If the leaders of ISIS cannot give a forthright answer to my question that will convince their followers, why should we not do all we can to have thei

[Doug_Kraeger]

If no one disputes my conclusion that we can know that God must be converting the whole world by peaceful means (because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means), is that silence not a backhanded confirmation that they believe this is possible and therefore they should pass this idea along so others can support and improve it and thereby demonstrate that they are trying to cooperate with God and not essentially saying, “God can do it on His own, I am too busy doing what I want to do so therefore I do not have time for a few clicks on the mouse to pass this along”?

     I have a question for reporters and all peace loving individuals to give to all ISIS members in the hope they will ask their ISIS leaders to answer publicly. Will any leader opposed to ISIS actions publicly ask this question below of ISIS LEADERS? 
     ISIS members believe (or at least claim) that they are doing the “will of Allah” in what they are doing. How can this be really true? I, for one, can imagine a God so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that He Wills to, and therefore must be, turning the whole world right side up to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to. 
       The Question:
      Are ISIS members and their religious mentors going to publicly say I am wrong and publicly say that God cannot be so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful so as to turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to, OR are they going to admit that God is doing what I say He is doing, turning the whole world right side up by peaceful means to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to, but they still want their followers to resort to violence, hate and murder in the name of  “cooperating” with God’s plan of peace? 
   Should not all laity of all faiths do all they can to “help” all ministers of all faiths to publicly proclaim their belief that God is so infinitely good, merciful and powerful that He is turning the whole world right side up to the one Faith He wants all to accept and profess by peaceful means without violating anyone’s free will and therefore all should publicly renounce violent aggression and terrorism as a tactic in doing God’s Will?
  Should all laity expect all ministers of all faiths to find and provide the verifiable evidence and related questions they believe God is using to bring all people to the one Faith God wants all to accept and believe?
  Should all laity find the best verifiable evidence and related questions they can, post them on electronic media, and carry them on slips of paper in their wallets and purses to be handed to others whom they dialogue with, all in an effort to help people, in the security of their homes and hearts, to seek God’s answer and the one Faith He wants all to have without having to convince the person giving them the slip of paper?

   I have a few starter questions on my blog     eternalvisionfarmer.blogspot.com

 

[QuestLove]

If no one disputes my conclusion that we can know that God must be converting the whole world by peaceful means (because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means), is that silence not a backhanded confirmation that they believe this is possible and therefore they should pass this idea along so others can support and improve it and thereby demonstrate that they are trying to cooperate with God and not essentially saying, “God can do it on His own, I am too busy doing what I want to do so therefore I do not have time for a few clicks on the mouse to pass this along”?

     I have a question for reporters and all peace loving individuals to give to all ISIS members in the hope they will ask their ISIS leaders to answer publicly. Will any leader opposed to ISIS actions publicly ask this question below of ISIS LEADERS? 
     ISIS members believe (or at least claim) that they are doing the “will of Allah” in what they are doing. How can this be really true? I, for one, can imagine a God so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that He Wills to, and therefore must be, turning the whole world right side up to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to. 
       The Question:
      Are ISIS members and their religious mentors going to publicly say I am wrong and publicly say that God cannot be so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful so as to turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to, OR are they going to admit that God is doing what I say He is doing, turning the whole world right side up by peaceful means to the one Faith He wants all to have without violating anyone’s free will, through verifiable evidence and His questions that He wants to give His answers to, but they still want their followers to resort to violence, hate and murder in the name of  “cooperating” with God’s plan of peace? 
   Should not all laity of all faiths do all they can to “help” all ministers of all faiths to publicly proclaim their belief that God is so infinitely good, merciful and powerful that He is turning the whole world right side up to the one Faith He wants all to accept and profess by peaceful means without violating anyone’s free will and therefore all should publicly renounce violent aggression and terrorism as a tactic in doing God’s Will?
  Should all laity expect all ministers of all faiths to find and provide the verifiable evidence and related questions they believe God is using to bring all people to the one Faith God wants all to accept and believe?
  Should all laity find the best verifiable evidence and related questions they can, post them on electronic media, and carry them on slips of paper in their wallets and purses to be handed to others whom they dialogue with, all in an effort to help people, in the security of their homes and hearts, to seek God’s answer and the one Faith He wants all to have without having to convince the person giving them the slip of paper?

   I have a few starter questions on my blog     eternalvisionfarmer.blogspot.com

Your question hinges on the assumption that ISIS members are rational people. It is clear from the things they are doing they have successfully stifled their humanity.

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

That many members of ISIS seem beyond reason and unreachable by human standards is not a good reason to not try the idea I have put forward. Our faith tells us that it is God who converts hearts and God alone knows how many ISIS members now see themselves caught in a trap with no way out. They have committed heinious crimes and they now realize they are using the wrong tactics, but they do not have a way to walk away without loosing face.
I believe that If the Christian world publicly asked my question (perhaps in an improved version) and at the same time apologized for not having helped the world see these knowable facts about God sooner, that then it would be possible for God to convince members of ISIS to publicly rejoice and declare they will participate in developing the verifiable evidence and related questions that God will use to convert the whole world to the one faith God wants all to have and since they now have the Christian world leaders on public record in support of such an enterprise, they, ISIS, no longer needs to use terrorism because God will convince all of the one faith He wants all to have.
If Christian leaders make such a move and ISIS does not make the above statement, I trust God will still bless us for trying peaceful means and He may “help” or “allow” internal dissension in ISIS thereby making it fall from the inside. Let us be humble and charitable and give God a chance and do what we should do even if it does not succeed immediately.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If no one disputes my conclusion that we can know that God must be converting the whole world by peaceful means (because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means)

I dispute this conclusion. God has demonstrated that he is not interested in converting the world through peaceful means. For example, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that violent means would be required to liberate the Israelites. As the Israelites were fleeing, God did not simply prevent the Egyptian army from pursuing them, he waited until the army was following, then drowned everyone.

