Footwedge;486296 wrote:And this ditty on the Fundamentalist Christians....

Published on Thursday, October 10, 2002 by the Inter Press Service
Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Of the major religious groups in the United States, evangelical Christians are the biggest backers of Israel and Washington's planned war against Iraq, says a new survey released here Wednesday by a politically potent group of fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole.

And almost two-thirds of evangelical Christians say they support Israeli actions towards ''Palestinian terrorism'', compared with 54 percent of the general population, according to the survey, which was released by Stand For Israel, a six-month-old spin-off of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

And there is more to come.

I'm not sure what this has anything to do with the topic at hand, but ok, I'll bite.

So when this survey was done, 59% supported the War in Iraq, and 69% of Christians supported it...imagine that, Christians are more conservative than liberal. Wow, what a find you have there footy.

Also its funny you bring up Israel, imagine that, Christians who believe in the Bible support Israel and its right to defend itself. Wow, huge find you have there footy.

jmog;486939 wrote:I have read the articles, and they are exactly what I expected, either some radical's views or someone lumping "most" fundamentals in with some radicals' quotes/views.

Nothing new or special.

Let me help you with this one Jmog. Fundamentalist Christians or the somewhat broader label "evangelical Christians" are automatically subject to open besmirching, ridicule, disdain, stereotyping, and outright hatred by the self-professed "tolerant" left including liberal politicians, east coast & left coast liberal elites, Hollyweird, and the "objective" liberal mainstream media. Interestingly this very same group of leftists preach to us for more tolerance of the religion of peace and its radical form of Islam that stones its own women to death for adultery, publicly beheads the infidels in the name of Allah, threatens to kill Christians for burning the Qu'ran, and flies airliners full of innocent people into skyscrapers full of innocent people.

jmog;486939 wrote:Also, please tell me what "truth" i am not willing to accept? I have over and over shown where you were wrong on this thread, I'm still waiting on your vaunted "truth".

The only truth we really need to bear in body, mind, and soul is the One of the Way.

jmog;486939 wrote:The Patriot's Bible? Really? I, again, have actually gone to many many fundamentalist churches and no one has ever used or even referenced this "Bible".

Anyone can write their own version of the "Bible", but that doesn't mean it is used by any churches.

Oh I dunno.....our senior pastor just the other day was pontificating about the need for our church board to agree to burning all our pew Bibles and replacing them with the Patriot's Bible. He also suggested that we put a gun rack full of assault rifles on the church platform for...well you know..."just in case."

jmog;486939 wrote:I would venture to bet that a majority, if not a super majority, of fundamentalist churches use either the KJV or NKJV.

The NIV is also widely used.

This is probably going to be my last post in this thread (great right?). What I've come to decide is that I think everyone is dumb, overreacting, or just plain making shit up.

The idea that this is some sort of victory mosque is insane.

The idea that the discomfort or anger at this community center/mosque/whathaveyou is somehow a coordinated effort to bismirch Islam is equally ridiculous.

The idea that burning the Qu'ran isn't stupid is stupid.

The idea that some dude in Florida isn't completely within his right to burn the Qu'ran is more stupid.

I think we all need to chill out about everything. I'm as guilty as anyone for lumping normal people who happen to be devout Christians into the crazies that cannot manage to accept that not everyone thinks like they do and just because you lead a different life or practice a different religion you're going to hell or somehow wrong. Most aren't like that, most are wonderful people who made the personal decision (whether it was a conscious decision or if you want to say it was divine is up to you) to attempt to lead a good Christian life. I think the same thing happens with people and Islam. We only see and hear about the bad parts.

This isn't some conspiracy of the Islamic states to cause unrest and celebrate 9/11. But at the same time I'll admit that the placement was misguided. Very very misguided. It was begging for controversy and I question the intelligence of anyone who couldn't have seen that.

/end my dumb rant

IWP why do you think guys who kill American soldiers are not such bad guys?

isadore;488662 wrote:IWP why do you think guys who kill American soldiers are not such bad guys?

LOL, where did he state that? I must have missed that post.

dwccrew;489759 wrote:LOL, where did he state that? I must have missed that post.

i think that comes from a past thread. although this thread is so long, i dont even know what its about anymore.

dwccrew;489759 wrote:LOL, where did he state that? I must have missed that post.

