How many more must die before we end this folly? Do these deaths mean nothing to you neocons? Do you feel safe now that all these people are dead? All we have we done is inspired a new generation of warmongers to conspire against us.
Here's to another 1000 years of hate that we perpetuate! W00t!
Yes, he committed genocide. But guess whose weapons he used? OursWe gave him the vast majority of his WMDs because we wanted him to slaughter Iranians who deposed our banana-republic ruler. That doesn’t make it our fault, but it doesn’t exactly make us the dynamic heroes either. There are literally dozens and dozens (Darfur, Ivory Coast, etc) of countries whose genocidal horror far supersedes anything Sadam committed, yet we don’t touch them.
"if you support this war" This is the funniest part. I haven't even said! I am asking, half a dozen times now, for something besides your comments and personal beliefs to go on. I DID read his comments. I don't accept what people say out of hand.
Why is it that people will say there were NO WMD's, and that we looked and Bush LIED, because there were no WMD's... and then state that the WMD's he had were ones WE gave him?
Did he have WMD's or not?
If so... was he not a threat?
And if NOT, what did all of those people die from?
Did they all get the flu and fall into the same hole?
Now before I get my head eaten, I am not saying I agree that war or violence is the best way to solve this, (or even a good way)
But the WMD argument to me has always seemed very inconsistant.
Yes, he had them. However, not only did he use most of them, we confiscated the rest in the first Gulf War. Remember, we took over the country once, back when genocide didn't mean so much. ;)
I looked at the site. Yes I see they are keeping statistics from the start of the war. Where are the statistics from before? Why are these deaths more significant than those butchered before? Saddam didn't only use WMDs against those people. The sects in that country were killing each other before. Has it not been reduced? Yes, I realize other areas have atrocities that turn my stomach. And I read your comment above about policing the world. I have a hard time with the concept of turning a blind eye to such things.
What is the difference with WWII? Were we not criticized for waiting so long to assist?
WWII involved two nations who declared war on us first. Sadam never attacked our nation. Sadam never even has attacked Americans outside of his nation's soil.
Everybody has problems. The vast majority of nations on this earth--like it or not--commit genocide. It is not our job to police everybody else, especially when we've been guilty of some of the same things in the past (i.e. Native American peoples).
guess who gave him all those WMD's for use against Iran?
Russia, France, and China, at 57, 13, and 12 percent, respectively. Our portion- less than half of one percent.
"In fact in 11 out of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the US has sided with the former group. Those conflicts included Turkey and Greece, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and and Kosovo and Yugoslavia."
My personal preference is isolationism and fairly open borders. I am not very happy with President Bush, and I'm not voting for either candidate. I have some sympathy for your point of view, but a lot of your statements of fact aren't factual, and I do think it's odd to say that because people living in America before my grandparents were born didn't treat the INdians right, that means those of us living here now, today, have no right to criticize anybody else for committing genocide. That's an intellectually bankrupt argument, really.
You also made an interesting switch here- we should not have attacked Al Queda and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, because they Saddam never attacked Americans on our own soil.
But the reason Islam attacks America and hates us is because we have put American troops on the soil of the HOly land. Well, we did that at the invitation of the Saudi Government. We have a treaty with them. Does that government not have the right to invite who it likes to step foot on their land? Kuwait was also invaded by Saddam, and we have a treaty with them and with Saudi, and it was part of honoring that treaty that compelled us to send Saddam back to his side of the border. And through the years between Dessert STorm and the Iraq war, Iraq fired on our planes in the no-fly zone daily, those planes were there at the invitation of Kuwaiti government. Your argument is as though you hired security guards and I shot them and then insisted there should be no retaliation because, "Well, I never fired at them on their home ground."
My point is only that that sort of fingerpointing doesn't work. Coincidentally, (or not) it's the same sort of argumentation I see among brethren that annoys us so.