Now, go and crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." ’

And Moses being angry with the chief officers of the army, the tribunes, and the centurions that were come from the battle, Said: Why have you saved the women? Are not these they, that deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam, and made you transgress against the Lord by the sin of Phogor, for which also the people was punished? Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.

They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

JapaneseKappa, you have quoted from the old testament. Do you disagree with me that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s revelation, whereas the old testament is a lead up to this final revelation of the Prince of Peace? Also, many of the leaders and many of the Jewish people were never really, with their whole heart, mind, and soul converted to God as is evidenced by their repeated return to idol worship and acceptance of the gods of those they were living among. The people who did not turn to God with their whole heart were not ready to understand loving their enemy and the necessity of voluntary sacrifices for the benefit of others, they were too selfish and worldly minded in their thinking. I say because of Jesus Christ we will be required to love all and to go the extra mile out of love of God and our fellow man (enemy) to bring God’s peace to them by God’s means.
The entrance antiphon for the 33 Sunday in ordinary time is: ”The Lord says: My plans for you are peace and not disaster, when you call to me, I will listen to you, and I will bring you back to the place from which I exiled you.” It goes without saying that God’s plan for everyone, when we have all achieved the “full stature of Christ”, when “God is all in all”, “everything to everyone” (CCC 130, 1 Cor. 15:28) is therefore for them to have the peace, love, joy, thanksgiving and sorrow for all sin that Jesus had on the Cross, and that even if some have some pain and suffering, God is infinitely good and powerful enough to give enough graces for everyone to have His peace in spite of their pains and sorrow for sins.
Do you accept the claim that God can have only one, single, infinite, eternal, always in the present tense thought, WORD, if He is the Creator of all space and time and knew all things “before” He brought creation into being?
If God therefore can have only this one single thought and He wills all to have His peace (because of the infinite goodness, mercy, love and power of God, not on our merits) then He must eternally will to give us His peace in the present.
In my original post I made the comment, "(because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means). Do you say that I am wrong in this idea that God must eternally choose the best coarse of action in every detail of His intervention in the lives of Men? If God is powerful enough to turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means, would that not be the best solution? If not why not? Do you believe He is powerful enough to do this or do you claim that I have imagined a greater good than God could figuire out?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

JapaneseKappa, you have quoted from the old testament. Do you disagree with me that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s revelation, whereas the old testament is a lead up to this final revelation of the Prince of Peace? Also, many of the leaders and many of the Jewish people were never really, with their whole heart, mind, and soul converted to God as is evidenced by their repeated return to idol worship and acceptance of the gods of those they were living among. The people who did not turn to God with their whole heart were not ready to understand loving their enemy and the necessity of voluntary sacrifices for the benefit of others, they were too selfish and worldly minded in their thinking. I say because of Jesus Christ we will be required to love all and to go the extra mile out of love of God and our fellow man (enemy) to bring God’s peace to them by God’s means.

These leaders and the Jewish people didn’t kill the firstborn of Egypt. Nor did they kill Herod. Nor did they kill these soldiers. However, they were commanded by God to kill many other people, and did so with zeal.

2 Samuel 8:1-2

And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts.

Was this sort of slaughter of captives right in the eyes of the LORD?
1 Kings 15:5

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

So I think it is quite clear that there are exactly two options:
A. Sometimes killings and genocide are the most peaceful way to further the spread of your religion.
B. God does not always further the spread of his religion in the most peaceful way.

I think you are basically trying to take the position that it wasn’t until Jesus came that genocide became wrong because people weren’t ready to love their enemy until then. This to me seems fairly silly. Its not like the only alternative to genocide is “loving your enemy.” The Israelites didn’t have to love the Moabites to figure out that lining them up and killing 2/3rds of them was wrong. God didn’t have to convince the Israelites to love Amalek, he could have just told them to be merciful.

In my original post I made the comment, "(because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means). Do you say that I am wrong in this idea that God must eternally choose the best coarse of action in every detail of His intervention in the lives of Men? If God is powerful enough to turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means, would that not be the best solution? If not why not? Do you believe He is powerful enough to do this or do you claim that I have imagined a greater good than God could figuire out?

Indeed you have said all those things, and so I must conclude that you believe option A, that sometimes a slaughter is in fact the most peaceful way to further the spread of a religion. In either case, there is no automatic contradiction in receiving a “slaughter” command from God.

I will also point out that at many points in history, the Catholic church has found it acceptable to violently oppose other religions. “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”

 

[Doug_Kraeger]

I believe it would help me respond better if I knew your answers to the questions I asked in my last response:
Do you accept the claim that God can have only one, single, infinite, eternal, always in the present tense thought, WORD, if He is the Creator of all space and time and knew all things “before” He brought creation into being?

If God therefore can have only this one single thought and He wills all to have His peace (because of the infinite goodness, mercy, love and power of God, not on our merits) then He must eternally will to give us His peace in the present.
In my original post I made the comment, "(because it is right and just to always choose the best choice when there is a good, better and best and therefore since God must be the perfection of this idea and must choose the best, therefore the most peaceful means).
Do you say that I am wrong in this idea that God must eternally choose the best coarse of action in every detail of His intervention in the lives of Men?
If God is powerful enough to turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means, would that not be the best solution? If not why not?