I don't think it's an actual requirement that he state that for Isi. It's enough that the voices in his head told him.

Glory Days;490170 wrote:i think that comes from a past thread. although this thread is so long, i dont even know what its about anymore.

It was a rhetorical question. LOL

dwccrew;490410 wrote:It was a rhetorical question. LOL

No....I mean yes! wait, the answer is C.

dwccrew;489759 wrote:LOL, where did he state that? I must have missed that post.

I wear pants wrote: So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight. We are too large an enemy for almost any single country to fight. Is everyone just supposed to bow to our will then?

I dont like that.

Here we go again.

I Wear Pants;490877 wrote:Here we go again.

Were you filled with a hope for a change?

Writerbuckeye;484016 wrote:They don't come much 'rounder than Mr. Moore.

On another (related) matter...I was very pleased to see some of the networks carrying interviews with moderate Muslims calling to the NY Imam to back down and place the Islamic center elsewhere. They don't want more animosity created because of this move. They obviously "get it" even if the New York Imam does not. Which only tells me he has another agenda at work other than building bridges. Never believed that one from the get-go.

Suppose I'm a member of NAMBLA and I genuinely believe my worldview is ok and that I want to help encourage others, especially young boys to come to my point of view. Maybe, you might say, that I want to build bridges. I find a vacant piece of property across the street from a middle school and the current landlord looking to push the property toward its highest and best use, agrees to take me on as a tenant.

Predictably, the town protests outside the property and asks me to move. Since I agreed to and contracted for my property freely I may be reluctant to move.

Perhaps I chose a poor place to build my bridges as a person looking to convince young boys to love me....but nonetheless, it doesn't seem like my reluctance to move, especially considering the process of finding real property, would indicate that I did not indeed have a good intention of trying to build bridges.

Maybe this society has no interest in building a bridge with me and maybe I could build the bridge somewhere else....but just because people call for me to to move and I'm reluctant, believing that my worldview and intentions are good, does not mean that I don't indeed want to build bridges.

I personally would have no desire to build a bridge with NAMBLA but I have no doubt they may desire in good faith to do so...the same perhaps with the Imam.

BoatShoes;491203 wrote:Suppose I'm a member of NAMBLA and I genuinely believe my worldview is ok and that I want to help encourage others, especially young boys to come to my point of view. Maybe, you might say, that I want to build bridges. I find a vacant piece of property across the street from a middle school and the current landlord looking to push the property toward its highest and best use, agrees to take me on as a tenant.

Predictably, the town protests outside the property and asks me to move. Since I agreed to and contracted for my property freely I may be reluctant to move.

Perhaps I chose a poor place to build my bridges as a person looking to convince young boys to love me....but nonetheless, it doesn't seem like my reluctance to move, especially considering the process of finding real property, would indicate that I did not indeed have a good intention of trying to build bridges.

Maybe this society has no interest in building a bridge with me and maybe I could build the bridge somewhere else....but just because people call for me to to move and I'm reluctant, believing that my worldview and intentions are good, does not mean that I don't indeed want to build bridges.

I personally would have no desire to build a bridge with NAMBLA but I have no doubt they may desire in good faith to do so...the same perhaps with the Imam.

The problem with your analogy, and it works for the mosque as well, is that you don't build bridges by setting up right next to the "fire". If you want to build bridges as a NAMBLA member, you build a building near anything but a grade/middle school. If you want to build bridges as a Imam, you build a mosque near ANYTHING but ground zero.

It just reeks of "in your face" in either case.

jmog;492009 wrote:The problem with your analogy, and it works for the mosque as well, is that you don't build bridges by setting up right next to the "fire". If you want to build bridges as a NAMBLA member, you build a building near anything but a grade/middle school. If you want to build bridges as a Imam, you build a mosque near ANYTHING but ground zero.

It just reeks of "in your face" in either case.

My goal is just to point out that it could still be the Imam's goal to build bridges even though he may be incompetent at doing so. Even if it's "in your face" (which I happen to think it isn't), it still doesn't mean he has nefarious intentions as others have suggested.

BoatShoes;492137 wrote:My goal is just to point out that it could still be the Imam's goal to build bridges even though he may be incompetent at doing so. Even if it's "in your face" (which I happen to think it isn't), it still doesn't mean he has nefarious intentions as others have suggested.