I would sure like to know your sources for those numbers. It is true that our "allies" (Save the USSR) supplied said weapons to Iraq in addition to ours, but even the majority of those were developed per our scientific alliances with NATO; they were essentially our chemicles supplied to Iraq under the auspices of third party trades. Please check here, here, and here. As to the US siding with Muslims, yes, this is true--for the most part. However, you're missing some major Islamic talking points: our unilateral support for Israel and our more recent basing of US soldiers in Islamic holy lands.
As far as Native Americans, don't get side-tracked by the point I was making; I was not saying that this does not negate the evil done by others, but it does mean that we are not on the moral high ground, especially when we continue to disenfranchise the same people we slaughtered.
I made no switch. I never said we should not have attacked Al Qaeda. I said we should not have attacked Hussein. There was no significant connection between these two parties. Bin Laden couldn't stand the secular leader Hussein. He also, as well as many Muslims, can't stand the Saudi government for their blatant pro-American stances, including the allowance of US troops on Saudi soil. If you do some research, you'll find that the Saudis are taking extraordinary amounts of anti-terrorism measures to protect their slippery grasp on power. The Saudi government is NOT popular, regardless of their Sharia law.
Sorry- I did mean to leave the link. I've seen them several places- most recently .in the UK Telegraph.
Can I make a suggestion? Implying that the only reason people disagree with you is because they haven't done any research is not conducive to reasonable discussions and exchanges of ideas.
China is not really an 'ally,' either.
I realize that ISlam's major issue is that we support Israel- I don't consider their desire to push Israel into the see a talking point in their favor.
I understand your point about Native Americans, I disagree that genocide by people I wasn't even related to in generations before my grandparents were born somehow compromises me and wipes the moral high ground out from under my feet. Furthermore, while your viewpoint of the white guys as all bad and the NDNs all good is the common fairy tale notion fed to school children in the PC age, it actually was much more complex than that. There were good and bad on both sides, there were groups of Indians so brutal their neighboring tribes eagerly helped exterminate them, either side foresaw the ending, give the people of the past, my history major daughter likes quote her proff, the privilege of living complex lives.
The switch I refer to is when you criticize us for attacking Hussein on the basis that he never attacked us on our home ground, insisting on a hermetical seal around Saddam, and then grant all of Islam the right to treat every Arab country as their boundaryless stomping grounds and territory and allow them all to be perfectly justified for attacking us for accepting the invitation of the authorized government of a foreign country.
I am also well aware that the Saudi government is not popular. This is irrelevant. They are the government and they invited us. Other muslims do not have the right to dictate what the Saudi government does or doesn't do, nor to attack us because we have diplomatic ties with a country that isn't even theirs.
I am not impressed with your sources, and we can swap them all night long.
I imagine you won't be any better pleased with mine.=)
Saddam shot at us repeatedly when we were where we had every right to be and he..... was not.
Terrorists are terrorists because they are filled with hate. We aren't the only ones they have attacked. There are people in hiding for their lives because of *cartoons,* Theo Van Gogh got his throat slit because of a movie.
Arguing that it's our fault they hate us with such murderous hatred does not fit the pattern of Islamic terrorism.
Sorry- I did mean to leave the link. I've seen them several places- most recently .in the UK Telegraph.
Can I make a suggestion? Implying that the only reason people disagree with you is because they haven't done any research is not conducive to reasonable discussions and exchanges of ideas.
China is not really an 'ally,' either.
I realize that ISlam's major issue is that we support Israel- I don't consider their desire to push Israel into the see a talking point in their favor.
I understand your point about Native Americans, I disagree that genocide by people I wasn't even related to in generations before my grandparents were born somehow compromises me and wipes the moral high ground out from under my feet. Furthermore, while your viewpoint of the white guys as all bad and the NDNs all good is the common fairy tale notion fed to school children in the PC age, it actually was much more complex than that. There were good and bad on both sides, there were groups of Indians so brutal their neighboring tribes eagerly helped exterminate them, either side foresaw the ending, give the people of the past, my history major daughter likes quote her proff, the privilege of living complex lives.
