian church, especially a Protestant church.

- Roman Catholic Church. The superior in certain orders.

- A high officer of state appointed to head an executive or administrative department of government.

- An authorized diplomatic representative of a government, usually ranking next below an ambassador.

- A person serving as an agent for another by carrying out specified orders or functions.

DEACONESS - A Protestant woman who assists the minister in various functions.

(Romans 16:1, 3, 12; Phil. 4:2, 3; 1 Tim. 3:11; 5:9, 10; Titus 2:3, 4). In these passages it is evident that females were then engaged in various Christian ministrations.

Romans 16:7: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (NIV)

Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles".

APOSTLE - Apostle One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.

- A missionary of the early Christian Church.

- A leader of the first Christian mission to a country or region.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)

Philippians 4:2: 2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.

1 Peter 4:10-11: As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and should be permitted to exercise that gift.



It is obvious from these texts that not only were women seen as EQUALS, but were allowed to teach others.

The verse you gave was specific to those living in Corinth, who had issues with women speaking out of turn in church.



Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with the Hebrews, their old laws, and their culture before you go touting off scriptures that you obviously don't understand.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

Good quote. The bible is full of them.

And yet people still tout their Christian "Values".

You are acting like a child.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

At least I am not ignorant of my own values, and try not to be when I am speaking of others'.

I also found a better rendition of what I just said online...(no, I didn't get this from HIM, but it supports what I was saying)

- http://www.kencollins.com/question-32.htm

Digital, couple of quick questions, not really related to the topic at hand, but born out of one of your recent posts.

1. So, the Old Testamant should be viewed as just a history text, with anything in the New Testamant that contradicts the old superceding it?



2. Wouldn't a prophetess be against the teachings of god? I thought the only people who were allowed to do that were the line of 20-30 "Prophets", ending with Christ, or Muhhammaded if you're Islamic. That just seems like it falls under witchcraft and such.

3. What denomination are you?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Digital, couple of quick questions, not really related to the topic at hand, but born out of one of your recent posts.

1. So, the Old Testamant should be viewed as just a history text, with anything in the New Testamant that contradicts the old superceding it?

There are many things to be learned from the Old Testament. However, the most important thing in the Old Testament was the Law of Moses, which most certainly is superceded by the Law of Christ.

There are no contradictions, there are revisions. Not stemming from "mistakes", but from redemption.

Other important things are the genealogies, which outline the age of the earth since the very beginning, to today.

If you count the ages of each person in the genealogies, you can come up with a solid date for the beginning of the earth.

The other significant purpose of the genealogies is to document the line of Judah, or more specifically the Line of David, from which Jesus was prophecied to have come from. Why is this important ? Because David was a King, and the prophecy foretells that Jesus would come from a royal line.

There are other important reasons for the Old Testament, but I feel the latter two are the most important.

quote:2. Wouldn't a prophetess be against the teachings of god? I thought the only people who were allowed to do that were the line of 20-30 "Prophets", ending with Christ, or Muhhammaded if you're Islamic. That just seems like it falls under witchcraft and such.

Why would you think that ? Because of the Dictionary definition of that word, or because of something else ? I'm not going to answer until I am sure I understand what you are asking.

Please give me some scriptures that speak of the line of 20, because that is not sparking any memories from me. (I don't recall seeing that in the Bible.)

I am not referring to Prophetesses as "soothsayers". It is a title given to women that act as beacons for God's will/word.

As I posted earlier, the definition is: "A woman who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a God is expressed."

If God is speaking to you, you'd better say something ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

This should not be considered a "profession", as God may only literally speak through someone ONCE in their whole life.

God uses who He wishes to use, and it is not exclusive to one person or another. Right place at the right time sort of thing.

Look at the people in the Bible...they are good examples of who is used, for what purpose, and for how long.

The "interpreter" portion of that definition, I believe, applies to "speaking in tongues".

This is not a common occurance, and just as the person SPEAKING in tongues has become filled with the spirit, so will the interpreter. To the common ear, it will sound like gibberish. Without the spirit, these ramblings will be just that...incpomprehensible ramblings.

One must be careful that they are being divinely inspired. It is worse for you to pretend to know the words of God. (people like Benny Hinn, and the TBN crazies are good examples of this hypocrisy)

quote:3. What denomination are you?

Non-denominational.

I read the Bible, and take it for what it's worth. I study it, with a Strong's Concordance, and an English to Hebrew translator, so that I may fully understand the expressions and description in the Bible, so as not to misunderstand the meaning of the text.

I am sure I make mistakes on my own, but my pastor is pretty well versed, and he runs a non-denominational church.

I believe religion separates people, and does very little good for anyone.

Religion was created by man. Salvation was created by God, through the death of Christ.

I am called a "Christian", because I try and follow the teachings of "Christ". But that is about the extent of that title.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-24-2004).]

The Koran (the Muslim equivalent of the bible) actually says that if you meet a man, try to convert him. If he does not convert, you are to beat him until he converts. If he still does not convert, then you are to kill him.

I dont know the exact words, but MAYBE someone who has read the damn thing can back me up on this.

I have already created a thread where your post is supported. Scroll down the list a bit, and look for a title with "Muslim" and "Peace" in it.

I can't remember exactly what it says.

But, you are right.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

The Koran (the Muslim equivalent of the bible) actually says that if you meet a man, try to convert him. If he does not convert, you are to beat him until he converts. If he still does not convert, then you are to kill him.





That's why they had the crusades.It's not so much they were x-tian, as it was they hated muslims, for being such douche bags.

I don't have a Bible here at school, but I remember something about there being something about a set number of Prophets. Like, Noah, Moses, somewhere between 20 and 30 who were considered the Prophets of God. And the Jews just consider Jesus the next in line, and Muslims believed the same, except that they think Muhammad was the last Prophet.

Yeah, I've seen the geneologies thing. The earth is supposed to be something like 6032 years old, and was made on March 22, at 6:00 PM.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

The Koran (the Muslim equivalent of the bible) actually says that if you meet a man, try to convert him. If he does not convert, you are to beat him until he converts. If he still does not convert, then you are to kill him.

I dont know the exact words, but MAYBE someone who has read the damn thing can back me up on this.



Both the Bible and the Koran advocate unsavory things, because they were created in very unsavory times, where people did things that contradicted their fundemental religious principles every day. Killing every woman who has ever slept with a man and keeping the virgins for rape/slavery is advocated in the Bible but is probably not something many modern Christians would attach their faith to. Reading modern Christian analysis, they would say that God was doing 'his will' through the plundering and killing hands of his people, rather than an earthquake or a flood. God was said to be committing justice, in the form of a horrific massacre. If the Christian God is in place, then you would have to assume that the terrorists would have to be doing his will, as God owns EVERYTHING. If Christians can explain the killing of newborns and the sexual slavery of women in war as justice(turning the other cheek!?!?!!?!) then you would have to assume things in something not black and white, because for some reason in that context those atrocities were GOOD. For your information, I know a Catholic family, and they follow principle, not literal fanaticism. You have to remember that the Bible was written by people, mortal, human, people who were said to have recieved the word of God and transcribed what really happened. But people are flawed, and people forget, and I doubt people back then had a photographic memory and an extremely varied set of vocabulary back then. So I wouldn't take it literally.

Did I also mention that it is said that the Devil has a way with every mortal person, and that it is impossible to escape sin? The writers of the Bible could have been easily influenced by the Devil, and some parts of the Bible are excluded from the modern Bible most Christians read, for great sociopolitical reasons.

[This message has been edited by AngrySquirrel (edited 09-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Bible quotes bible quotes bible quotes

Yes, you have found out that the Bible is full of contradictions. Just like the Koran. The reason I'm doing this is because you are attacking Islam, something I find dispicable. And you're doing it by quoting the Koran and showing examples of "muslim" terrorists who don't even follow the Koran.

There's a Bible quote on the tip of my tongue, something like "you are so quick to point out the speck in my eye, when you do not notice the log in yours." Something like that, you're the Bible nut, help me out here.

"A rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel going through the eye of a needle"

Jesus' words are the only ones I would ever follow. The rest are mortal, flawed, humans are said to be the Devil's own! Only Jesus could say things without doubt of evil influence! Why would any Christian believe without a doubt the words of any mortal human who could be the agent of the Devil? And btw, there is footage of US soldiers raping and abusing women y'know. Part of what made Congress recoil so much.

quote:Originally posted by Jasper Jones:

Yes, you have found out that the Bible is full of contradictions. Just like the Koran. The reason I'm doing this is because you are attacking Islam, something I find dispicable. And you're doing it by quoting the Koran and showing examples of "muslim" terrorists who don't even follow the Koran.

There's a Bible quote on the tip of my tongue, something like "you are so quick to point out the speck in my eye, when you do not notice the log in yours." Something like that, you're the Bible nut, help me out here.

No, the Bible is NOT full of contradictions, and you blatantly lie to yourself to make your life more "comfy" for you.

You don't do this to defend Muslims, you do it because you hate Christians.

I, however, don't HATE Muslims. I detest their behaviour (the one's that are violent. The one's that are not produce no such feelings from me).

If the Qu'ran tells it's followers to seek out unbelievers, try to convert them, and if they won't, KILL THEM, then how are the extremist's NOT following the Qu'ran ?

If you're not a violent Muslim, then you aren't a Muslim at all, based on the teachings in the Qu'ran.

If you think I am so wrong about it, start posting some actual verses from it, and PROVE me wrong. (I would actually like to have it explained)

I see a lot of, "You stupid Christian. You don't know anything about the Qu'ran."

But NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, has given some verses that refute the others that I have posted (which PROMOTE MURDER), or even tried to explain the context under which the "violent" verses were written.

It is very possible that they have been taken out of context, but I read them, and it didn't appear to me that I was misunderstanding them.

So, feel free to teach me. Telling me to shut up because I am a woman doesn't do much to support your cause.

The verse you are referring to is spoken by Jesus, and goes like this:

Matthew 7:5 - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

But, where is the speck in MY eye ?

I don't condone violence and murder, no matter WHAT Rust tells you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

And the truth is the truth. It is not judgement to state the truth. (I do not condemn you to Hell for not believing in God. He does.)

God also says to spread the gospel, and to be wary of false idols and false gods.

That's what the religion of Islam is, and the violence perpetrated by it's followers only proves that fact, even further than the maniacal teachings of the Qu'ran already does.

So, I could sit around, wallowing in apathy, and NOT following the laws and commands that MY God has given me to follow, by allowing your religion to go unnoticed, and unchecked.

It is my duty as a Christian to point out the flaws, so that none may fall victim to them.

I know that sounds pretty arrogant, but God is real, and the Bible is infallible. (I am not going to argue with you on this point, because that is not the reason for this post. I believe it, and that's that.)

So, I am not being a hypocrite by pointing out the religion of Islam as a false religion.

I am also not a hypocrite for saying that "insurgents", or "militants", or "extremists" do not represent the Qu'ran accurately.

Again, if you can "prove" otherwise using actual verses, and actual teaching, then please do so. I am willing to learn.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-25-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by AngrySquirrel:

"A rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel going through the eye of a needle"

Jesus' words are the only ones I would ever follow. The rest are mortal, flawed, humans are said to be the Devil's own! Only Jesus could say things without doubt of evil influence! Why would any Christian believe without a doubt the words of any mortal human who could be the agent of the Devil? And btw, there is footage of US soldiers raping and abusing women y'know. Part of what made Congress recoil so much.