You don't understand Boat Shoes. This dude is Mooslim....and by default....he absoutely has nefarious intentions. I'm tellin ya bud....first it's a Mosque...then before you know it...Sharia law will rule our country. Besides, how dare this Mooslim come out and publicly state that his Mosque building's intention is to bring religious differences together in a harmonious fashion. Don't you know that all Muslims must lie about their real intentions when speaking to infidels? It's in the Qur'an....somewhere....trust me....I heard so at the Baptist church.

jmog;492009 wrote:The problem with your analogy, and it works for the mosque as well, is that you don't build bridges by setting up right next to the "fire". If you want to build bridges as a NAMBLA member, you build a building near anything but a grade/middle school. If you want to build bridges as a Imam, you build a mosque near ANYTHING but ground zero.

It just reeks of "in your face" in either case.

You know what really "reeks in your face"? The US' military complex selling 60 billion dollars worth of high tech armaments to Saudi Arabia....the home of 15 out of 19 terrorists that flew planes into our buildings. Where is your outrage over that?

You and your ilk get twisted panties over a building being put up by people, who have 100% denounced 9-11....but God forbid questioning our government for arming the world through weapon sales.

How about setting your priorities straight.

Footwedge;492197 wrote:You know what really "reeks in your face"? The US' military complex selling 60 billion dollars worth of high tech armaments to Saudi Arabia....the home of 15 out of 19 terrorists that flew planes into our buildings. Where is your outrage over that?

You and your ilk get twisted panties over a building being put up by people, who have 100% denounced 9-11....but God forbid questioning our government for arming the world through weapon sales.

How about setting your priorities straight.

How about you actually read things I've posted.

I have not once given my direct opinion on the mosque at ground zero. I do believe it could/should be moved but have not said one time that YOU BETTER MOVE IT OR ELSE!

I also do have a problem with arming Saudi Arabia, but last I checked this thread is not about that topic. If you would like to start a new topic on it, feel free and i will comment on it.

You keep putting words in my "mouth" that I have never typed once. My "ilk"? Show me one thing I have ever posted that says I'm "ilk". Quote it, please do.

Also, you have 1 thing incorrect. This Imam has said that America is an accessory to 9/11, he did not denounce it.

You need to stop assuming you know what people believe and just go by what they have typed. I am 100% against arming Saudi Arabia, but why would I bring that up on a thread about the mosque?

And please let me know, specifically, in your omnipotent opinion, what priorities I need to rearrange, it would be interesting to hear it since you obviously know me.

Footwedge;492186 wrote:You don't understand Boat Shoes. This dude is Mooslim....and by default....he absoutely has nefarious intentions. I'm tellin ya bud....first it's a Mosque...then before you know it...Sharia law will rule our country. Besides, how dare this Mooslim come out and publicly state that his Mosque building's intention is to bring religious differences together in a harmonious fashion. Don't you know that all Muslims must lie about their real intentions when speaking to infidels? It's in the Qur'an....somewhere....trust me....I heard so at the Baptist church.

So, since we are just assuming we know what everyone else personally believes...I'm going to assume you just plain hate all protestant Christians?

Footwedge;459177 wrote:6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1086.htm

That's just 2 of the many quotes from the new testament...I can find many others...that promote utter violence against the "non believers".

I find it funny that you put words in my mouth, then you say I've put words in yours with reguards to the above quote.

Admit it Footwedge, you first said that Jesus promoted violence, its right there in the quote from post 266. You later then changed it to "it can be taken out of context" when we all showed you that you were incorrect. I even bolded it for you so you can't miss it.

Now, just say it one time "yes, I was wrong, I said that Jesus promoted violence but was incorrect". Since you are so adament in inputing my opinion (since you know my opinion) into your posts, I figured I'd ask this question once again (as you tend to ignore it everytime I've put it on this thread).

footwedge wrote:Yeah...I only have 25 chromosomes, Mr.Christian....who claims that the Qur'an is a book of hate....with contextual links to violence...but when is shown a similar verse in the Bible...it's just a "misunderstanding" of a little story.

jmog;482257 wrote:If you can show ONE TIME I have said that the Qu'ran is a book of hate, I will shut up on this thread.