The switch I refer to is when you criticize us for attacking Hussein on the basis that he never attacked us on our home ground, insisting on a hermetical seal around Saddam, and then grant all of Islam the right to treat every Arab country as their boundaryless stomping grounds and territory and allow them all to be perfectly justified for attacking us for accepting the invitation of the authorized government of a foreign country.
I am also well aware that the Saudi government is not popular. This is irrelevant. They are the government and they invited us. Other muslims do not have the right to dictate what the Saudi government does or doesn't do, nor to attack us because we have diplomatic ties with a country that isn't even theirs.
I am not impressed with your sources, and we can swap them all night long.
I imagine you won't be any better pleased with mine.=)
Saddam shot at us repeatedly when we were where we had every right to be and he..... was not.
Terrorists are terrorists because they are filled with hate. We aren't the only ones they have attacked. There are people in hiding for their lives because of *cartoons,* Theo Van Gogh got his throat slit because of a movie.
Arguing that it's our fault they hate us with such murderous hatred does not fit the pattern of Islamic terrorism.
The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of 'Cat,' and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. 'I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it,' she said. 'I think that's what he would have wanted.'
This is why this horrible war needs to end. I can show research and news articles, but I don't need that....look at the body count. It's not just a number. It's someone's husband, father, mother sister...child.
To those that will argue with me I would say,
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people." Rom 12:18
Microsoft Award Team
Microsoft London (Cardinal Place)
100 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 5JL
It’s with great pleasure to announce to you, that you just won the sum of 500,000.00 GBP (five hundred thousand pounds
sterling). In the MSN AWARD TEAM PROMO. The Microsoft word is offering a free donation to hotmail and msn subscriber,
including other web-based email ID and domains. So if you receive this letter of notification you are also a winner and you
are required to participate.
Our online ballot box machine selected your email ID automatically, with the following information affiliated to your email
ID.
Your Identification numbers are given below.
Reference #: MSN/511-007-12
Batch #: MW/JO/612NG
You are advice to contact the MSN AWARD TEAM claims agent with immediate effect to facilitate the release of your winning
prize.
When contacting your claims agent, you are to furnish him with your reference and batch number along with the required
information below:
Name Of Winner: ___________________
Sex_________________________
Nationality: ________________
Age: ______________________________
Occupation: _____________
Marital Status: _____________
Tel No: _____________ Fax No: _______
Postal Address:
Country: _____________________
Winning E-mail Address: _____________
Claims agent contact details:
Mr. Douglas Gary (MSW officer)
Tel: +447031937306
Email: doug_claims@hotmail.co.uk
Please contact him as soon as you receive this notification email…Once again congratulations.
Best regards,
Mr. Eddy Jones.
Executive Secretary/Co-ordinator.
500k GBP?!?! That's like a million dollars in real money!!1!
that's kind of the the three times i have won the uk internet lottery without ever entering.
this also begs the question: when did microsoft move thier corporate office to london?
Now you can pay off your house and get finacially settled.
I'll tell you what.
There is a guy whose name is axhehsweowll Xylondgoded from the Ivory coast who is sending me 4 million dollars. It seems his mother who was the queen of England or something left it for him in a secure bank account and all he needs is my account number to transfer the funds to.
Now that we're both rich- we should go do something amazing together.
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (Romans 6: 3-5).
Paul's reasoning was, "if you have truly committed yourself, and put your old self to death, you would logically be living different. This is the essence of baptism; a figure of Christ's change in your life. Why are you Roman's not living as you ought? Did you not truly change? Was the baptism given to you meaningless?" This is why Paul essentially rebukes the Romans for their ignorance of Baptisms essential purpose: "For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Ro 6:10, 11). Perhaps, like ourselves today, the Romans considered baptism only as a means of forgiveness and didn't understand it's spiritual significance outside of said forgiveness. Paul had to give them some sharp clarification:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:12-14).
