It’s all good.After doing some careful research online, I have to humbly eat crow and recant some of what I have posted here. However, I still don’t hear many outraged Muslims crying out against those militant ones saying, “We are outraged about 9/11. Those terrorists don’t represent our religion…and we will help in any peaceful way to set things straight.” They are mostly just silent.
I also have a friend who is in law enforcement who knows a man from the FBI who has not only studied the Koran, but used to live it. He was a very devout Muslim, and he says that if anyone says there are peaceful Muslims, they are either lying or ignorant of what the Koran teaches.
Now, having said that, I have read some things online from Muslim websites that seem to say the opposite about the teachings in the Koran. It’s really difficult to know what to believe.I have read excerpts from the Koran, and, like our Christian Bible they can be interpreted many ways.
All I know is that I haven’t forgotten 9/11. That is a tragic reality.
I do agree with you that by and large, the current practice of Islam is rife with mistreatment of women and non-Muslims, and the fact that nearly all the terrorists attacks against the US in recent years have been Muslim in nature should ring a few alarms.I would absolutely say the Crusades were justified and that they were just wars. It’s best not to believe the public school and popular history in this regard, because they desire nothing more than to paint the Church in the worst light possible.
I plead obsessive-compulsive mental illness.Really?
You just couldn’t help yourself, could you, LJ?
The Albegensians were not Muslim.It’s all good.
I would absolutely say the Crusades were justified and that they were just wars. It’s best not to believe the public school and popular history in this regard, because they desire nothing more than to paint the Church in the worst light possible.
The fact is, Muslim forces were spreading like wildfire, and they threatened the European countries. The Crusades were undertaken to STOP the inevitable invasion by Muslim forces. The threat was so great, that 7 Crusades were undertaken! This was not a case of modern war, where the Pope was like the Bush admin, looking for any excuse to go to war with Iraq. There was a real threat, and the European countries acted on it.
this explains much, LJ.I plead obsessive-compulsive mental illness.
You, too. Irresistible force meets immovable object.this explains much, LJ.
Ah…but which is which? (Ok, I’m done now.)
Yes, I have seen the term used. There is an organisation called “Campus Jihad for Christ” or something like that. Very nasty and violent people they are I am sure; they must be with a name like that.
LOLs :knight2::knight1: Holy War=Crusade=Jihad Does not have to be violent, if we can prevent it.Yes, I have seen the term used. There is an organisation called “Campus Jihad for Christ” or something like that. Very nasty and violent people they are I am sure; they must be with a name like that.
rossum
Beam and mote, and all that.Oh, you mean like…if the extremist terrorist Muslims found out that we ever actually stopped the influx if illlegal aliens, bringing drugs in and taking guns out that eventually get aimed at each other and at our border patrol agents, that they might decide not to don the dynamite diapers, or the C4 shoe soles–or hijack airliners with box cutters? Like that?LOLs :knight2::knight1: Holy War=Crusade=Jihad Does not have to be violent, if we can prevent it.
Perhaps if we did not have trouble with some of people in the SouthWest, we would not currently be having trouble with the Muslim world?
OH, LJ…given your opinion of, and willingness to express that opinion…of MY faith, are you sure you want to go there?Exactly my point.
If you kept your opinion of their religion to yourself, acknowledging freedom of religion, and they made the first strike, then they are the transgressors.
LJ, that was funny the first time you did it.
There are some Muslims who would see the 7,000 Muslim dead in Srebrenica as a “first strike”.Exactly my point.
If you kept your opinion of their religion to yourself, acknowledging freedom of religion, and they made the first strike, then they are the transgressors.
I will re-iterate. For fifty years, I only said one bad thing about the LDS faith. I was intimidated into silence. When I discovered that my silence and tolerance were abused with gossip, slander, libel, and general abuse because I had no interest in anything LDS, I decided to begin defending myself. And the best way to do that was by studying what makes fundamentalist TBM LDS tick. So, to rephrase, “I kept my opinion of their religion to myself, acknowledging freedom of religion, and they made the first strike. They are the transgressors.” Now do you understand that your beliefs are not the center of the universe? OOPS.OH, LJ…given your opinion of, and willingness to express that opinion…of MY faith, are you sure you want to go there?
Not when the problem is carefully analyzed, and the peaceable people in the culture are activated to do something about the endless escalation and counter escalation. Look at what has happened in N. Ireland over the past ten years.
There are some excellent stories about the tragedy of blood-feud in the BoM. Although it is fiction, the best parts are heart-rending. Here is something that would make them easier to understand. cassiusuniversity.wordpress.com/mcb/LJ,I will re-iterate. For fifty years, I only said one bad thing about the LDS faith. I was intimidated into silence. When I discovered that my silence and tolerance were abused with gossip, slander, libel, and general abuse because I had no interest in anything LDS, I decided to begin defending myself. And the best way to do that was by studying what makes fundamentalist TBM LDS tick. So, to rephrase, “I kept my opinion of their religion to myself, acknowledging freedom of religion, and they made the first strike. They are the transgressors.” Now do you understand that your beliefs are not the center of the universe? OOPS.
Exactly. And neither of us has the right to blatantly state which one of us represents the irresistible force and which one represents the immovable object. Can we peaceably agree to disagree, and call a truce? Or do you want, like two “heroes” in the BoM, to follow it to mutual annihilation?
It’s a good thing neither one of us tried to do that, isn’t it?Exactly. And neither of us has the right to blatantly state which one of us represents the irresistible force and which one represents the immovable object. Can we peaceably agree to disagree, and call a truce? Or do you want, like two “heroes” in the BoM, to follow it to mutual annihilation?
