Here's an interesting and scary quote.

Stephanie wrote:Cato,

The only time violence is acceptable is in self defense. This includes war. So yes, sometimes innocent blood is spilled, and while I find it horrific I cannot agree with your premise that war is never moral or justifiable. Sometimes war is moral and sometimes to end their innocent civilians by the perpetrators those defending themselves have no choice but to "spill the blood of innocents".

The US was morally justified in retaliating against Japan with a nuclear strike. Something had to be done to prevent the Japanese from killing Americans. I don't like that it happened, but there is no doubt that it saved American lives, so it was the morally correct thing to do. For me, that is a moral absolute and I didn't get that from any religious text. It is my own code of moral ethics that has developed over many years of life experience combined with my knowledge of of not only Japanese aggression towards America and other nations during that era, but of empire building, war-mongering lunatics throughout modern human history.

You need to read more and type less. The war between Japan and the US was not justified. Our actions against Japan up to and including dropping the tow atomic bombs were justified, however. The war was not justifiied in that Japan was in the process of expanding territory and trampling the soverignity of other nations. Japan was the agressor.

Your original question was about moral absolutes. So are you saying there are none because you can make exceptions for everything? Or are you saying only people who believe in the Bible have them?

Stephanie wrote:Your original question was about moral absolutes. So are you saying there are none because you can make exceptions for everything? Or are you saying only people who believe in the Bible have them?

Niether and you know it. On the post you made regarding our justification during World War 2 I am say that the Axis powers acted in an immoral manner and in no way could they justify their acts of naked aggression. You are correct in that we and many other nations involved were justified in the actions we took against an aggressive and imperialistic groups of governments. We were justified from a defensive standpoint and fromt he stand point of ensuring it didin't happen again.

Were we immoral in our actions? NO, I don't believe so. Was Japan and Germany immoral in their actions, Yes. The point that is proven by this is that no war begins unless some soveriegn performs an immoral act to begin a war. It also proves that the actions of a few can have terrible consequenses for the masses.

Cato wrote:Again, Ziggy, the question is, is it morally wrong to shed innocent blood, the answer is either yes or no.

I answered your question, Cato- and in far more absolute terms than you asked it. You just don't like my view that, contrary to your assertion, that morality and the law are especially important to maintain during war times.

Since you lack the guts to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Your question really is, is war moral.

No, that was not my question at all. Again:

Cato wrote: What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

And so again I ask, which side should fight a war that way? The sides you favor? Or the other sides? Or all sides?

The actions of a nation's leaders can have devastating consequences. That is why, at least here in the United States we need to examine the moral charactor of those we are going to elect to office. Instead of electing them because they promise a few bangles and a couple of dollars, we need to examine their motives and their morals. If we did this, neither of the Bushs, Clinton, or Obama would have been elected, nor would the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastart, Newt Gingrich, to name a few.

So how do we examine the moral character of wannabe office holders? Demand that they be Bible thumping born againers? Look where electing those kinds of hipocrits has gotten us.

This is why I push as hard as I do about moral absolutes. In our quest to act wise and intelligent we have made ourselves fools. We have watered down morality to the point they really don't exist anymore.

What evidence is there that such "moral absolutes" ever existed?

War alone proves that moral absolutes do exist and that without moral absolutes the result can be horrible.

War alone proves that moral absolutes exist? Yet you said that during wartime morality and the law go out the window. Isn't that having it both ways, again?

That doesn't remove the moral absolute it just means man will face the consequences of his decisions.

Well, mankind has faced the consequences of its actions for thousands of years- whether with or without moral absolutes. Why wouldn't mankind continue to face those consequences? So of course.

This isn't a matter of whose absolutes we use. Moral absolutes exist beyond man. Man never determines what is absolute, he just determines which one's he'll accept and which he will reject.

In that there are dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of moral codes around the world, I think that each of us does have to determine our own morality.

Cato wrote: What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

And again I ask, which side should fight a war that way? The sides you favor? Or the other sides? Or all sides?

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Your original question was about moral absolutes. So are you saying there are none because you can make exceptions for everything? Or are you saying only people who believe in the Bible have them?

