This is what puzzles me about apologists for Islam and those who are quick to conclude that there is an equivalence of failings by Muslims and Christians. They refuse or are unable to make the distinction. Great post, sedonaman! Great image attachment, as well.
Dear Sedonaman. I have no truth to offer on that because it is not my belief. If you read my post again you will notice that I said that I go to blogs or websites like these where people have that opinion. I said I do not share that opinion, although these people think they have well reasoned arguments on why they should believe that about your church. I also said that I do not share the negative opinions of Islam on this site, even though many people here at CAF think they have well reasoned arguments on why they should think these things. I compared the two to one another. If you would like to argue those points you may go to the Huffington Post Religion section and debate it with those people. My interest is in seeing God’s beloved creations come together. This is not happening in this discourse.
Hi CHESTERTONRULES: To call someone a liar, well these are usually words of anger. Anger is like acid and only eats away at it’s container, and so because of this, I am grieved to see you in such a state. I know that you are a good person, and you don’t mean any harm.
Dear In SearchofGrace: I would say that there are equivalents of holiness among those who love one another. There are equivalents of failings among those who fail to see the Lord in every face. Whether that face calls out to God or calls to to Allah is of little consequence to Him that made them. They are all His, and the easiest way to find separation from Him is to find distinctions among them rather than to see Him among them.
Oh, I quite understand your point and see the dilemma.
Perhaps I should have phrased it better: Apologists of Islam refuse or are unable to make the distinction of the source of failings by Muslims and that by Christians. The first is from doctrine, the latter is from the individual or person himself. Did you study the graphic that Sedonaman provided as an attachment to his post?
Dear CHESTERTONRULES: I pointed out earlier that those bombs he used on the 1980s were sold to him by the Regan Bush administration. He wasn’t capable of manufacturing them himself on a large scale and he had very limited delivery systems…Like most people of his sort, Saddam had ideas to do a lot of things. he had little ability by the year 2000. I would think that Iran and Syria were bigger threats at the time. They still are. Iran clearly wants to build nuclear weapons, but we haven’t invaded Iran yet. Syria is stirring up more
You are quite right…and as I have written before, if people manage to stop this by passing a law, or messing with permits, then the extremists win just as certainly as if they succeed in building it.
Dear InSearchofGrace: I only contend that He is visible in both. Whether their perspectives are the same or not are not of any concern to me. The conviction of my faith is that they are all to be treated as sacred, whether they are Muslims, Christians, atheists or whatever. I do not believe that God sees a distinction. My aim is to be close to Him. I do not believe I can do that without seeing Him where He is most present - in His creations. Because they are His, they are sacred. I believe that whatsoever I do to the least of those among us I have also done to Him. Therefore, my friendship is unconditional, lest I slight the Hand that made me.
Sufjon;7170757:
This report includes this assessment:
*
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.*
The US never sold Iraq WMD. Iraq did produce WMD. The two assertions of yours that contradict these points are also false.
Here’s the last UN report from Hans Blix before the Iraq War began:
It includes:
*Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. *
and:
*The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
*un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Much more information is available and I will be glad to provide it for you if you are truly interested.
Dear CHESTERTOWNRULES: I have decided that it is fruitless for me to continue this dialog about the Iraq war. My reasoning is simple, but it may be based on my limited understanding of your faith. Because of that, my reasoning may be flawed, but here goes:
-I understand that you are a Catholic.
-I believe that the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church and makes decisions based on His understanding of world events in the light of his knowledge of Church teachings, which are believed by Catholics to be infallible.
-I further believe that Catholics profess that the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter.
-My understanding is that the Pope during the start of the Iraq war was John Paul II.
-I also believe that there are many within the Catholic Church that believe he was not just the Pope but a saint. There may even be some movement to actually make him a saint as far as I am told, but you would know better than I.
-My recollection is that Pope John Paul II implored President Bush not to go to war with Iraq. He stated that he didn’t feel every other option had been explored, which is what I have contended as well. He also said the moral consequences would be grave.
So my reasoning is that if the leader of your church, the Successor to Saint Peter and possibly a saint as well cannot convince you that the war was wrong, what chance does someone like myself with no credentials have in convincing you? It’s probably pointless.
Always Your Friend,
Sufjon (the non-Christian who agrees with John Paul II).
CHESTERTONRULES;7171115:
Now your reasoning seems to have changed. I would appreciate it if you would concede that you posted misinformation previously. You were wrong to state that the US sold WMD to Iraq, that Saddam’s government did not produce WMD, and that Saddam didn’t intend to produce more WMD in the future. These are crucial points which you must consider in order to reach the proper conclusion about the conflict.Dear CHESTERTOWNRULES: I have decided that it is fruitless for me to continue this dialog about the Iraq war. My reasoning is simple, but it may be based on my limited understanding of your faith. Because of that, my reasoning may be flawed, but here goes:
-I understand that you are a Catholic.
-I believe that the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church and makes decisions based on His understanding of world events in the light of his knowledge of Church teachings, which are believed by Catholics to be infallible.
-I further believe that Catholics profess that the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter.
-My understanding is that the Pope during the start of the Iraq war was John Paul II.
-I also believe that there are many within the Catholic Church that believe he was not just the Pope but a saint. There may even be some movement to actually make him a saint as far as I am told, but you would know better than I.
-My recollection is that Pope John Paul II implored President Bush not to go to war with Iraq. He stated that he didn’t feel every other option had been explored, which is what I have contended as well. He also said the moral consequences would be grave.
So my reasoning is that if the leader of your church, the Successor to Saint Peter and possibly a saint as well cannot convince you that the war was wrong, what chance does someone like myself with no credentials have in convincing you? It’s probably pointless.
Always Your Friend,
Sufjon (the non-Christian who agrees with John Paul II).
The pope’s opinion about the Iraq war is not doctrine. In retrospect, it seems clear that removing Saddam was the right move and the Iraqi people now have hope for the future.
Without military intervention Saddam’s regime would still be in power torturing, killing and enslaving the Iraqi people.
I would question the assertion that this Imam is less wise than Pope John Paul II but in any case, I do not think that wisdom has anything to do with this issue.
With all due respect, wisdom does have much to do with it. But it is also an issue of respect. The story I recounted took place many years after WW2, 40 plus years or so after the horrors that Germany inflicted on the Jews. Yet, Pope John Paul saw that because of the fact that Catholics 40 years EARLIER rejected the Holocaust, these Jewish surviviors and their descendents did not want anything to do with Catholicism near a site of an old concentration camp, he had the nuns ove it somewhere else.