Yes, but they weren't Christian.

I didn't think we were taking about Countries, here, but religions.

I never said AMERICANS can't do wrong. (And even Christians can...we're certainly not perfect, either)

And Jesus' words were interpretted and written down by men. So, what's your point ?

Think God isn't powerful enough to ensure that His teachings remain manifested in accuracy ? That He cannot maintain the infallibility of the Bible ?

Or are you referring to the Qu'ran over the Bible ? Please clarify.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The verse you are referring to is spoken by Jesus, and goes like this:

Matthew 7:5 - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

But, where is the speck in MY eye ?

I don't condone violence and murder, no matter WHAT Rust tells you.

Numbers 31

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian....

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yoursleves.

Deuteronomy 21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the eleders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of the city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The Bible endorses slavery, beating children, subjection of women. These are archaic passages, written in another time. The same goes for the Koran. You're so quick to point out my misinterpretations, but are you a Koranic scholar? You can't, with certainty, condem Islam, just as I can't condem Christianity, since I have not read the Bible, nor you read the Koran.

You wouldn't approve of Christians stoning children to death, just as the majority of Muslims, moderate ones, don't support killing of nonbelievers.

quote:3. What denomination are you?



By the way, I found a pretty good description of the church I go to here:

- http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/calvary.html <--- I can't get the darn spaces to stay out of this link, so just delete them once you cut and paste it into your address bar. Sorry...

And our statement of faith:

- http://www.calvaryphx.com/aboutcalv_whatwebelieve.cfm



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-25-2004).]

Digital Savior, as you may well know, many different denominations of Christianity use differing Bibles. Many books have been omitted over time from changing books of the Bible. Protestants and Catholics differ on the authenticity of the Apocrypha, which may, or may not be considered Scripture, depending on which you ask. In the Protestant argument there, most Protestants believe the books to be uninspired. The only proof or reasons we have there are the accounts of those in 1629 and the differing accounts of historians. The Apocrypha definately contrasts from most Scripture and could be considered heretical if you put it in one context. But look how many Catholics there are, and they were the product of what Jesus designated. Some people use the New Living Translation, which rewrote the Bible to what is believed to be the intended meaning, rather than just what was said before. People changing the word of God? The book of Enoch? The Gospel of Thomas? The stated canon differs so much inbetween. The only 'right' and 'wrong' version is defined by human pride and prejudice. Versions of the Bible were contested simply on account of whether the people had the right to rebel against a bad ruler or to stick with one.

I believe the Apostle Paul says that the future ruler of the church, "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God". If this prediction of the Apostle is true, and from a first-century perspective it would soon come to pass when the very Prince of Darkness would sit in the "temple of God, showing himself that he is God", and be worshiped by a disillusioned people who would falsely believe they were calling upon the name of the Lord, then all people who consider themselves to be sincere believers today had better rethink their position with respect to the purity with which the scriptures has been preserved. Moreover, in view of the fact that the Apostle warns that the church would be guided by false apostles -- some of whom were the very scribes who copied the biblical manuscripts we use to make our translations today -- then for the sincere believer to blindly accept the position of the modern church that the scriptures were preserved in a pure state, is merely asking to be deceived and misled. In our search today for Truth and Light, it is imperative that we recognize the warning in the Apostle’s own Epistles where we can clearly see that Paul predicts that counterfeit apostles and ministers would arise, and would control the church of this world which the masses of people will mistakenly believe is the genuine church of God. Of these false apostles and their leader, the Apostle warned the faithful flock: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works". Protestant, Catholic, I wouldn't know.

Thus, Digital Savior, I didn't say God never set down a plain and simple truth. But he gave us free will didn't he? And plainly you can see what Paul predicted. Do you believe your scripture to be the TRUE, and COMPLETE one? You may be a sincere believer of Satan for all you know. The rest may be buried in the sand or burned to a crisp in a monastery fireplace. But God would probably show the true one for certain in time. Just don't attach yourself too much to human fads.

In case your memory fails you, this is the full reply to this: "Think God isn't powerful enough to ensure that His teachings remain manifested in accuracy ? That He cannot maintain the infallibility of the Bible ?"

Just listen to Paul. I never said God doesn't have the power. I'm just stating that people are easily swayed and we shouldn't attach ourselves to differing text so easily, as you know as well as I our flaws.

[This message has been edited by AngrySquirrel (edited 09-25-2004).]

i'm muslim and i can tell you that there is nothing wrong in islam in beheading infidels who attack muslims not to mention that the beheading occured in IRAQ and not in the US or UK the victims where helping the troops in a way or in another there are no civilians in Iraq our relligion tell us to treat people as they treat us if a country kills our civilians we should kill their civilians if it kill our children we should kill their children that's all by the way i think that beheading infidels with a sharp knife is very civilised i prefer that mujahedeen use a rusted SAW

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 09-26-2004).]

The Muslims have a cause. They are beheading people to send a message to America. Nothing is wrong with it. It is justified because we are the ones who invaded their country in the first place. Personally, I want more Americans to be beheaded. They deserve to die.

Polls from Al-Jezeera say that 93% of ALL MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE-EAST support the executions. This is proof that the terrorists aren't just "religious extremists" but are just normal middle-eastern Muslims.

stupid idiot. two wrongs don't make a right. every new death in iraq, regardless of nationality, threatens to increase the tragedy of this murky time in history.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

stupid idiot. two wrongs don't make a right. every new death in iraq, regardless of nationality, threatens to increase the tragedy of this murky time in history.



War is hell. Theres no question about it, and everyone caught in it becomes a tragedy. Each Iraqi death brings more Iraqis arming for vengeance and each American and Coalition death brings anger, sadness, and questions. They have beheaded prisoners, and we have beaten and suffocated prisoners to death. Undoubtably we have both killed innocents, so we have both wronged. One can hedge over image and culture, but all of them died.

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

i'm muslim and i can tell you that there is nothing wrong in islam in beheading infidels who attack muslims not to mention that the beheading occured in IRAQ and not in the US or UK the victims where helping the troops in a way or in another there are no civilians in Iraq our relligion tell us to treat people as they treat us if a country kills our civilians we should kill their civilians if it kill our children we should kill their children that's all by the way i think that beheading infidels with a sharp knife is very civilised i prefer that mujahedeen use a rusted SAW

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 09-26-2004).]

Actually you can't kill kids. You can kill women, but no kids. Or old people. Plus, you cannot kill prisoners, unless they have committed a crime. The Battle of Khandaq is an example.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

Actually you can't kill kids. You can kill women, but no kids. Or old people. Plus, you cannot kill prisoners, unless they have committed a crime. The Battle of Khandaq is an example.

but our relligion allow us to treat our enemies as they treat us when mohammed fought infidels those infidels were mostly arabs the arab customs didn't allow the killing of children and women but when we fight with enemies who doesn't respect this ethics then we are allowed to treat them the way they do with us all the 4 imams of sunni islam agrees with this and there are several Coranic verses and prophet hadeeths that agrees about that it is even alowed to kill muslims if infidels use muslims as a human shield of course in an offencive war where muslims can win we are ordered to kill only men but in a defencive war we have the freedom to use the same tactics that our enemy use including killing their civilians if they kill ours



[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 09-27-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

but our relligion allow us to treat our enemies as they treat us when mohammed fought infidels those infidels were mostly arabs the arab customs didn't allow the killing of children and women but when we fight with enemies who doesn't respect this ethics then we are allowed to treat them the way they do with us all the 4 imams of sunni islam agrees with this and there are several Coranic verses and prophet hadeeths that agrees about that it is even alowed to kill muslims if infidels use muslims as a human shield of course in an offencive war where muslims can win we are ordered to kill only men but in a defencive war we have the freedom to use the same tactics that our enemy use including killing their civilians if they kill ours



[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 09-27-2004).]

Really? That goes against a lot I've been taught. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Digital_Saviour;

Why is it that every thread you make or participate in you make it very clear you are a christian and there ends up a huge debate regarding your religion;

which usually has something to do with condemning other religions?

Christianity has committed more atrocities then islam, face it. Accept it. You're just pretty-packaging saying that all other religions are wrong and that christianity is the only way.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

Really? That goes against a lot I've been taught. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Holly Coran (translation) :

"if you punish punish the same way you were punished"

we have also the same biblical quote

"eye for eye tooth for tooth"

"we gave you in QASAS life"

an exact translation of QASAS is difficult in english but it means a kind of revenge for instance if a killer killed by hitting his victim with a hammer he should be killed with a hammer the same way

mohammed also did QASAS on his enemies like when he killed a prisonner of war the same way this prisonner used to kill muslims

you can also check the 4 sunni scholars

books in Jihad and wars sections

(Malik,Ahmed,Chafii,Al hanafi)





or the books of Ibnu Taymiya

check also Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

that contains Prophet mohammed sayings check Jihad sections

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

i'm muslim and i can tell you that there is nothing wrong in islam in beheading infidels who attack muslims not to mention that the beheading occured in IRAQ and not in the US or UK the victims where helping the troops in a way or in another there are no civilians in Iraq our relligion tell us to treat people as they treat us if a country kills our civilians we should kill their civilians if it kill our children we should kill their children that's all by the way i think that beheading infidels with a sharp knife is very civilised i prefer that mujahedeen use a rusted SAW

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 09-26-2004).]

Well, then you are a perfect example of how insane your "religion" is.

And it wasn't a sharp knife that they used on poor Mr. Armstrong.

It took them 3 whole minutes to remove his head, and he was alive up until the point that they severed his spine.

Disgusting...they could have done it with a machete', but NO...let's use a dull blade. A small one, at that, so it will take a REALLY long time for this guy to die.

The muslims that could do this, and YOU who condone it, are messed up.

We are praying for you here in America.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rekkr:

The Muslims have a cause. They are beheading people to send a message to America. Nothing is wrong with it. It is justified because we are the ones who invaded their country in the first place. Personally, I want more Americans to be beheaded. They deserve to die.

Polls from Al-Jezeera say that 93% of ALL MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE-EAST support the executions. This is proof that the terrorists aren't just "religious extremists" but are just normal middle-eastern Muslims.

quote:Originally posted by Rekkr:

The Muslims have a cause. They are beheading people to send a message to America. Nothing is wrong with it. It is justified because we are the ones who invaded their country in the first place. Personally, I want more Americans to be beheaded. They deserve to die.

Polls from Al-Jezeera say that 93% of ALL MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE-EAST support the executions. This is proof that the terrorists aren't just "religious extremists" but are just normal middle-eastern Muslims.

Nothing is wrong with murdering a contractor that wasn't armed ?

It's ok to cut his head off, simply because he is an American ally ?

Do you even know what he was doing over there ?

Ignorance is bliss.

If you think more Americans need to be beheaded, then GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE !

I'll bet you're in love with Michael Moore, aren't you ? Enjoy all the benefits our freedom has alloted you, so that you can criticize and betray your own.

And THANKS for supporting what I have been saying all along, though the fact that it comes from YOU doesn't give anything in the way of respect.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by AngrySquirrel:

War is hell.

Beaten and suffocated ? Where did you hear that ?

Not saying that it didn't happen, but I didn't hear anything about that.

The difference here is that in Iraq, no one will be court martialed for the atrocities committed against Americans.