Niether and you know it. On the post you made regarding our justification during World War 2 I am say that the Axis powers acted in an immoral manner and in no way could they justify their acts of naked aggression. You are correct in that we and many other nations involved were justified in the actions we took against an aggressive and imperialistic groups of governments. We were justified from a defensive standpoint and fromt he stand point of ensuring it didin't happen again.

Were we immoral in our actions? NO, I don't believe so. Was Japan and Germany immoral in their actions, Yes. The point that is proven by this is that no war begins unless some soveriegn performs an immoral act to begin a war. It also proves that the actions of a few can have terrible consequenses for the masses.

Then you're going to have to explain this exchange a little better for me, keeping in mind I am well aware of your stark hatred for the people of these nations.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:To me what Cato is saying is every strike against a US target by a person from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestinians worldwide are justifiable. That's what the other side of the Cato coin is and I don't buy it.

Justifiable morally, No. Justifiable in waging war, Yes just as every attack against a target by our forces may isn't a moral thing, but justifiable in waging war.

War itself isn't moral and is to be avoided if at all possible. If you want to avoid war you have two options to do so. You either appease yor enemy, which is a sure fire way to destruction, or you arm youself and make it very clear that if attacked you will attack in return, with one purpose in mind to destory your enemy and break his will to wage war. It isn't pretty and it isn't what many want to hear, but it is a fact of life.

Stephanie wrote:

Then you're going to have to explain this exchange a little better for me, keeping in mind I am well aware of your stark hatred for the people of these nations.

First, I don't have a stark hatred of the people of the middle east. I do have a hatred of their authoritarian, demoralizing, and totalitarian form of religion of government and I especially have a hatred of their desire to shove their religion on the entire world by the use of force. I also have a hatred of their ability to ignore entire set of facts, choosing to focus only on what best suits their cause. I also have a hatred of their demonizing the US when our ignorant leaders continue to send them foreign aid, i.e. my tax dollars.

Secondly, actions have consequences. We, the leaders of the US, have done somethings that has made us enemies. As I think about this, had our leaders heeded the advice of Thomas Jefferson we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. They didn't however and we created enemies as well as friends. At least friends from the stand point, they retained power because of us. What we have become embroiled in, is power struggles between various factions in these countries and thus a target.

Is any of this justified morally? No it is not. Neither side has the moral high ground. The moral thing to have done would have been for the US to have stayed out of the affairs of these nation completely. The moral thing for us to do today would be to gather up our knitting and leave and let these people find their own way. The moral thing would be for us not to support either side. Well we however, Nope.

Now that being said, lets get back to the the acts of aggression. If you look long and hard at the second amendment to the US Constitution, its' thrust is, that one has a right to defend themselves. That right applies to nations also and to factions within a nation also. When one is faced with an aggressive act they have every right to defend themselves. It isn't pretty and it isn't moral, but it is a right and self defense is justifiable. Once the dogs of war are loosed, caging them again is hard. Additionally they don't distinguish between who's right and who's wrong or who's innnocent and who's guilty. That is why war should be avoided.

Now the question is how to avoid war. Well, you can adopt a policy of appeasement. However, all you need to is look back at Neville Chamberland of England and the lesson is that appeasement doesn't work. The only way to avoid war most of the time, is to do two things. First, have the military strength to assure that any act of aggression against one's nation is met with swift and horrible retaliation. Secondly, stay the hell out of the affairs of all nations. Allow for peaceful trade and commerce, but never become embroiled in the internal affairs of any sovereign nation. Do that and you as a nation have acted in a moral and reasonable manner.

I hope that answers your question.

ziggy wrote:

Since you lack the guts to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Your question really is, is war moral.

No, that was not my question at all. Again:

Cato wrote: What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

And so again I ask, which side should fight a war that way? The sides you favor? Or the other sides? Or all sides?

The actions of a nation's leaders can have devastating consequences. That is why, at least here in the United States we need to examine the moral charactor of those we are going to elect to office. Instead of electing them because they promise a few bangles and a couple of dollars, we need to examine their motives and their morals. If we did this, neither of the Bushs, Clinton, or Obama would have been elected, nor would the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastart, Newt Gingrich, to name a few.

So how do we examine the moral character of wannabe office holders? Demand that they be Bible thumping born againers? Look where electing those kinds of hipocrits has gotten us.