By viewing baptism as a means only which God looks at us differently, instead of us looking at God differently, our baptism becomes unbaptism. By not understanding how we are to change, and how God must change us, we make baptism void. In of itself, baptism didn't stop you from sinning. And if the Word of God is true when he says, "no one who abides in him keeps on sinning" (1Jn 3:6), then baptism clearly isn't the end of the road just as circumcision wasn't the end, or the beginning, of the road. It is the result of baptism that is most important, just as was the result of circumcision. For what good was circumcision if there was not a working faith? "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Ro 3:28). Paul wanted to make sure that the Romans understood that sin had to cease through faith. He states, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God" (Ro 6:22). This new freedom compels us to slavery in Christ; "he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men" (1Co 7:22, 23). And again he says, "You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body" (1Co 6:20).
If baptism's purpose is simply to forgive, what good then is the New Covenant? Forgiveness was given with the old covenant: "And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty" (Lev 6:7). Forgiveness is not unique in the new covenant, rather it is the power by the Holy Spirit and his example that takes away sins from our lives, allowing us to walk as He did, that makes the new covenant the true fulfillment of the Father's eternal plan. Sacrifices in of themselves were not desired: as he says, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not delighted, but you have given me and open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required" and, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Ps 40:6-8; He 10:4). God wanted the heart, cleansed by the Holy Spirit and purified by example, not just action: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds" (Jer 31:34). Only then, when this promise is fulfilled, could sin be taken away: "You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him" (1Jn 3:5, 9).
Baptism helps plant that seed and further the spiritual circumcision by changing the conscience (or the voice of the heart) of a man. This is why baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1Pe 3:21). Baptism leads to Jesus taking away sin from our lives by developing a good conscience "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." A good conscience is different than a clean conscience, the former motivates the heart and mind towards paths of righteousness while the latter simply demonstrates a lack of guilt:
For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never died again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (Ro 6:7-11).
While in the old covenant, "gifts and sacrifices… cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper," in the new "the blood of Christ… [will] purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (He 9:9, 14); instead of focusing on things below, we will focus on things above with the cleansing gift of the Holy Spirit: "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules… and I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses" (Ez 36:26). He further states, "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father" (Ga 4:6)!
Baptism accomplishes this salvation, but it doesn't put "away the filth of the flesh1," that is, our human tendency to sin (1Pe 3:21). Concerning this, Paul said, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For [without Christ and under the Law] I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" (Ro 7:18). Before our discipleship, "we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Ep 2:3). With mature discipleship, we fully "belong to Christ Jesus [and] have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Ga 5:24, 25). This growth is stimulated by the cultivation of a good conscience whose seeds are planted by God in the watery grave of baptism; "our hearts [are] sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies [are] washed with a pure water" (He 10:22). This growth takes time. Paul, when speaking to baptized believers, rebukes their infant mentality:
But I, brothers, could not address you as a spiritual people, but as a people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not ready, for you are still in the flesh (1 Corinthians 3:1-3).
Though their conscience and mind (more of which we shall speak of later) was changed, their heart and outlook had not fully been spiritualized to handle the meat, or true spiritual principles, of Christ. Only their conscience had changed, allowing them to hope for salvation, and allow them possible transition to a spiritual walk through the sufferings of Christ: "for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God" (1Pe 1,2), "that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1Pe 3:18). "And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us" (Ro 5:5). Young disciples, freshly baptized will still often focus on physical regulations because to the unchanged heart, it can appear as righteousness. "These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh" (Co 2:20). Indeed, it is only by the cleansed conscience, the power of the Spirit and the example of Christ the can stop you from sinning; baptism in of itself cannot do this, only discipleship can.
don't want you or your visitors to see ads? join gold!
In the spirit of this immortal thread, I've decided to continue the discussion on another level.
I've been writing a paper on discipleship and perfection, and would like to post some thoughts I wrote on baptism. Of course, when the whole thing is finished, I'll be happy to share. It's lengthy, but I'm sure a few of you will enjoy it.