I have not said one word about the Qu'ran, as I have read the whole thing and probably have a better understanding than some on here. However, I also realize there are many translations to the Qu'ran so I refrain from saying a word about it as the one translation I read could have been totally incorrect.


You my friend are grasping at straws, find one time I said a word about the Qu'ran, good or bad, and I'll stop posting on this thread. If you can't, you owe me an apology.

I'm still waiting on you to show me where I ONCE said the Qu'ran was a book of hate. You haven't apologized for that one either.

jmog;492208 wrote:So, since we are just assuming we know what everyone else personally believes...I'm going to assume you just plain hate all protestant Christians?

No....I don't hate any Protestant Christians. All I did was roved that the majority of Fundamentalist Christians have a higher love for war and torture than any other religious denomination...or main strean America secular or religious. You asked me to prove my allegations...and that's exactly what I did. But nice stretch there.

jmog;492205 wrote:How about you actually read things I've posted.

Huh? I've read every one of your posts.

I have not once given my direct opinion on the mosque at ground zero. I do believe it could/should be moved but have not said one time that YOU BETTER MOVE IT OR ELSE!

So it "reeks in the face" comment of yours somehoe doesn't reflect your opinion? Sounds to me pretty opinionated to me.

I also do have a problem with arming Saudi Arabia, but last I checked this thread is not about that topic. If you would like to start a new topic on it, feel free and i will comment on it.

Where in the rules here on the poli bords does it say that that "proper perspectives" and corallaries cannot be drawn?

You keep putting words in my "mouth" that I have never typed once. My "ilk"? Show me one thing I have ever posted that says I'm "ilk". Quote it, please do.

I don't put words in your mouth...you put your words on threads...and I respond in kind.vv Fr example...you called me out the other dy to prove something....and I did just that. Remember? The war mongering, pro torture fundamentalist christin thingy?

Also, you have 1 thing incorrect. This Imam has said that America is an accessory to 9/11, he did not denounce it.

There are millions of Americans that recognize that 9-11 and other terrorist attacks are a direct result from the US interventionlist activities around the globe, and the ubridles financial support to Israel. These are 2 of the 3 reasons cited by bin Ladin himself for attacking America. The Imam recognized this...as have tens of millions of other americans...including the rilliant Ron Paul. The CIA also recognized this in their own formal eocuments...calling this :blowback".
You need to stop assuming you know what people believe and just go by what they have typed. I am 100% against arming Saudi Arabia, but why would I bring that up on a thread about the mosque?

And please let me know, specifically, in your omnipotent opinion, what priorities I need to rearrange, it would be interesting to hear it since you obviously know me.

You need to start practicing what ypou Bible preaches...that's

Footwedge;492260 wrote:No....I don't hate any Protestant Christians. All I did was roved that the majority of Fundamentalist Christians have a higher love for war and torture than any other religious denomination...or main strean America secular or religious. You asked me to prove my allegations...and that's exactly what I did. But nice stretch there.

You did not prove anything, you showed a poll that said that Christians (in general) favored the Iraq war at a higher % than non-Christian Americans. That only proved that Christians are more conservative and tended to agree with Bush, right or wrong.

That did not prove a thing about militaristic views.

Your above retort also had NOTHING to do with my post that you quoted. You are deflecting, and still completely ignoring the 2 posts below it.

jmog;492217 wrote:I find it funny that you put words in my mouth, then you say I've put words in yours with reguards to the above quote.

Admit it Footwedge, you first said that Jesus promoted violence, its right there in the quote from post 266. You later then changed it to "it can be taken out of context" when we all showed you that you were incorrect. I even bolded it for you so you can't miss it.

Now, just say it one time "yes, I was wrong, I said that Jesus promoted violence but was incorrect". Since you are so adament in inputing my opinion (since you know my opinion) into your posts, I figured I'd ask this question once again (as you tend to ignore it everytime I've put it on this thread).

Provide a quote where I said Jesus promoted violence. Good luck with that, pal. Secondly...the Imam has denounced Islamic terrorism multiple times. Get your facts straight. As for citing America's foreign policy for causing terrrisom attacks in this country...that is a view shared by tens of millions of Americans, including the brilliant Ron Paul...and confirmed by our own CIA.