This is why I push as hard as I do about moral absolutes. In our quest to act wise and intelligent we have made ourselves fools. We have watered down morality to the point they really don't exist anymore.

What evidence is there that such "moral absolutes" ever existed?

War alone proves that moral absolutes do exist and that without moral absolutes the result can be horrible.

War alone proves that moral absolutes exist? Yet you said that during wartime morality and the law go out the window. Isn't that having it both ways, again?

That doesn't remove the moral absolute it just means man will face the consequences of his decisions.

Well, mankind has faced the consequences of its actions for thousands of years- whether with or without moral absolutes. Why wouldn't mankind continue to face those consequences? So of course.

This isn't a matter of whose absolutes we use. Moral absolutes exist beyond man. Man never determines what is absolute, he just determines which one's he'll accept and which he will reject.

In that there are dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of moral codes around the world, I think that each of us does have to determine our own morality.

Cato wrote: What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

And again I ask, which side should fight a war that way? The sides you favor? Or the other sides? Or all sides?

And I'll be happy to answer your questions, just as soon as you answer mine with a simple yes of no.

So basically, you agree with me on some very important facts:

1) The people of these nations have been the victims of aggression by the US government.

2) Victims of US aggression are justified in defending themselves from further aggression by any means at their disposal.

3) The US government "started" it.

So we need to get out. Right? Stop interferring with the internal affairs of other nations.

You need to keep religion out of politics, Cato. That's my entire problem with you. You bigotry based upon religion is no better than bigotry based upon race. Not all Muslims are radicals, just like not all Christians are moderates.

Their nations, their problems.

Stephanie wrote: So basically, you agree with me on some very important facts:

1) The people of these nations have been the victims of aggression by the US government.

2) Victims of US aggression are justified in defending themselves from further aggression by any means at their disposal.

It works both ways. All actions, be it ours or theirs have consequences. The folks in the middle east were fighting and killing each other long before we came along and they will be doing so long after we leave. Are they victims of our aggression? About the same as we have been victims of theirs. As far as justification goes, when one puts themselves in the position we have we make enemies and is in man's nature eventually it will lead to violance.

Stephanie wrote:3) The US government "started" it.

This is where you and I disagree. We didn't start this and we certainly aren't responsbile for the entire mess. Yes, we do bear some responsibility but the killing was going on long before we came along. The Germans, English, French, were there before us doing exactly the samething. In fact, the folks int he middle east have been doing it to themselves also. All we are is just the latest in a long list of nations who have meddled in the affairs of other nations.

Stephanie wrote:So we need to get out. Right? Stop interferring with the internal affairs of other nations.

I think I have made that quite clear.

Stephanie wrote:You need to keep religion out of politics, Cato. That's my entire problem with you. You bigotry based upon religion is no better than bigotry based upon race. Not all Muslims are radicals, just like not all Christians are moderates.

Quite Frankly, I don't much care if you have a problem with me or not because of my beliefs. I'm not about to forsake my beliefs to appease you or anyone else for that matter. My beliefs are the guide in my life, they are my moral compass and they are how I weigh matters including politics. We wouldn't be in the shape we are today, if people weighed their leader's behavior and their guiding principles, instead of weighing what they can expect to receive in return for putting him in office.

I get so tickled at people like you and Ziggy who think that holding an individual's behavior to a standard is bigotry and that tolerance means total acceptance at the expense of the tenents of one's views. In the process to appear tolerent you make yourselves fools accpeting behavior no rational individual should accept.

I'm no bigot. I don't judge a person by their race. Race comes into play with me when one shoves their race in my face and I'm held responsibile for all their ills or expected to respect them becouse of their race. I respect a person because of who they are, not what they are or what race they happen to be.

The same is true of religion. If a person chooses to be a muslim, that is their choice. Don't use the treat of terror and force to convert me. Don't use me as a scapegoat for the failings of their leadership. If they want my respect then just as we have, condemn the extremists in thier society. Silience speaks volumes as to one's true beliefs, and right now very few in the muslim community have earned my respect.

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God. I happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin, just as adultry, theft, cursing, and murder are. I want nothing to do with it and will not condone or appear to condone the actions of those that participate in such activities. If a homosexual wants any respect from me, then keep your homosexuality away from me. Don't flaunt it in my face or use it to get what you lack the ability to earn.