When our government hears about things like "beatings" and "suffocations", it investigates. It prosecutes. It punishes.

I don't see a comparison there.

NEITHER is right (though I have to say again that I have not heard what you are claiming).

quote:Originally posted by shuu:

Digital_Saviour;

Why is it that every thread you make or participate in you make it very clear you are a christian and there ends up a huge debate regarding your religion;

which usually has something to do with condemning other religions?

MEN screw things up, NOT GOD.

I think that is a major point that most people miss out on.

Christianity, by intent and virtue, IS the only true way to receive salvation from Hell.

What men have done in the name of Christianity does not represent Christianity. If you would read the Bible, you'd understand what I am talking about.

When you read the Catholic Bible, or the Qu'ran, you see an entirely different picture painted than the one given by Jesus Christ.

Christ came to us, then lived and died for us, out of LOVE.

I can't say that for Muhammed.

Can you ?

It always ends up being about ME, because Christianity is the most hated religion in the world.

Why ?

The devil hates us, because we're God's children, and we're on the right track.

The more people attack me and hate me here, the more I know I am doing what God commands me to do (spread the gospel).

If everyone was cool with what I was saying, I'd know that I wasn't tugging at the right heart strings. I wouldn't be brushing the soul's "fur" the wrong way.

I don't condemn other religions...I feel for the people that fall victim to them, because they are misled. And if they aren't aware of the fallacies surrounding their religions, how can they know the "right" way to go ?

I point these things out, not out of judgement, but out of hope that some sort of clarity will be reached.

Mostly, I fail...but I'll keep trying, because that is my purpose on this earth.

I will try to get as many people to go to Heaven with me as I possibly can, because only THERE can we all be truly happy.

I don't want to see anyone left behind, simply because I didn't say anything, or didn't speak up.

So, I have seen "wars" and "skirmishes" given as examples of Christian atrocities, but the reasoning behind those wars is certainly not Christian-based.

I have gone through before and shown the reasons why, but no one cares.

They say "prove it", and no matter how much irrefutable evidence I provide (from objective sources, not just Christian), it doesn't make a dent.

Because these people don't want to believe that there is a God. It is not that they DON'T believe, it's that they don't WANT to.

The reason is that they would have to change their lives. They would have to commit themselves to God, and who wants to do that when one can live for themselves ?

It's not appealing to live as a servant for the Most High God. From a human perspective, it's demeaning.

But the reward is great, and the peace that comes is far greater than could ever be known by man-made theories.

If I did not have conviction about this, I wouldn't be here...so saying that I am "pretty-packaging" things is false.

This is the way it is, whether you believe it, or not.

I also happen to think that the conversation's would not go that direction EVERY SINGLE TIME if the same people wouldn't always respond.

The result is the same, every time Rust responds. So, when he replies to me, you already know what to expect.

The same goes for others...

If different points of view were presented (instead of "Christians are stupid"), then different results would occur.

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

Holly Coran (translation) :

"if you punish punish the same way you were punished"

we have also the same biblical quote

"eye for eye tooth for tooth"

FALSE. Old Testament teaching. Law of Moses. We are under a NEW law...the Law of Christ, which teaches us to 'turn the other cheek'.

quote:"we gave you in QASAS life"

an exact translation of QASAS is difficult in english but it means a kind of revenge for instance if a killer killed by hitting his victim with a hammer he should be killed with a hammer the same way

mohammed also did QASAS on his enemies like when he killed a prisonner of war the same way this prisonner used to kill muslims

you can also check the 4 sunni scholars

books in Jihad and wars sections

(Malik,Ahmed,Chafii,Al hanafi)





or the books of Ibnu Taymiya

check also Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

that contains Prophet mohammed sayings check Jihad sections



And what does all this boil down to ?

HATRED.

Murder.

Revenge.

Sounds like FUN to me !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



There you go, people...coming straight from the mouth of a Muslim.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

You're no better than he is. Remember, you support Bush's action, which entails the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

The Middle East has a lot of problems, and fanaticism is only one of them.

The uprising is legitimate, however some of the groups doing the beheadings have nothing if little to do with the uprising. They only exacerbate the situation in Iraq with their actions, many of which are also targetted against the native Iraqi Shi'a.

Rekkr, let's not have guilt. Guilt will keep you from doing your part addressing the problem. Ironically, we don't need to say which religion promotes a sense of guilt.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-30-2004).]

digital, you use the history of christianity as a shining example when it suits you, and push yourself away when it doesn't. which is fine, but don't expect others to understand your personal experience of christianity a priori.

whatever... from now on, us regulars who butt heads with you have got to do a better job of conscientiously extracting historical christianity from your personal ideal if this debate is to progress constructively.

you're confused that christianity is the most hated religion. clearly, judaism is, followed by islam, and then possibly christianity.

even among those totse members that continually argue with you, i don't think it's a hatred of christianity that motivates them. it seems like it's really just an increasing frustration with you specifically - not only do you do an above average job of arguing your position, but you also post more than anyone else, you refuse to even entertain the possibility that someone else made a better point, and you seem to gloss over counter-arguments as if they were never written. from my perspective, it just feels like a very one-sided conversation.

which reminds me, you didn't respond to my post on the 'will god really hold it against me' thread. i'm very curious as to what you will say.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

We are praying for you here in America.



No. You do not fucking speak for me. I am not praying for him. Or anybody.

Digital_Savior, aren't you being a bit self-righteous in some of the things you say?

I'm no Christian but isn't self-righteousness opposite to the overall message?

How can you make such claims if you're not using "Christian Love" as a veil for an attack on another culture?

I'd like for you to bring forth rational and non-biased sources. We live in a very irrational world, but at least to keep this from exploding into an all out flame war.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Well, then you are a perfect example of how insane your "religion" is.

Yeah, it's insane alright. It's so insane it reached a point where not a single person under it's law was poor! Don't forget that they were so insane that they became more advanced than any other system in the world at that time! So insane! They invented Algebra! And trigonometry! They discovered the value of zero! So insane! I could keep going on about how wacky those Muslims are. They are so crazy and evil that they established the first proper hospitals and drugstores! So insane! It's impossible to imagine how an insane Satanic cult could be so helpful the the world! It's blasphemy!

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

Yeah, it's insane alright. It's so insane it reached a point where not a single person under it's law was poor! Don't forget that they were so insane that they became more advanced than any other system in the world at that time! So insane! They invented Algebra! And trigonometry! They discovered the value of zero! So insane! I could keep going on about how wacky those Muslims are. They are so crazy and evil that they established the first proper hospitals and drugstores! So insane! It's impossible to imagine how an insane Satanic cult could be so helpful the the world! It's blasphemy!

I was referring specifically to the teachings of the religion, which have nothing to do with the intelligence, or the societal accomplishments of those that practice the religion.

I believe that the two are exclusive of each other (religion vs. race), don't you agree ?

Please do not misunderstand me.

I will admit that I did not know these things, and would like some actual data on it. "Who" ? "When" ? "In what region" ? That sort of thing.

I am not above learning more about this culture, though I am sure the accomplishments you mentioned can be credited to more than ONE race...you clumped them all together in the name of religion.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're no better than he is. Remember, you support Bush's action, which entails the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

Nope, I don't.

I supported ANY action..."talks", "negotiations", ANYTHING.

War would NOT have been among MY choices for action.

And it wasn't his FIRST either. I have given documentation of this, via a news report on CNN.com, but you obviously didn't read it, or you would know that.

*twist twist twist*

No one is falling for this, Rust, so you might as well stop.

quote:Originally posted by Keltoiberserker:

The Middle East has a lot of problems, and fanaticism is only one of them.

The uprising is legitimate, however some of the groups doing the beheadings have nothing if little to do with the uprising. They only exacerbate the situation in Iraq with their actions, many of which are also targetted against the native Iraqi Shi'a.

Rekkr, let's not have guilt. Guilt will keep you from doing your part addressing the problem. Ironically, we don't need to say which religion promotes a sense of guilt.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-30-2004).]

You are right about the Muslim extremists.

You are wrong about Christianity. If repentence is a part of your life, there is no room for guilt.

Now, the CATHOLIC CHURCH on the other hand... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Wanna talk about guilt ? That's a fantastic place to start.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

No. You do not fucking speak for me. I am not praying for him. Or anybody.

By "we" I meant Christians...I guess I should have clarified. My apologies.

Got a guilty conscience ?

God forbid we have mercy on our fellow man.

Who are you to JUDGE ?

You accuse me of the same thing, yet I can rise above that and see that God loves HIM, too.

I pray, because I know for a fact that if I hadn't been prayed for, I would have been lost, from my own stubborness and stupidity.

Prayer does change things, and there are many examples of that in my life. (I know that means nothing to you.)

So, calm down. We know you're not Christian; it is not so far fetched to believe that you wouldn't want to forgive anyone else.

It goes with the territory.

This wasn't intended to be an insult, so please don't take it that way.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

digital, you use the history of christianity as a shining example when it suits you, and push yourself away when it doesn't. which is fine, but don't expect others to understand your personal experience of christianity a priori.

whatever... from now on, us regulars who butt heads with you have got to do a better job of conscientiously extracting historical christianity from your personal ideal if this debate is to progress constructively.

you're confused that christianity is the most hated religion. clearly, judaism is, followed by islam, and then possibly christianity.

even among those totse members that continually argue with you, i don't think it's a hatred of christianity that motivates them. it seems like it's really just an increasing frustration with you specifically - not only do you do an above average job of arguing your position, but you also post more than anyone else, you refuse to even entertain the possibility that someone else made a better point, and you seem to gloss over counter-arguments as if they were never written. from my perspective, it just feels like a very one-sided conversation.

which reminds me, you didn't respond to my post on the 'will god really hold it against me' thread. i'm very curious as to what you will say.

Interesting...

I will get to this as well.



P.S. If you ever want me to catch up with you, STOP WRITING TO ME. *laughs*

I have so many to reply to now, I doubt I will ever succeed.

quote:Originally posted by Keltoiberserker:

Digital_Savior, aren't you being a bit self-righteous in some of the things you say?

I'm no Christian but isn't self-righteousness opposite to the overall message?

How can you make such claims if you're not using "Christian Love" as a veil for an attack on another culture?

I'd like for you to bring forth rational and non-biased sources. We live in a very irrational world, but at least to keep this from exploding into an all out flame war.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-30-2004).]

Then I need you to be a bit more specific. What exactly do you want me to post in regards to "sources" ?

When I post links and articles showing my point of view, they are either not read, or ridiculed.

So, I kind of gave up on that. I'll keep doing it, if you'd like, but I need to know where you'd like me to start.

And I have been called many things in my lifetime, but "self-righteous" isn't one of them.

Much is lost in translation over the internet, and as Xtreem pointed out in another thread, this would be MUCH easier, and far more effective, in person.

So...awaiting your answer.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Nope, I don't.

I supported ANY action..."talks", "negotiations", ANYTHING.

War would NOT have been among MY choices for action.

And it wasn't his FIRST either. I have given documentation of this, via a news report on CNN.com, but you obviously didn't read it, or you would know that.

*twist twist twist*

No one is falling for this, Rust, so you might as well stop.

Sorry, but you yourself said you support his plan for action. What does that entail? War. Hence you supported War.

Hell, the very fact that you are planning on voting for him, already supports my argument. As does the fact that you needed another option other than "not invade". All of this, by your own words.