The Jews in the first century were not a united lot. Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes all vied for political clout. Though they could not agree on much, they all cherished circumcision, that ancient right that physically separated themselves from the horde of humanity and epitomized obedience and dedication to Torah. It did not take long for this epitomization to become a virtual end all, be all of salvation. Indeed, by the time of John the Baptist, circumcision had lost much of its spiritual potency. John fervently rebuked this mentality and said, "do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (Mt 3:9)! Later, Jesus the Christ established a new covenant, grafting his brethren to the salvation of the Hebrews through the circumcision of the spirit (cf. Rom 11; He 2:11). "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Ga 3:29). Paul further writes:
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. And you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:8-12).
With the circumcision of the spirit, the circumcision of the flesh became vain: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (Ga 5:6). Paul further states that not only is physical circumcision count for nothing, but that it was essentially a farce. If circumcision, Paul reasoned, epitomized the obedience to God, then only those who accepted the Christ were the real McCoy. He says, "For [Christ's disciples] are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Phi 3:3). Unlike the circumcision of the flesh, this "real" circumcision was not facilitated in a single act, but by ongoing, dynamic discipleship that began at belief, realized in baptism and continued till death; essentially, it was the casting away of our old self, and putting on the perfect love of Christ. The constant of our race, our faith, "guards" us as we "work out [this] salvation" until our ultimate prize is "ready to be revealed in the last time" (Phil 2:12; 1Pe 1:5). This casting away is epitomized in baptism, but continued all throughout discipleship till perfect love is attained.
However, much like the Pharisees of old did with physical circumcision, many Christians have put the cart before the horse and have pigeonholed salvation into this single act; they've taken the epitomization and have made it a totalization of salvation, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. As a result, they assign baptism as the sole proprietor of spiritual circumcision, making it the end all, be all of salvation. In teaching others, becoming disciples of Christ through adopting his complete, perfect heart is no longer the object, but to ensure appropriate forms and to impart a litany of exclusive rhetoric. Counting the cost becomes secondary to soaking the victim, and often the hapless person only realizes what they've really gotten themselves into after the church abandons them when the deed is done.
There can be no doubt that Paul would be against this mentality, as he was against the mentality that formed with physical circumcision. The man who declared, "for neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God," (1Co 7:19) would declare baptism concordantly useless without truly understanding discipleship. Paul understood that baptism didn't make disciples, even declaring that, "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1Co 1:17). Baptism was simply a step in discipleship, not the genesis, terminus or climax. Disciples, those who had already accepted Christ as their savior, were baptized as a confirmation of that acceptance. The physical act of baptism was to show the spiritual nature of change, symbolized in both the physical and spiritual resurrection of Jesus.
I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. You believe that baptism automatically makes you walk in newness of life (which is not what the text reads), whereas I believe that baptism is so that "we too MIGHT walk in newness of life." Baptism, if discipleship is understood correctly, will do this. However, it is not a process inherent to getting wet. As far as what you are asking, no, that is not true. The inward act can only be appropriately attained if the outward act is not only understood, but done correctly--but that's for a different section that I haven't put on here yet.
Then I agree with you I was getting nervous for a second. As sad as it is, I think in most churches if a person comes forward and says "I want to be baptized for the forgiveness of my sins" they will not be asked "what sins"... or asked "How will you live after this?".... or asked really anything for that matter.
When we baptize those who have not died to themselves, we have buried a live person instead of a dead one. And when we baptize someone who has not made Jesus Lord, we have allowed them to be converted to either us, our traditions, or themselves.
None of these will be able to save them on the last day.
Nevertheless, Jacob, Paul identifies baptism as the moment at which one puts to death the man of sin so as to walk in newness of life.
Does that mean that the task is entirely finished at baptism? No.
Does that make belief, confession, and repentance irrelevant? No.
But it does mean that it is accurate to describe the point of conversion as the moment of baptism. Before then, one is not truly a believer, for one has not been cleansed of past sins-- one has not yet "died with Christ" to be "raised again to walk in newness of life." It is after baptism that one is truly a believer, part of Christ's church, and can truly begin "walking as Christ walked" (1 John 2:6).
Jacob, I will not disagree with you that baptism is overemphasized. Its overemphasis does not justify a corresponding underemphasis.