Their nations, their problems.[/quote]

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

And I'll be happy to answer your questions, just as soon as you answer mine with a simple yes of no.

You take a zillion words to lead up to a question, but then you want a one word answer. Life is not that simple- as you are quite willing to elaborate about when YOU are asked a question.

So if you had rental property would you rent to a family of Muslims if they wore traditional Muslim garb? Would that be "shoving it in your face"?

I've asked this before, but doesn't your Bible tell you that Jesus loves everyone? Doesn't it instruct you not to judge?

Of course our government didn't start the killing in the Middle East any more than we began the killing in any other region of the world. They just joined in the killing

Muslim extremists didn't hijack planes and crash into the WTC and the Pentagon because the USA is not a Muslim nation, or because American women don't keep their heads covered or because they want Americans to live like they do. They are retaliating, plain and simple.

ziggy wrote:

And I'll be happy to answer your questions, just as soon as you answer mine with a simple yes of no.

You take a zillion words to lead up to a question, but then you want a one word answer. Life is not that simple- as you are quite willing to elaborate about when YOU are asked a question.

There isn't a Zillion words in the question I've asked. In fact, if you go back and look at the posts between you and I, you are the one witht he lengthy posts, trying to weasel around the question.

Personally, I don't think you have the guts to answer the question.

Stephanie wrote:So if you had rental property would you rent to a family of Muslims if they wore traditional Muslim garb? Would that be "shoving it in your face"?

No, Stephanie that wouldn't be shoving it in my face and if you are honest you know it isn't. Shoving one religion or anything else for the matter in ones face is using the force of law to require a person participate or support policy that they disagree with.

Stephanie wrote:I've asked this before, but doesn't your Bible tell you that Jesus loves everyone? Doesn't it instruct you not to judge?

It is also written to abstain from the appearance of evil.

You do understand that you can't a couple of verses and make a doctrine out of it. Jesus also said, If you love me, keep my commandments. He further said not every that calls me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only those who keep my commands will.

The point is the New Testament is the law or commands Jesus gave us to obey. Now you talk about Jesus loving everyone. No greater has one for another than he give his life for his friends. Jesus did exactly that. In fact, he did so while most were enemies to him. We return or accept his love by obedient faith.

You talk about judging, all of us make judgements everyday. What Jesus is speaking of in the Sermon on the Mount is that we cannot judge a person innocent or guilty and exact punishment. We can and do compare people and their actions to a standard, which is the scriptures.

Stephanie wrote:Of course our government didn't start the killing in the Middle East any more than we began the killing in any other region of the world. They just joined in the killing

The killing goes both ways Stephanie. Yeah, we've done things we shouldn't, but the other side hasn't done any different. Point is we make mistakes becasue we are human beings. Mistakes cannot be used as an excuse.

Stephanie wrote:Muslim extremists didn't hijack planes and crash into the WTC and the Pentagon because the USA is not a Muslim nation, or because American women don't keep their heads covered or because they want Americans to live like they do. They are retaliating, plain and simple.

You need to do some study. Bin Laden made the statement that the only way the US could save itself was to convert is islam immediately. If you want to know the truth, we are in a religious war. Was what bin Laden did retaliation as you allude? No it was was the act of an aggressor.

The one issue that exposes muslim extremists for what they are is that it was the US who bombed the snot out of the Serbians to end their ethic cleansing of the Albanians. The Albanians are muslim and are hated by the Serbs. Funny how the muslim extremists never came to the Albanian's aid or acknowledged what we had done.

Your attitiude of, we are to blame for all the world's ills, is foolish. We've made mistakes, plenty of them. Yes, we need to stop being the world's policeman. However, you convienently for get we are also the world's most benovelent nation. Usually, when a disaster strikes we are there with aid, both from the government and from private individuals and organizations.

ziggy wrote:

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

You stated you are a christian, you answer that question.

Cato wrote:The point is the New Testament is the law or commands Jesus gave us to obey.

No, the point of the New Testament is that regardless of what kind of person you are, the life you've led or the sins you've committed, if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and confess your sins to him, the Kingdom of Heaven will be yours and nothing else matters including an obedient lifestyle.

It is the Muslin religion that takes into consideration one's body of work during their lifetime as the determining factor on whether the follower sees the Promised Land or not.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

You stated you are a christian, you answer that question.