"How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?"

- Digital Savior.

Yeah, you support "negotiations" alright. Do you even believe half the things you say? I don't. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior: I was referring specifically to the teachings of the religion, which have nothing to do with the intelligence, or the societal accomplishments of those that practice the religion.

WRONG! Islam does urge Muslims to fight their oppressors, but it also urges them to read and learn. The first revelation to Muhammad (pbuh) showed how much Islam cares about knowledge. "Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created..." [96:1]

quote:I will admit that I did not know these things, and would like some actual data on it. "Who" ? "When" ? "In what region" ? That sort of thing.

I am not above learning more about this culture, though I am sure the accomplishments you mentioned can be credited to more than ONE race...you clumped them all together in the name of religion.

Correct. When the Islamic Empire expanded far enough that they had a capital which was not ravaged by war, the capital now had time to follow Islam, to learn and read. They read and translated old Greek, Egyptian, Indian and Hebrew knowledge and improved it. Without Islam who knows what useful knowledge from these older races would have been lost. Although some discoveries were assisted by races before Muslims, Muslims still invented a lot of things without any help, such as the telescope.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/history/muslim_inventors.html

http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars

A few links which should help you find out about what technological and scientific advancements were made by Muslims, as well as the Muslims who were responsible. You can simply Google 'Muslim Inventions' and you'll have a lot of links to follow from there.

[This message has been edited by Loc Dogg (edited 09-30-2004).]

1. Yeah. Damn. You totally found me out. It's my guilty conscience that makes me say these things. And what exactly am I supposed to be feeling guilty about?

2. You are to refrain from judging due to the fact that your invisable patriarch figure in the sky wagged his finger at you from thousands of years ago and said "NO!". I am under no such restriction. I'm free to judge at will. You, on the other hand, by your own reasoning, (people who violate the tenants are no longer Christians) deny your religion every time you judge me, or Rust, or THE ENTIRETY OF ISLAM.

3. There is a difference between forgiving someone of a wrong they have done to you, and asking your invisable man in the sky to use his omnipotent might to make other people agree with you.

4. There also exists a difference between "having mercy", and being so self-righteous as to think that your prayer will affect someone else. That is arrogance in the extreme from a religion that preaches humbleness.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but you yourself said you support his plan for action. What does that entail? War. Hence you supported War.

Hell, the very fact that you are planning on voting for him, already supports my argument. As does the fact that you needed another option other than "not invade". All of this, by your own words.



"How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?"

- Digital Savior.

Yeah, you support "negotiations" alright. Do you even believe half the things you say? I don't. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-30-2004).]

Of course you don't, because you manipulate what I say by putting together two totally unparallel lines of thinking, and then say, "See ! She's a hypocrite, or a liar, or a devil worshipper !"

What you say here doesn't prove what you so desperately hope to. Sorry to break it to ya.

I'll break down your retort later.

Now, I must sleep.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are right about the Muslim extremists.

You are wrong about Christianity. If repentence is a part of your life, there is no room for guilt.

You call everyone an extremist. You judge and ridicule and entire people because of the actions of very few.

Why should I repent if I have no guilt?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Disgusting...they could have done it with a machete', but NO...let's use a dull blade. A small one, at that, so it will take a REALLY long time for this guy to die.

The muslims that could do this, and YOU who condone it, are messed up.

We are praying for you here in America.

There has been a large outcry against these actions especially among Muslims. Even some of the more extreme have attacked this behavior as unjust.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

By "we" I meant Christians...I guess I should have clarified. My apologies.

Got a guilty conscience ?

God forbid we have mercy on our fellow man.

How much mercy did the Protestants have on the Irish who did naught to them in the 1600 - 1800?

4 million killed

How much mercy did they have during the Holocaust?

Your heads were turned as innocents Jews, Germans, Slavs, were all killed

How much mercy did soldiers have on the old people, and civilians in Iraq that were beaten and killed?

Forbid! An elderly person who will not fight is tossed on the ground and stepped on in the most degrading fashion.

Mercy is entirely different than self-righteous rhetoric.

If this was in person, I would not be able to hold back my anger, I would storm out of the room after I'd thrown water in your face.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 09-30-2004).]

^^^^ Don't forget the Crusades. It led to a new type of Christianity, much like today's 'Radical Islam'. If you weren't Christian, you were killed, no chance to surrender. Every time the Crusaders broke into Jerusalem the Jews and Muslims inside were massacred. Jews were burnt alive in their synagogues. Muslims were butchered in their mosques while they were praying. The streets ran with blood. YOu call that mercy?

Ah, everyone of every faith died.

Amharic Christians, Muslims, Jews, and it was all for riches.

Many "Radical Religions" are tools of imperialists to keep people under control.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 10-01-2004).]

Sorry, but the holocaust had nothing to do with christianity, I agree with everything else though.

That is not what I was reffering to

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And what does all this boil down to ?

HATRED.

Murder.

Revenge.

Sounds like FUN to me !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



There you go, people...coming straight from the mouth of a Muslim.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-30-2004).]

you didn't turn the other cheek after 9/11???????????so you contradict your own faith

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 10-01-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

you didn't turn the other cheek after 9/11???????????so you contradict your own faith

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 10-01-2004).]

Don't even bother. She'll just claim you never made that point at all.

Aye, best to not get involved

Is it just me or is it whenever I prove DS wrong, he/she never relpies? Check my posts on page 5 and you'll see what I mean.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

Is it just me or is it whenever I prove DS wrong, he/she never relpies? Check my posts on page 5 and you'll see what I mean.

And moreso, will claim you never made the point in the first place.

People, do you even read Digi's posts? Please stop bringing up the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., I think she's answered this many times satisfactorily (at least, according to what she believes).

Same thing with the Old Testament laws, she's already explained that the Law of Moses was replaced with the Law of Christ.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Don't even bother. She'll just claim you never made that point at all.

yeah true

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

Is it just me or is it whenever I prove DS wrong, he/she never relpies? Check my posts on page 5 and you'll see what I mean.

Don't be a JERK !

Can't you read ? On several threads I stated that I WOULD BE OUT FOR A FEW DAYS.

Why ?

I HAD SURGERY !!!!

I DO have a life, outside of Totse. Maybe you should consider getting one, too.

You haven't proven me wrong in the slightest bit.

I'll get back to my healing now. (try not to talk smack about me until I get back)

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Thanks, Social...I love the "fly-by-night"ers that come and go, not following the progression of the conversations. (then feel justified in claiming that I have not sufficiently answered them)

PRINCE - How would you know anything about the way that I post, or how I reply ? I have seen TWO posts from you, thus far. Unless you are coming in with another name now, which is totally immature.

I don't think you ought to have much of an opinion about me here, since we have spoken NOT AT ALL.

No worries, I'm not being a jerk, but I'm just telling it as it is. I didn't even know you had surgery. What did you do, fall off your bike?

quote:I DO have a life, outside of Totse. Maybe you should consider getting one, too.

How very christian of you :roll:

[This message has been edited by shuu (edited 10-03-2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

Maybe we should...

and then show it on al-jazeera.

Beheading people doesn't change a thing, and it does nothing but to discredit the nation and the struggle, and make all people in the society out to look like murderers.

'cause people are idiots and listen to the TV and radio.

[This message has been edited by Keltoiberserker (edited 10-03-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by shuu:

How very christian of you :roll:

[This message has been edited by shuu (edited 10-03-2004).]

Yup...you got me there.

I must NOT be a Christian.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Sleepwalk:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040920/D857LIEO0.html

Granted, we have their women in prison, but ummm....we're not beheading them !

Maybe we should...

and then show it on al-jazeera.

Ummm...no.

Then we'd be NO better than THEM.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

No worries, I'm not being a jerk, but I'm just telling it as it is. I didn't even know you had surgery. What did you do, fall off your bike?

If you would put forth a little effort and read the posts on page 5, you'd see why I had surgery.

To answer your question, it was my TRICYCLE that I fell off of...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but you yourself said you support his plan for action. What does that entail? War. Hence you supported War.

And you are again twisting my words. I am sure you deem yourself to be clever, but you are not at all convincing.

I supported his plan FOR action. Meaning: STOP SITTING AROUND DOING NOTHING WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES PLAN TERRORIST ATTACKS.

DO SOMETHING.

I never said I thought war was the viable solution.

So, find a different tactic, for the thousandth time.

quote:Hell, the very fact that you are planning on voting for him, already supports my argument. As does the fact that you needed another option other than "not invade". All of this, by your own words.

No.

Here is what the "fact that I am voting for him" shows:

1. I don't agree that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals regarding marriage (i.e. tax exclusions/cuts, childcare credits, head of household entitlements), not because they are homosexuals, but because their "choices" go against the very core of our existence, as ordained by God. I do not believe homosexuals are "just born with it", and do not accept their cries for equality in marriage. Let us not forget the mentality America held for the homosexuals...things have changed drastically, though the reasoning behind their sin has not. They are the same now as they were THEN. Only the level of intolerance has changed. BUSH SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. Kerry does not. I vote Bush.

2. I don't support the ideology that human beings are NOT actually human beings until they can be identified visually as such. What is the egg of a chicken, if not an undeveloped chicken ? What is the human embryo, if not an undeveloped human ? As a Christian, I believe in the law that "Thou shalt not kill", and that includes developing human beings. The same goes for partial birth abortions. They ought NOT to be legal for ANY reason. Nature will take it's course. BUSH SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. Kerry does not. I vote Bush.

3. I don't support a foreign policy that allows other countries to decide JUST HOW SAFE AMERICA should be. Especially since the majority of those foreign countries detest us. They think we are stupid, lazy, and arrogant. Dangerous thoughts, that DON'T indicate a willingness to make choices that will BENEFIT or PROTECT us and our assets. I believe the world would like to see America fall, and get "what's coming to them".

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

One of the things Kerry said he believes about President Bush during the Foreign Policy Debate was...

We were diverted from the real war against Bin Laden by invading Iraq. Iraq is not the center of the War on Terror. Iraq is not a front in the War on Terror. The invasion of Iraq was a war of choice.

And here's MY take on it:

Those who hold this view, that instead of invading Iraq we should have plugged ahead in Afghanistan are incompetent to lead the United States, because they lack the strategic vision to conduct the War on Islamofascism.

This War will not be won on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Pakistan, or with the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is a product of decades long indoctrination and radicalization of the Arab world, overseen by firebrand clerics eager to expand their power and influence by preaching a subverted form of Islam. What is most flagrantly disturbing is that the liberals have long been accusing Bush of the very short-sightedness now comfortably espoused by Kerry in front of the American people. The "real war" Kerry speaks of, but seems unable to grasp, is not against Bin Laden, nor will it be won with the liquidation of Al Qaeda's leadership - though this is an important step in the proper direction.

This War will be won when the hate-factory madrasses permeating the Middle East and beyond are confronted, their religious and political authority challenged, their message repudiated and rejected.

How strange, then, that it is not the nuanced Massachussets intellectual, but the reckless Texas cowboy who understands how to prosecute and win the global War on Islamofascism.

The invasion of Iraq was indeed a war of choice. Every war, every battle, is a choice between the desire for victory, and weakness, defeat. Senator Kerry would prefer our enemy to direct the momentum, scope and pace of the epic, global struggle in which we find ourselves.