I agree that Paul and the NT writers are presenting baptism as more than just an outward sign of an inward grace. The observable pattern is that something happens at baptism. Christ spiritually circumsizes a person on account of that faith-act, and imparts the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).
Brother/Sister, I am sorry but I have deleted your post. Please know that it has been a long standing policy on this blog to delete all comments from persons who have no real blog of their own. If you have further concerns, please e-mail me. Thank you for your contribution.
Jacob, I added a post to your Old Testament survey blog in the preacherman group. I am sorry you had so much trouble getting participation there. I just recently got in the group and have casually been going trhough different topics. I hope my post can help you in your efforts. God Bless!
Um. It's probably 'cos of me being a denominationalist and all that my comprehension fails. Is there some sort of an issue with baptism being described as a sacrament? By which I mean an outward sign of an inward, spiritual grace, ordained by Christ, for our salvation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "sacriment" is understood as imparting grace in some way, not simply an outward sign of an inward grace already obtained. No?
This is a very good question. My first thought, which is probably a very inaccurate one, is that it would depend on which sacrament. For example, the sacrament of Holy Communion would both be an imparting of grace to the receiver of the Holy Body & Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as a recalling to mind, heart, body & soul of the inward grace which has already been obtained for us by Jesus's death and resurrection. This is another example of me failing to be a good representative of denominationalists. I need to check the Anglican theology of the sacraments in more detail and revert once I've done so, if that's ok?
I say this with a great amount of humility: if you have a problem with my beliefs, you need to come talk to me personally.
"Personally" means:
1. NOT my brother
2. NOT my Dad
3. NOT my mother
4. NOT my wife
5. NOT some dude who knew a dude who read my blog
6. NOT in front of a congregation
I'm an adult. I have a house, a wife and a child. My beliefs are my own. Stop punishing my family for my beliefs, and get some courage and challenge me directly. Your whispering only hurts others and reveals your heart.
Call me crazy but...when a group of people says we are the devil incarnate and need to be eradicated in the name of Allah...I tend to believe they mean it. And I don't think it's a competition of who's more evil.
Are we a perfect nation? No. Have we made mistakes? Yes. However, when have we ever threatened to wipe an entire nation "off the map" just because they are Jews?
They aren't only 10000 miles away, they are here and their support comes from 10000 miles away. Recent incident: muslim woman living in America planning a suicide bombing. An MIT grad!! I doubt she's the only one.
In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini called for a jihad against America, on the grounds that we were degenerate, had filthy movies, our women didn’t know their place – all the reasons that we’ve been told are the causes of the current attacks. The result was absolutely nothing. No one blew himself up. No one did anything. Khomeini issued the call and there was no interest. It was a total flop – no one wanted to sacrifice himself on those grounds.
Then the 1990s come along, and we have Osama bin Laden. He does not make that fundamental cultural critique – obviously, he doesn’t like those aspects of American culture, but that wasn’t his main critique.
His criticism is actually very specific. He says the U.S. is responsible for propping up police states around the Arab world; exercising undue influence over oil markets; showing undue favoritism toward Israel; supporting countries that oppress their Muslim minorities; basing American troops on the Arabian peninsula, and on and on.
This is the sort of thing he offers as a rationale. So while there may certainly be the potential for Islam to be violent, what sparks that fire? It’s the combination of practical grievances and the Islamist ideology. Some people will do battle on behalf of an abstract philosophy, but most people will only fight and die for a specific grievance. For example, when you look at the Al Qaida recruitment tapes, they don’t simply quote from the Koran. They actually show images of people killed by U.S. weapons.
And just for the record, the whole "wipe Isreal off the map" thing was a gross mistranslation, and the media should be ashamed for running with it for sensationalistic purposes.
So the poster might better read..."The only people in America who punch people in the face, then out of fear of retaliation, kill the person they started the fight with."
Because Israel obviously can't take care of themselves, even though their military is top-notch, and they're the only country in the Middle East, besides Pakistan, that has nukes. A fake quote by a President(who has little power himself) of a border-line third world country with almost no offensive capabilities is cause to worry.