To my knowledge, Jesus did not address sexual orientation- at least not as relates to homosexuality. He left that up to individuals and their Gods.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

You stated you are a christian, you answer that question.

To my knowledge, Jesus did not address sexual orientation- at least not as relates to homosexuality. He left that up to individuals and their Gods.

Obviously you haven't read Romans Chapter 1 have you, or do you just ignore it.

My question to you is still is the spilling of innocent blood morally wrong. The answer is either yes it is or no it isn't. That is the only question under consideration between you and I. You can dance around it until the cows come home, but the question is going to remain and the more you dance around the more pathetic you prove youself.

I have already answered that question, Cato. And my answer was more to the point than was your question.

Every time you ask the question, you refer to the spilling iof innocent blood- with no reference to whether the spilling of that blood be intentional or non-intentional. My conclusion is that your question recognizes no difference between the intentional and non-intentional spilling of innocent blood. So your question is ambiguous to the inth degree.

My answer, if you go back and read it, addressed your question in the context of intentionality. So my answer is infinitly more speciific than is your question.

So who is really dancing around your question?

ziggy wrote:I have already answered that question, Cato. And my answer was more to the point than was your question.

Every time you ask the question, you refer to the spilling iof innocent blood- with no reference to whether the spilling of that blood be intentional or non-intentional. My conclusion is that your question recognizes no difference between the intentional and non-intentional spilling of innocent blood. So your question is ambiguous to the inth degree.

My answer, if you go back and read it, addressed your question in the context of intentionality. So my answer is infinitly more speciific than is your question.

So who is really dancing around your question?

No you haven't answered the question. You've played Slick Willy Clinton with the depends on intentionality and the defination game. That's nothing but a cop out which is something you usually do. Now, the answer is either yes or no, which is it.

The point "Slick Willy" was making, and the point I am making, is that words should have well understood meanings. But your several posts leading up to the question you asked me indicates that you have your own special meanings for words like "Morality", and "innocent blood". And in your question about the spilling of innocent blood, you do not even bother to recognize a difference between the deliberate vis-avis non-deliberate spilling of innocent blood. And in your pontification that war is not about morality and the law, you write off the application of the law and morality in much of the pursuits of mankind over the past several thousand years. Morality that can be suspended when it is inconvenient to our desired pursuits is no morality at all.

My problem is this, Cato, Christians who denounce Islam are really no different from Muslims who denounce Christianity. Your insistance that Islam is evil because of the words of OBL are really no different from me saying all Christians are evil because of the words of Jerry Falwell.

I'm not trying to create doctrine, I'm trying to demonstrate that those who insist those who don't agree with their interpretation of biblical scripture are sinners are following the words most Christians attribute to Jesus Christ himself. Nowhere does Christ state those who follow in his footsteps should judge and compare others. He does tell his followers that they are to love their neighbors and treat them as they would him.

So why do you suppose it is OBL has targeted the USA instead of Argentina or Canada or Australia? Why don't they have to convert to Islam?

Stephanie wrote:My problem is this, Cato, Christians who denounce Islam are really no different from Muslims who denounce Christianity. Your insistance that Islam is evil because of the words of OBL are really no different from me saying all Christians are evil because of the words of Jerry Falwell.

My problem is people who read and refuse to conprehend what is said. This is what I posted regarding the folks int he middle east, ie muslims;

Cato wrote: First, I don't have a stark hatred of the people of the middle east. I do have a hatred of their authoritarian, demoralizing, and totalitarian form of religion of government and I especially have a hatred of their desire to shove their religion on the entire world by the use of force. I also have a hatred of their ability to ignore entire set of facts, choosing to focus only on what best suits their cause. I also have a hatred of their demonizing the US when our ignorant leaders continue to send them foreign aid, i.e. my tax dollars.

I also stated the silence fromt he muslim world after September 11, 2009 spoke volumes about their true views.

Both statement are a long ways from what you accuse me of.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not trying to create doctrine, I'm trying to demonstrate that those who insist those who don't agree with their interpretation of biblical scripture are sinners are following the words most Christians attribute to Jesus Christ himself. Nowhere does Christ state those who follow in his footsteps should judge and compare others. He does tell his followers that they are to love their neighbors and treat them as they would him.