President Bush chose to confront the Islamofascist ideology on the battlefield of our choice - Iraq.

WWII was a war of choice. The invasion of Normandy was, too, a battle of choice. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and Serbia were all wars of choice. Every action, every decision in life is based on choices.

John Kerry would have us believe that America must wait until no choice exists, but to surrender to our enemies, to keel over and die.

This is not the brainchild of a great leader, but a defeatist coward, a political prostitute with no core, no values, no vision, just empty promises.

Bush believed that something ought to be done. That change must come to pass. That we HAD to start protecting ourselves in a more responsible manner.

I think the Arab world IS a threat, WAS a threat, and will CONTINUE to be a threat, until change comes about.

The same goes for Korea, and many other countries with the destruction of America high on their agenda lists.

BUSH SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. Kerry doesn't. I vote Bush !

quote:Yeah, you support "negotiations" alright. Do you even believe half the things you say? I don't. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You want to talk about negotiations ? I suppose you conveniently missed the post where I meticulously showed how well "negotiations" went between the US government and Saddam Hussein.

But here's a brief synopsis: THEY DIDN'T GO WELL.

Why ? Because Saddam was relentless in his desire to thwart them.

He didn't want to cooperate with the US, EVER. He did cooperate, now and again, but only to "call off the dogs", so to speak. As soon as he felt he had regained his freedom from the watchful eyes of the US, he started acting up again.

We gave him MANY chances to conceed, or even agree to disagree. With that guy, it was all or nothing.

I believe everything I say, and don't really care whether or not you do.

Since you "ride the fence" as a diehard materialist, it is lost on me how you come to your opinions of ANYTHING, since you never really give one, and almost NEVER site a source for the personal opinions you DO reveal.

You seem content in trying to make everyone else look like a fool, and I must tell you that it's not working.

AS A CHRISTIAN, I MUST VOTE MY VALUES, and those values are in direct correlation with God's.

And Bush's values are as close to God's values as we're ever going to get in this election.

Bush may not be perfect, or always make the best decisions, but he makes enough of them that I can agree with...and Kerry makes very little that I can agree with. So, my choice is obvious.

Bush also does what he says. Kerry is dangerous, because his stand on an issue can change with the wind.

You never know what that guy is going to say, or whose side he is really on.

That doesn't appeal to me.

I could vote for Nader, but he won't get enough votes to become President....so, that would be a wasted vote.

I think I have been clear on that point.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/history/muslim_inventors.html

http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars [/B]

These were enlightening. I actually learned something. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Am I to think that you believe I see the Nation of Islam to be nothing but ignorant, uneducated murderers ?

I don't believe I have conveyed that opinion.

It is great that Muslims have made contributions to our planet's advancement.

Thanks for the links.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

1. Yeah. Damn. You totally found me out. It's my guilty conscience that makes me say these things. And what exactly am I supposed to be feeling guilty about?

SIN

quote:2. You are to refrain from judging due to the fact that your invisable patriarch figure in the sky wagged his finger at you from thousands of years ago and said "NO!". I am under no such restriction. I'm free to judge at will. You, on the other hand, by your own reasoning, (people who violate the tenants are no longer Christians) deny your religion every time you judge me, or Rust, or THE ENTIRETY OF ISLAM.

I am judging because I stand against acts of terrorism ? Show me one "FACT" that I have given that was wrong.

Find the texts that command the people of Muslim faith to "seek out the unbelievers" and DESTROY them.

My God judges sufficiently, and is right to do so, as we are His created. I don't need to do any judging for Him.

But from what you are saying, I ought not to have an opinion, or disagree with another person's (or nation's) behavior.

I never said that those who sin after receiving redemption (accepting Jesus as savior) nullify their salvation. When did I say that ?

Of course we are still going to sin. We're HUMAN.

Christians aren't perfect, and never will be.

That is why "repenting" is such an integral part of our faith. We sin EVERYDAY !

The difference between a Christian and a non-believer is that OUR sins are forgiven. Washed clean by the blood of Christ, who died the death of a sacrificial lamb. A final sacrifice.

I don't judge. I call it like I see it.

Those that kill in the name of Allah ARE true Muslims, as outlined by their scriptures.

Those that don't, should be considered LUKEWARM Muslims, in that they pick and choose which scriptures to model their lives after.

quote:3. There is a difference between forgiving someone of a wrong they have done to you, and asking your invisable man in the sky to use his omnipotent might to make other people agree with you.

The only two reasons a Christian should ask God to forgive another person would be to help THEM to forgive, and to request mercy for the individual.

I don't ask God to "make people agree with me". Then it would be about ME.

I ask God to open your eyes, so that you may see the truth, and be set free by it.

I'd love to see you in Heaven with me.

quote:4. There also exists a difference between "having mercy", and being so self-righteous as to think that your prayer will affect someone else. That is arrogance in the extreme from a religion that preaches humbleness.

Prayer changes things. I see it every day. There is evidence of it among the pages of the Bible, and it is also promised that it will do so, by God himself.

My prayers WILL affect someone else, if God sees that it is necessary. Not because He needs me to, but to teach ME humility, and grace.

It has nothing at all to do with personal righteousness.

It IS humbleness to pray for someone else. It is the ultimate sacrifice of "self", as it demonstrates the ability to think about others FIRST.

If I pray for your salvation and there is NO God, then it was a nice gesture, and that's it.

If I pray for your salvation, and there IS a God, then it is a blessing to you...though God knows everything, and knows where your heart will lie on the day of your physical death, He has instructed that the faithful PRAY for those that have not heard His call, and the blessings are for THEM, as well as the Christian giving the prayer.

You can attempt to manipulate my intentions, but you will always fail, because they are nothing short of whisperings and temptings of an entity that HATES YOU.

"Attack the Christian." he whispers.

"Discredit her." he tempts.

"Prove that she is a false witness to her own religion." he motivates.

How does it feel to be a tool for the Devil ?

That may seem extreme, but in all reality, that is exactly what is going on here. It is a dynamic MOST don't even recognize, let alone understand.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by princecharmant1980:

you didn't turn the other cheek after 9/11???????????so you contradict your own faith

[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 10-01-2004).]

How do YOU know what I did after 9/11 ?

I was serving in the Navy, in Norfolk, VA when it happened, and myself and several other members of the armed forces quickly travelled up to New York, to donate "goods" and services.

The officers at the state line took our goods, but refused us passage, saying that enough were helping, and more people would cause a greater level of chaos.

We went home, but continued to collect money and food to assist in the effort to rebuild their lives.

I was not standing on a street corner shouting, "Kill all the Muslims ! Find them, hunt them down, rape them and murder them !"

It did not escape my attention that MANY in the rubble of the World Trade Center were Muslims themselves.

My focus is on those SPECIFICALLY that present a danger to the US.

And that focus does not entail MURDER.

That is NO kind of solution...

OOOOOOh. Well, if the Bible has evidence of prayer actually doing something, then it must be empirically true.

Oh, and now I'm a tool of another mythical figure who doesn't exist, to counter your being the tool of a mythical figure who doesn't exist. And if by some chance the Catholics are right, then wouldn't you be a tool of the devil? Nevermind, I'll make a seperate post reguarding that.

Also, you do realize that Hussein was a secular leader correct? Iraq was not a theocracy. That entire thing you quoted showing how Bush knows how to handle the war better than Kerry is complete, utter bullshit that only the mentally defective, or ignorant could believe. I assume you didn't pay a word of attention to anything Kerry said during the debate beyond "global test"? The man flat out said that he would hunt terrorists, wherever they are, and kill them. He just wouldn't do it to countries that had nothing to do with the true enemy, vile though their leader may be.

Also, by supporting action, but not war, you parrot Kerry's view exactly. But you'll just deny it, dispite the fact that thats exactly what he's said.

On abortion, can you just not accept that not everyone is a Christian? This is why people hate your religion so much. You are incapable of simply following your own beliefs. You must do everything within your power to force other people to do so as well. And frankly, I will murder you myself, with my bare hands if necessary, to prevent your dogma from dictating my life. "...make no law respecting religion". That means that no religion will be favored,as well as no religion being discriminated against.

The abortion, I'll make a post in Humanities. I'd appreciate your response.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And you are again twisting my words. I am sure you deem yourself to be clever, but you are not at all convincing.

I supported his plan FOR action. Meaning: STOP SITTING AROUND DOING NOTHING WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES PLAN TERRORIST ATTACKS.

DO SOMETHING.

I never said I thought war was the viable solution.



Once again, his "plan for action" was war. Hence, by supporting him, you support war. Period. You have yet to refute this argument. You keep evading it. You keep saying that you "support action, not war" when in fact, his plan IS war!

Another example of this would be when you asked for another alternative other than "not invade". Not only did you ask for another solution, but you actually ridiculed the option of not invading! That's how un-Christian you are.

quote:Bush believed that something ought to be done. That change must come to pass. That we HAD to start protecting ourselves in a more responsible manner.

I think the Arab world IS a threat, WAS a threat, and will CONTINUE to be a threat, until change comes about.

The same goes for Korea, and many other countries with the destruction of America high on their agenda lists.

BUSH SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. Kerry doesn't. I vote Bush !

Once again, his vision is war. Nobody claiming to follow the words of the Christ can support war, indirectly or not. By you voting for Bush, you are supporting war, therefore you're not a Christian.

quote:You want to talk about negotiations ? I suppose you conveniently missed the post where I meticulously showed how well "negotiations" went between the US government and Saddam Hussein.

And YOU evade the part where Bush stopped the U.N. Inspectors from showing that Saddam was not a threat. THAT is diplomatic means which Bush deliberately stopped. Bush therefore did not exhaust all solutions, and instead chose war.

You also evaded the fact that my quote shows how you don't support diplomatic recourses.

Or maybe you just "Flip-Flopped"? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Since you "ride the fence" as a diehard materialist, it is lost on me how you come to your opinions of ANYTHING, since you never really give one, and almost NEVER site a source for the personal opinions you DO reveal.

Materialist doesn't mean I don't have opinions. It means I base myself on evidence, not on absolutely nothing.

Could you please show me where I haven't cited evidence?

quote:AS A CHRISTIAN, I MUST VOTE MY VALUES, and those values are in direct correlation with God's.

And Bush's values are as close to God's values as we're ever going to get in this election.

"As close" isn't going to cut it. The fact is, Bush's values include war, therefore are indirect opposition to that the Christ's.

You have the option of not voting, but you choose to vote for someone who supports War, hence you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

quote:Bush may not be perfect, or always make the best decisions, but he makes enough of them that I can agree with...and Kerry makes very little that I can agree with. So, my choice is obvious.

Bush also does what he says. Kerry is dangerous, because his stand on an issue can change with the wind.

You never know what that guy is going to say, or whose side he is really on.

That doesn't appeal to me.

I could vote for Nader, but he won't get enough votes to become President....so, that would be a wasted vote.

I think I have been clear on that point.

I'm not arguing politics, so don't change the topic.

Furthermore you would still have the option of not voting, but you choose to vote for someone who advocates war, hence a direct contradiction to the values of the Christ.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Those that don't, should be considered LUKEWARM Muslims, in that they pick and choose which scriptures to model their lives after.

Much like you do. A prime example of this would be The Law of Moses and virtually the whole book of Leviticus.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Once again, his "plan for action" was war. Hence, by supporting him, you support war. Period. You have yet to refute this argument. You keep evading it. You keep saying that you "support action, not war" when in fact, his plan IS war!

No, his plan for action ended up BEING for war. You make it sound as if he had war in mind, from the minute of conception.

He had meetings with advisors. He had debates of the evidence with counsels. This is not the kind of decision that can be made with the blink of an eye.

We had an event. One that rocked the nation.

First, we stood silent in awe.

Then, we began to "pack it up", out of instinct.

Finally, we knew something had to be done. But what ?

There were MANY debates and discussions on what should be done. War was among the options, but certainly not the first, nor the last. It was one, of MANY.

And Bush wasn't alone in the "idea hatching department". We have a whole government full of officials that suggest, and decide, and implement.

So. When he said, "We will do everything in our power to protect our country." I was with him. This said to me that he would take ACTION to ensure that would happen. (i.e. Patriot Act)

When he said, "We're going to war." I was not. Why ? War involves murdering people. I don't see how murdering THEM is justified...and I have been steadfast on that point.

IS THAT CLEAR NOW ?

quote:Another example of this would be when you asked for another alternative other than "not invade". Not only did you ask for another solution, but you actually ridiculed the option of not invading! That's how un-Christian you are.

By stating that "not invading" was NOT a viable answer, I was focusing purely on PRE-9/11 events.

You can't just KNOW that another country is going to strike at yours on a certain day. You can have an inkling, and even a ballpark figure, but nothing exact.

Your answer was not only trite, but FAR TOO easy. You cannot say "Let's not invade anyone. That's the answer to everything !", and expect positive results. Especially BEFORE anything has happened. That's ludicrous.

I ridicule it for it's endless un-possibilities. Not because it's not a "gerat" idea. In a perfect world, that would be the BEST idea ! I never disagreed with that.

What I disagree with is the timing.

If we get bombed, it is not as simple as saying "don't invade".

What I asked for were VIABLE, intelligent solutions, other than war. You gave the pathetic answer of "not invade", instead of something politically acceptable to our countries policies.

I wanted something with subtance...hell, I'd have settled for realism.

"Don't invade" is just too easy, and true to your character, that's why you gave it. You didn't expound...ok, so we don't invade. What ELSE ? What then ? What next ?!!

You got nothin'.

quote:Once again, his vision is war. Nobody claiming to follow the words of the Christ can support war, indirectly or not. By you voting for Bush, you are supporting war, therefore you're not a Christian.

No, his vision is of kicking the crap out of American opposers.

I don't agree with that mentality.

Again, I say that I can't POSSIBLY agree with EVERYTHING this man does or says or believes, but he is FAR better than the alternative.

The war is a sensitive subject. One that is NOT black and white. It is very difficult to determine where the lines should be drawn. Not just for me, but for the whole world.

So, honestly, for the most part, I don't base my voting opinion on the war. Both candidates support it, so that issue nullifies itself, in light of who to vote for.

There is no PERFECT candidate for the true Christian. If there was one, I'd vote for HIM/HER.

Since there isn't, I must make the BEST choice, with the information I have.

And THAT choice is Bush.

How I vote does not determine whether or not I am a Christian.

The condition of my heart does, which is definitely surrendered to the living God, Jehovah.

It is presumptuous of you to accuse me of not being a Christian, being that you most likely don't believe in God, nor the fact that we have souls.

You are throwing darts again, and they haven't got points. (literally)

They're just going to fall to the floor.

quote:And YOU evade the part where Bush stopped the U.N. Inspectors from showing that Saddam was not a threat. THAT is diplomatic means which Bush deliberately stopped. Bush therefore did not exhaust all solutions, and instead chose war.

AFTER TEN YEARS OF THEM !

How long should we sit around saying, "What the hell, Saddam ? Stop being a brat !"

He wasn't afraid of us...because he thought we weren't going to follow through with our threats.

Why ? Because we hadn't for TEN YEARS. Why would we start now ?

Bush saw through it, and decided enough was enough.

Was military invasion and occupation the answer ? No. But WHAT was ? (you still haven't given an answer that the American public can live with)

Many inspectors had gone, and been thwarted. Some were actually able to accomplish what they were set out to do.

But when weapons WERE found, and he was COMMANDED to disarm them, he fought. And he fought hard.

Don't you remember any of this ? Why do I feel the necessity to give you a history lesson, yet AGAIN ?

I already posted the events, and the order in which they took place.

Learn from your mistakes. I think that's what Bush did.

Tired of playing games with that lunatic.

quote:You also evaded the fact that my quote shows how you don't support diplomatic recourses. Or maybe you just "Flip-Flopped"?

Ummm...you lost me.

Don't have the foggiest what you are talking about. Expound, please. (what quote ?)

I DO support diplomatic recourses...but I am no politician, and certainly no expert in government, so I asked for some other solutions. Yuo couldn't give any, except "don't invade". I still maintain that this was a pathetic cop-out to a real answer.

quote:Materialist doesn't mean I don't have opinions. It means I base myself on evidence, not on absolutely nothing.

Well, I can't quote you exactly, but in another thread you stated that you felt neither one way or another.

That would be in the middle. Opinionless.

Which means you are here to ridicule everyone that is on either side of the fence.

And I can't guess where you justify your right to ridicule, since you claim to not have an opinion either way.

Though now you contradict yourself by saying that you DO have opinions, which means you are not entirely on the fence.

Make up your mind.

Could you please show me where I haven't cited evidence?

If you are insinuating that I base my opinions on absolutely nothing, you've got bigger issues.

quote:"As close" isn't going to cut it. The fact is, Bush's values include war, therefore are indirect opposition to that the Christ's.

It's giong to have to cut it. I really have no other option, do I ?

You are right. It's in direct opposition.

But what Kerry supports is in GREATER opposition, since MORE of what he stands for is against God.

That is why I vote for Bush.

Bring me Christ, and I will vote for him. In the meantime, I vote Bush.

quote:You have the option of not voting, but you choose to vote for someone who supports War, hence you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that.

To NOT vote would be ultimately irresponsible, and would be a very "Rust" thing to do.

If keeping Kerry out of office means supporting Bush, whose values more closely follow Christ's teachings, then that is what I will do.

I AM a Christian, because I believe in Christ as my savior. (God says we cannot get into heaven by works alone. That would include who we vote for. SALVATION can only be found through the blood of Christ. Politics have NOTHING to do with that.)

It's as simple as that.

quote:I'm not arguing politics, so don't change the topic.

I didn't.

quote:Furthermore you would still have the option of not voting, but you choose to vote for someone who advocates war, hence a direct contradiction to the values of the Christ.

Kerry supports the war.

Bush supports the war.

BUT !!! Bush is against abortion, and gay marriage, among MANY other important issues to Christians.

Kerry give a diddly squat about human life, war or no war.

Bush decides rightly on MOST issues...and that is going to have to be "enough", since there is nothing better.

Not voting is just irresponsible, as I have already said.

I hope that this reasoning means that YOU aren't voting. *laughs*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Much like you do. A prime example of this would be The Law of Moses and virtually the whole book of Leviticus.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

I think I know where you are going with this, but for "fairness" purposes, I will ask you to give some specific examples.

If you are referring to the fact that I believe we are no longer under the law of Moses, I have adequately quelled any form of questioning on the subject, in another thread. If you missed it, I find that CONVENIENT, since you don't seem to miss MUCH when it comes to what I post.

It is Biblical that we don't follow the law of Moses. We follow the Law of Christ now.

I have not deviated in any way from that.

Supporting Bush does not make me a sinner that is unforgivable, thus denying me access into heaven.

That's absurd, and I would like to challenge you to prove otherwise, since YOU are the originator of that statement.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, his plan for action ended up BEING for war. You make it sound as if he had war in mind, from the minute of conception.

He had meetings with advisors. He had debates of the evidence with counsels. This is not the kind of decision that can be made with the blink of an eye

Sorry, but all evidence points to the contrary.

quote:By stating that "not invading" was NOT a viable answer, I was focusing purely on PRE-9/11 events.

You can't just KNOW that another country is going to strike at yours on a certain day. You can have an inkling, and even a ballpark figure, but nothing exact.

Your answer was not only trite, but FAR TOO easy. You cannot say "Let's not invade anyone. That's the answer to everything !", and expect positive results. Especially BEFORE anything has happened. That's ludicrous.

That's EXACTLY what the Christian position is.

"Turn the other cheek" and "thou shall not murder" wheren't just catch phrases.

You've just proved how you're not a Christian. Thanks.

quote:

If we get bombed, it is not as simple as saying "don't invade".

Actually, it is. That's word for word what the Christ would have done.

quote:What I asked for were VIABLE, intelligent solutions, other than war. You gave the pathetic answer of "not invade", instead of something politically acceptable to our countries policies.

Your country's policy is irrelevant. I'm not debating the policy of the country. I'm debating YOUR policy. YOUR policy should be "not invade". Period.

quote:AFTER TEN YEARS OF THEM !

How long should we sit around saying, "What the hell, Saddam ? Stop being a brat !"

Absolutely not "After ten years of them". The Inspections had been stopped. These were new inspections. You cannot claim that he exhausted all diplomatic possabilities, when he clearly did not.

quote:No. But WHAT was ? (you still haven't given an answer that the American public can live with)

I don't have to because I'm not arguing that!

quote:Don't have the foggiest what you are talking about. Expound, please. (what quote ?)

I DO support diplomatic recourses...but I am no politician, and certainly no expert in government, so I asked for some other solutions. Yuo couldn't give any, except "don't invade". I still maintain that this was a pathetic cop-out to a real answer.

"How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?"

quote:Though now you contradict yourself by saying that you DO have opinions, which means you are not entirely on the fence.

I never said I was "on the fence" on everything... Geez http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I said I was neutral when it came to claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

quote:t's giong to have to cut it. I really have no other option, do I ?

You are right. It's in direct opposition.

But what Kerry supports is in GREATER opposition, since MORE of what he stands for is against God.

That is why I vote for Bush.

Bring me Christ, and I will vote for him. In the meantime, I vote Bush.

You don't have to vote.

quote:To NOT vote would be ultimately irresponsible, and would be a very "Rust" thing to do.

If keeping Kerry out of office means supporting Bush, whose values more closely follow Christ's teachings, then that is what I will do.

I AM a Christian, because I believe in Christ as my savior. (God says we cannot get into heaven by works alone. That would include who we vote for. SALVATION can only be found through the blood of Christ. Politics have NOTHING to do with that.)

It's as simple as that.

1. I would argue that voting a man in office that advocates war would be far more irresponsible.

2. Regardless of it being irresponsible or nor, it still means that you're supporting someone who directly contradicts the Christ's teachings. Hence... not a Christian.

quote:I hope that this reasoning means that YOU aren't voting.

1. I can't vote in U.S. elections.

2. I'm not a Christian.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If you are referring to the fact that I believe we are no longer under the law of Moses, I have adequately quelled any form of questioning on the subject, in another thread. If you missed it, I find that CONVENIENT, since you don't seem to miss MUCH when it comes to what I post.

It is Biblical that we don't follow the law of Moses. We follow the Law of Christ now.

Thus by definition, selectively picking which part of the Bible to adhere to.

The fact that there is a passage that could be interpreted as saying that the Law of Moses is no longer valid, is equal to the existence of passages in the Koran which are against the killing of innocents.



quote:

Supporting Bush does not make me a sinner that is unforgivable, thus denying me access into heaven.

That's absurd, and I would like to challenge you to prove otherwise, since YOU are the originator of that statement.

Huh? Sorry, but that didn't make much sense.

---

As for examples, Lev. 19:19, Lev. 11:10. There are more.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

OOOOOOh. Well, if the Bible has evidence of prayer actually doing something, then it must be empirically true.

Quite so. The Bible is the word of God. Why would I disbelieve it ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Oh, and now I'm a tool of another mythical figure who doesn't exist, to counter your being the tool of a mythical figure who doesn't exist. And if by some chance the Catholics are right, then wouldn't you be a tool of the devil? Nevermind, I'll make a seperate post reguarding that.

Catholics are right about what ? They believe in the Gospels, just like I do. They believe in salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ, just like I do. That is the only requirement for salvation. The rest is to maintain happiness, and contentment while on this planet.

You really need to educate yourself before trying to make me look stupid. It isn't going to happen.

quote:Also, you do realize that Hussein was a secular leader correct? Iraq was not a theocracy.

Uhh...ok. (??)

Do you have a point ?

quote:That entire thing you quoted showing how Bush knows how to handle the war better than Kerry is complete, utter bullshit that only the mentally defective, or ignorant could believe.

Ok, here you go again, spouting off opinionated banter, instead of giving something viable to consider.

Give me some examples. (i.e. What would lead you to believe Kerry would have handled it better ? His exemplary service to his country in Vietnam ?! )

Oh, and it is obvious I am not mentally defective, OR ignorant, so please refrain from saying similar things in the future.

It's getting old, and everyone knows that's BS.

quote:I assume you didn't pay a word of attention to anything Kerry said during the debate beyond "global test"?

Accutely.

quote:The man flat out said that he would hunt terrorists, wherever they are, and kill them.

So, he's a warmonger, AFTER ALL !

So much for being a better option than Bush.

quote:He just wouldn't do it to countries that had nothing to do with the true enemy, vile though their leader may be.

Did YOU pay attention to anything I said, or did you once again let your emotions of contempt against me run ahead of you ?

This War will not be won on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Pakistan, or with the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is a product of decades long indoctrination and radicalization of the Arab world, overseen by firebrand clerics eager to expand their power and influence by preaching a subverted form of Islam. What is most flagrantly disturbing is that the liberals have long been accusing Bush of the very short-sightedness now comfortably espoused by Kerry in front of the American people. The "real war" Kerry speaks of, but seems unable to grasp, is not against Bin Laden, nor will it be won with the liquidation of Al Qaeda's leadership - though this is an important step in the proper direction.

This War will be won when the hate-factory madrasses permeating the Middle East and beyond are confronted, their religious and political authority challenged, their message repudiated and rejected.

quote:Also, by supporting action, but not war, you parrot Kerry's view exactly. But you'll just deny it, dispite the fact that thats exactly what he's said.

Care to clarify just how this emulates Kerry’s position on the situation ?

He voted war, from the very beginning.

I will deny it, because that is a blatant lie.

quote:On abortion, can you just not accept that not everyone is a Christian?

No. That’s apathy…the death of this country, AND mankind.

For an example, please study the history of ROME.

quote:This is why people hate your religion so much.

No. People hate Christians because they represent morality. They represent responsibility for one’s own actions. They represent the need for a savior, and a change of heart. No one wants to hear that they are wrong, and in need of saving.

quote:You are incapable of simply following your own beliefs.

Quite a claim from someone who only a week or so ago was asking me what exactly I follow, doctrinally.

I suspect you haven’t the foggiest idea what I believe. You don’t listen to anything I say objectively, so it is not a hard assumption to make.

quote:You must do everything within your power to force other people to do so as well.

FORCE ?

No. What the extremist Muslims do is FORCE.

What I do is out of mercy…if I did not try to spread the gospel of Christ, what kind of Christian would I be ?

If I did not try and help as many people come to the salvation I have been undeservingly given, how could I expect the same of my Lord ?

quote:And frankly, I will murder you myself, with my bare hands if necessary, to prevent your dogma from dictating my life.

That is truly sad.

I will pray for you…honestly.

quote:"...make no law respecting religion". That means that no religion will be favored,as well as no religion being discriminated against.

That is a man-made constitution. It bears no relevance.

You make it seem as though I am out to convert the world. “Christianity MUST be the predominant religion !”

Except I have no hopes for that. The Bible tells us just how many will go, and how many will stay. I have no illusions that Christianity will be the head of all religious institution.

As a matter of fact, I don’t think of it that way at all. This just shows how “off the mark” you are about me…perhaps if you saw me the way I truly am, you wouldn’t hate me so much. You might even understand me a little.

quote:The abortion, I'll make a post in Humanities. I'd appreciate your response.

I don’t post anywhere but here. I am not interested in getting into DEEP political or social debates…I am often dragged into them, and even tempted sometimes.

But I TRY to keep it about God. That’s why I am here, and I have addressed the issue of abortion in GREAT detail prior to your recent arrival to Totse, or at least this forum.

I am sorry you missed it, but it wasn’t that long ago, and I truly don’t want to have the conversation again.

I take my conversations with you guys very personally, and it deeply affects me.

It took me a week to get over the images of the atrocities that are committed in abortion clinics every day in this country.

So, I respectfully decline. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Rust, do you want to take this to a Messenger service ? We're both here at the same time. No sense going back and forth this way...takes much more time, on top of the fact that we have to wait LONG periods of time to recive a response.

What do you think ?

Can come up with dummy accounts, to protect identity and such, if you'd like.

quote:Sorry, but all evidence points to the contrary.

What evidence ? What the liberal media shoves down your throat, in the name of FAIR, BALANCED news ?

quote:That's EXACTLY what the Christian position is.

"Turn the other cheek" and "thou shall not murder" wheren't just catch phrases.

You've just proved how you're not a Christian. Thanks.

See now…we’ve been talking about two entirely different things here.

You could have specified that we were just arguing about ME and MY position a LONG time ago, and avoided this whole painstaking conversation.



If MY opinion were the only one to consider, then YES ! I agree…DO NOT INVADE !

The angle I was coming from was politically motivated, based on our country’s policies.

quote:Actually, it is. That's word for word what the Christ would have done.

Right. You are 100% correct.

quote:Your country's policy is irrelevant. I'm not debating the policy of the country. I'm debating YOUR policy. YOUR policy should be "not invade". Period.

This sentence was the defining factor for this whole debate.

I now see exactly where you are coming from…my PERSONAL policy is to live as Christ did. Which would include “turn the other cheek”. You’re right. For me, that is the only solution.

But for AMERICA, and it’s people, that won’t work. That’s where I was coming from.

quote:Absolutely not "After ten years of them". The Inspections had been stopped. These were new inspections. You cannot claim that he exhausted all diplomatic possabilities, when he clearly did not.

New inspections, same bratty dictator. So what ?

All diplomatic possibilities had been exhausted PRIOR to Bush taking office. That is CLEAR. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t follow the news very closely.

quote:I don't have to because I'm not arguing that!

Maybe not, but I was. Why are we only focusing on what YOU challenge, and not what I challenge ?

quote:"How can we be diplomatic with a man like this ? A DANGEROUS man, at that ?"

Ok…got it.

Well, how can we ?

We tried diplomacy, in so many ways, for far too long.

He proved time and again that he was not willing to subject himself or his country to the whims of the American government (not saying I agree with it, either).

In light of that, HOW ? (I am truly asking)

quote:I never said I was "on the fence" on everything... Geez

Well, damn, RUST ! How can we know ? That’s schizophrenic !

Be one thing or another. *laughs* I can’t follow the debate if you keep changing your stand on things.

quote:I said I was neutral when it came to claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

I DON’T remember those words ever coming out of your fingers. But, I am far too lazy to scour the threads to find your exact wording, so I’ll have to let you win that one.

quote:You don't have to vote.

Yes, I do.

My voice will be heard.

It’s what my forefathers fought and died for, and I’ll be damned if I don’t take advantage of my right to vote.

Not to mention that my vote may be the deciding factor between Bush and Kerry. I could never live with myself knowing that my vote may have cancelled out the deciding vote for Kerry, after he becomes President (if he does).

quote:1. I would argue that voting a man in office that advocates war would be far more irresponsible.

Except they both vote for war. As I said, that nullifies that particular issue.

I have to vote, based on my conscience, about ALL of their opinions on the important issues, not just ONE.

quote:2. Regardless of it being irresponsible or nor, it still means that you're supporting someone who directly contradicts the Christ's teachings. Hence... not a Christian.

Again, how I vote does NOT mean I am a Christian, or not a Christian.

You need to educate yourself a little bit on the salvation, through Jesus Christ.

It has nothing to do with the sins I commit, or the choices I make, other than that of accepting God as creator, and Jesus as Savior.

My iniquities were paid for on the cross…past, present, and future.

Voting is NOT a sin. Bush supporting war that kills people IS.

I would like you to dredge up some doctrinal scripture that supports your idea that voting for a president that supports war is an unforgivable sin, which means I am going to hell. (I have to be a non-Christian to go to hell)

quote:1. I can't vote in U.S. elections.

2. I'm not a Christian.

Thanks, Captain Obvious ! I was not aware of your anti-Christian ideology ! *laughs*

So, you live in Canada or something ? I remember you talking about abortion laws in AZ specifically, so I assumed you lived in the US. Canada, then ?

Since my recent introduction to totse? I've been here for over a year, noob. I wasn't able to check as often as I'd like because I was at home over the summer, and had to deal with a 56k instead of the t3 at my dorm.

1. Kerry supported doing something about Hussein. His preferred solution was a diplomatic approach. And when the Bush administration handed the Senate a dumbed down and grossly distorted version of the intelligence they'd gathered, he supported Bush in his rush to war, which has been documented as being planned well before 9/11. Preferring action, but not war.... hm. That sounds exactly like your preference.

2. How is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage not forcing Christian dogma on the entire country? How is anti-abortion legislature, born of Christian morals, not forcing? What is so hard about the concept that is a person is Christian, then they will follow the teachings of Christ, otherwise let them follow their own beliefs? The fact that you even try to claim otherwise is absurd.

3. There is another option. It's called the Constitution party. Straight out Christian values. But I assume you've never heard of them? Do a little research.

4. What reason would you have to claim that a man who has been in war, and seen first-hand the horror of it, would care "diddly squat" about human life, compared to the pampered failure before he became president, who was planning a war the second he took office?

5. You say that the real problem is Islam. Hussein was a secularist. Look it up. His policy wasn't based on Islam. If islam was the real reason Bush invaded, then why not Iran? An Islamic theocracy? Do you even realize that afganistan is an Islamic country? What makes Iraq, a secularist country, so special, aside from their oil? Pakistan harbors bin Laden, as we speak, and is an Islamic country. But they're not rich in natural resources. And they could actually fight back. You have to at least understand the point about Iraq not being a valid target if the true enemy is Islam.

6. "So, he's a warmonger, AFTER ALL !

So much for being a better option than Bush."

You claim that I can manipulate text, but you make the Morningstar himself look like a crying two year old girl. Kerry said he would hunt down the people who attacked us, and that he would never cede the right to a pre-emptive strike. Bush is the one who actually used it! Bush is the one who trampled 225 years of tradition, by being the first president to conquer a foreign nation with a first strike. If one looks at aggressiveness and belligerence alone, by your own standards, HELL YES Kerry is the better choice. And that is by those standards alone. So cut off any crap about why else you might vote for him before you even type it.

7. So, by having a nation that consists of people other than Christian, this country, and the entire world is doomed? And Rome didn't fall until after it had accepted Christianity. I assume you're pointing to the fact that it was non-Christians who brought it to it's knees.

8. No. People dislike Christians because you can never leave another person to their beliefs. Look at your handle! What is your purpose in posting here? To convince people to be Christian! Why do you think that Jehova's Wittnesses are the most disliked of all Christians? Because they are the ones who will follow you to your own home to pester you.

9. A week ago I asked you what you believed because you claimed not to belong to a denomination. And you completely misinterpreted the sentence. I wasn't referring to yuo specifically, but to all Christians, who are compelled by a book of ludicrously uncertain origin to prosthelytize.

10. "What I do is out of mercy…if I did not try to spread the gospel of Christ, what kind of Christian would I be ?

If I did not try and help as many people come to the salvation I have been undeservingly given, how could I expect the same of my Lord ?"

"You make it seem as though I am out to convert the world. “Christianity MUST be the predominant religion !”"

I'll leave it to you to realize how patently stupid the combination of those two statements, a matter of centimeters apart is. If the Bible tells you exactly how many will be saved, then what guarantee is there, that if I were to be saved this instant, that I would go to heaven? If I get saved in the surplus, will I burn like the sinners? Or has God forseen it? In which case, there is no free will, and the temptations of Satan are moot. You are either saved or not. You cannot claim freewill whenever it helps your arguement, then pull that bullshit when you think it strengthens your position. And you people call Kerry a flip-flopper.

12. I actually think you'd be interested in the abortion arguement. I used the Bible, gensis specifically to form an arguement in favor of abortion. I'll crosspost if you like, it is semi-relevant.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What evidence ? What the liberal media shoves down your throat, in the name of FAIR, BALANCED news ?

1. Please, stop with this crap. Not everyone is as moronic or sheeple as your Democratic or Republican counterparts.

2. Clark. Woodwork(sp?) There are various insiders who have said that Bush rushed the case for war. The fact that no WMD were found and that he deliberately stopped Inspections, serves to further support this.

quote:You could have specified that we were just arguing about ME and MY position a LONG time ago, and avoided this whole painstaking conversation.

Apparently, you cannot read, becauses that's exactly what I did since the beginning!

quote:This sentence was the defining factor for this whole debate.

I now see exactly where you are coming from…my PERSONAL policy is to live as Christ did. Which would include “turn the other cheek”. You’re right. For me, that is the only solution.

But for AMERICA, and it’s people, that won’t work. That’s where I was coming from.

You still don't get it. You support a candidate that supports war, hence, you are not living like a Christian! THAT's the point!

quote:New inspections, same bratty dictator. So what ?

All diplomatic possibilities had been exhausted PRIOR to Bush taking office. That is CLEAR. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t follow the news very closely.

No. The moment Bush steps into office, new diplomatic courses arise. He didn't exhaust them.

quote:Maybe not, but I was. Why are we only focusing on what YOU challenge, and not what I challenge ?

Then please, I invite you to create a topic in the Politics section. Not here.

quote:He proved time and again that he was not willing to subject himself or his country to the whims of the American government (not saying I agree with it, either).

In light of that, HOW ?

See above. Create a topic in the Politics Section. I'll gladly answer everything you want there.

quote:My voice will be heard.

It’s what my forefathers fought and died for, and I’ll be damned if I don’t take advantage of my right to vote.

Fine, then you're voting for someone who does not represent the values of the Christ, hence you're not a Christian.

quote:Except they both vote for war. As I said, that nullifies that particular issue.

I have to vote, based on my conscience, about ALL of their opinions on the important issues, not just ONE.

No all of them, hence your point is moot.

quote:Again, how I vote does NOT mean I am a Christian, or not a Christian.

I would like you to dredge up some doctrinal scripture that supports your idea that voting for a president that supports war is an unforgivable sin, which means I am going to hell. (I have to be a non-Christian to go to hell)

It's supporting someone who is sining.

The equivalent of me helping a murderer commit his murder. Does that not equal a sin as well?

This may rest on the definition of "Christian". I believe a "Christian" is someone who follows the word of the Christ as much as possible. If we take that definition, then you're not a Christian.

quote:Thanks, Captain Obvious ! I was not aware of your anti-Christian ideology ! *laughs*

Don't ask "why" then! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

So, you live in Canada or something ? I remember you talking about abortion laws in AZ specifically, so I assumed you lived in the US. Canada, then ?

I live in Puerto Rico, and I've never argued about abortion laws in AZ specifically... NEVER.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thanks, Social...I love the "fly-by-night"ers that come and go, not following the progression of the conversations. (then feel justified in claiming that I have not sufficiently answered them)

PRINCE - How would you know anything about the way that I post, or how I reply ? I have seen TWO posts from you, thus far. Unless you are coming in with another name now, which is totally immature.

I don't think you ought to have much of an opinion about me here, since we have spoken NOT AT ALL.

i wouldn't do such a thing i don't even have enough time to post with my own nickname i said what i said because you contradict yourself you didn't answer my question if you christians turn the other cheek and don't like revenge why did you kill native indians in the name of Jesus attacked muslims in crusades and killed each other in relligious wars and attacked africa in the name of missionaries spreading deceases and making profit out of slavery your corrupt bible is only a justification for your corrupt minds if you think that beheading an american is not a just punishement for killing 5 millions iraqi children during the last decade then you lack basic logical reasonning revenge is the best form of justice but we are not hypocrites like you we admit that we renvenge our death and our relligion allow us to do so

This is a shameless *bump*, because I WILL be replying...hopefully. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I can't seem to get on here much anymore.

Sorry, guys.



P.S. Rust, to be a "Christian" is to believe in the Christ as the savior of our souls.

That's it.

The rest is just to help us live fulfilling earthly lives, and to be blameless in the eyes of the world.

Bush is a sinner for killing people...I agree with that statement.

But no sin is greater than another, and therefor I cannot judge him for sinning, when I do it myself.

Kerry sins too, and I don't judge him for that any more than I would myself, but his MORALS are what scare me, not his individual sins.

He will run this country into the ground, I think.

Anyway, the point is, salvation is not based on sin. Those sins are washed clean by the blood of Christ.

Does God want us to try NOT to sin ? Yes, of course.

Can we do it ? Some of the time. If we try REALLY hard, then it is possible to do it almost all of the time.

But it can never be achieved 100%.

That is why the grace of God is so incredible...but that's a different topic.

Anyway, who I vote for bears no relevance to my salvation. Everyone is a sinner, and by your thought process I would never vote..EVER.

And as I said before, NOT voting is not acceptable. It is irresponsible.

Then we simply do not agree with the definition of what is "Christian". Coincidentally, the dictionary agrees with me.

Acting like a Christian (being Christ-like), and being a Christian (saved) are two different things.

My personal behavior often resembles that of Christ, but not always. I am still a sinner, but I strive not to be.

Voting for someone who sins does not mean that I sin, in that case.

You are applying human laws to God.

READ THE BIBLE.

Also, one definition in the Dictionary states that the word Christian means: "One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ..."

Being that you are not a Christian, and don't agree with Christianity, I don't see how you are fit to determine what is required of a Christian, and what is not.

Yes, you can read the Bible, but it will only reveal so much to you, without the Holy Spirit inspiring it in you.

And you obviously don't have that luxury, since you aren't a Christian.

Anyway, I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior, and that (according to the BIBLE, which ought to be the leading authority on what being a Christian entails, NOT the dictionary) is what makes me a Christian.

We don't have to agree on the definition. You are wrong. *shrugs*

Period.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-16-2004).]

How nice that you... DELIBERATELY IGNORE THE REST OF THE DICTIONARY'S DEFINITION! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Here, the FULL quote:

"One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ" and now the part which you deliberately ignored," and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ."

Did your keyboard suddenly stop working? Or maybe god interrupted you? How about a case of amnesia? Brain fart? Please, help me understand how that doesn't deserve being labeled "Pathetic"...

So ONCE AGAIN, the dictionary agrees with ME.

quote:according to the BIBLE, which ought to be the leading authority on what being a Christian entails, NOT the dictionary

Care to provide a specific quote?

quote:We don't have to agree on the definition. You are wrong. *shrugs*

Sorry, but that's an opinion. There is no "right" and "wrong", since I could say the same about your opinion.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-16-2004).]

PWN3D!

Digital, I'm just curious. You do realize that the arguement that the Holy Spirit allows you to understand the truth of the bible more clearly means absolutely jack shit to an atheist? And that if you replaced "Holy Spirit" with any other two words, you'd be considered insane?

Doesn't really matter if it means nothing to an athiest...because that is exactly my point.

If you truly wanted to understand, then you would.

God keeps no one from understanding the Bible, but it's up to you to equip yourself with the necessary tools.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



God keeps no one from understanding the Bible, but it's up to you to equip yourself with the necessary tools.

... and by "necesarry tools" you must mean reason and logic, which, if god is the creator of the universe, he must have created; right?

Or do you mean "faith"? Which is in essence, the absence of logic and reason, and thus the absence of what god created...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

... and by "necesarry tools" you must mean reason and logic, which, if god is the creator of the universe, he must have created; right?

Or do you mean "faith"? Which is in essence, the absence of logic and reason, and thus the absence of what god created...

None of the above.

"Necessary Tools" = Holy Spirit

So, I guess I shouldn't have written that plurally. My apologies.

God is all those things...logic, reason, AND spirit.

God is not in need of faith for Himself, since He can accomplish all things.

I believe the reason that faith is required of us in order to receive Him as our savior is because it is the ultimate denial of self, and thus the hardest thing that could be expected of us.

Pride is man's downfall, and faith is the scourge that plague's man's flesh.

Man's spirit rejoices when it is received by god through faith, but the flesh writhes in agony.

Anyway, nice try at pinning me to a corner, but your grasp of God and the Bible is just too uneducated for you to be successful.

Sorry I didn't get back to Leviticus...

Which thread is that in ? This one ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

None of the above.

"Necessary Tools" = Holy Spirit

So, I guess I shouldn't have written that plurally. My apologies.

God is all those things...logic, reason, AND spirit.

God is not in need of faith for Himself, since He can accomplish all things.

I believe the reason that faith is required of us in order to receive Him as our savior is because it is the ultimate denial of self, and thus the hardest thing that could be expected of us.

Pride is man's downfall, and faith is the scourge that plague's man's flesh.

Man's spirit rejoices when it is received by god through faith, but the flesh writhes in agony.

Anyway, nice try at pinning me to a corner, but your grasp of God and the Bible is just too uneducated for you to be successful.

Sorry I didn't get back to Leviticus...

Which thread is that in ? This one ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

The point, which you obviously missed, still stands.

If god created everything, then he created logic. And, if you use logic and reasoning (his creations) then the only conclusion is that we cannot know there is a god, or there isn't one. Therefore, if god punishes me for not believing in him, he is punishing me for using his creation.

Also, do you have a reply to my previous statement? You know.... the one where you completly ignore a definition in order to argue your case?

quote:Sorry I didn't get back to Leviticus...

Which thread is that in ? This one ?

This thread.