So you are telling me than that we do not make comparisons and we do not "judge" based on comparison to a standard. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Those are the words of Jesus and you are telling me they are meaningless. Additionally, Matthew 7:12-14 is meaningless. I guess John 7:23-24 also are meaningless when Jesus said " If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

I guess this has no meaning either, besides you misquoted it.

Matthew 22:37 - 40 He said to him, " "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Additionally, John 14:15 must also be meaningless when Jesus said, If you love me, keep my commandments.

Stephanie wrote:So why do you suppose it is OBL has targeted the USA instead of Argentina or Canada or Australia? Why don't they have to convert to Islam?

First, You do understand that there are evil people in this world? While they my use noble words their only desire is to exert control and obtain power. Bin Laden is one such person. Personally, I think his attack on September 11, 2001 had more to do with prestiege, than anything else. I think he wanted to be able to say he had struck the "Great Satan", so he could increase his status and following.

Notice something about bin Laden, you never see him where the danger is. He's in the background egging his followers on. Personally I think he's a coward. I some ways he's alot like Obama, a hollow shell with a charismatic voice.

I never said OBL was not a dangerous man. Quite on the contrary, he is a very dangerous man. What I'm saying is he's using his religion as a weapon, as people of all faiths have done and continue to do with their personal belief systems. I could give you a list of Christians throughout history who have done evil things and waged war, but it would be a very lengthy list, wouldn't it? Those are the people we remember, because the evil men do are remembered long after them but the good they do is often soon forgotten.

On the other hand, the good that people do typically is reported on Fox News and major media outlets don't spend days talking about the good that people do.

There have been numerous Muslim groups who have denounced the 9/11 attacks and other acts of terrorism and there are millions of Muslims the world over who oppose the tactics of Bin Laden but those stories don't increase ratings or sell newspapers.

Christ ordered his followers to obey his commandments if they love him. He never said anything about doing harm or discriminating against those who don't. He gave instructions to those who believe in him for their code of conduct, telling them what they must do but never once did he tell them they were to discriminate against those who did not believe in him. What he said was, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me." If Christ told his followers to punish those who didn't follow his commandments that you'll have to show me because it is something I have never seen. My understanding of biblical scripture, as limited as it has always been, is that the whole reward and punishment system was to be left to God, not preachers or priests or anybody professing faith.

I'm sure you're worried Muslims will try to infiltrate and convert American Christians. Islam has spread, and continues to spread, very quickly and obviously there are those willing to use force. I'm equally sure many Muslims fear the influence of Christianity and western cultures on their youth and others they see as vulnerable. After all, Christians have been seeking to convert nonbelievers for two thousand years, and sometimes there has been a good deal of force involved, now hasn't there?

Stephanie wrote:I never said OBL was not a dangerous man. Quite on the contrary, he is a very dangerous man. What I'm saying is he's using his religion as a weapon, as people of all faiths have done and continue to do with their personal belief systems. I could give you a list of Christians throughout history who have done evil things and waged war, but it would be a very lengthy list, wouldn't it? Those are the people we remember, because the evil men do are remembered long after them but the good they do is often soon forgotten.

You are right Stephanie, bin Laden uses his religion as a weapon and yes, Christains have done exactly the same thing. The question that we have to answer is that that make religion bad, or mor especifically christainity bad, or does it make the people have have misused religion evil. I think that question is esily answered by looking and another example of misuse and that being the US Constitution. It ihas been misquote and isused to justify the mess we see in our federal government today. Additionally, ithas been misused to take rights or water them down. Now, it the consitution bad? I hope you agree that it isn't. While it may not be the best form of government, it is better than anything else out there.

That brings us bad to what is bad. I think it is quite clear we have to understand that there are those who would misuse , misquote, and misapply standards for the sake of the advancement of their agenda. I can point to thousands of examples both religiously and constitutionally. It isn't religion that's bad, it isn't christainity that bad, and it isn't the US Consitution that's flawed. It is people who are evil and use these items to advance their agenda. Additionally, if you take the time to read Acts 17, people, the public is endowed witht he responsibility of seeing if what is being said is so or not. In other wrods, each and everyone of us have responsibility to hold those accountible by seeing if what they are saying is so or not.

Stephanie wrote:There have been numerous Muslim groups who have denounced the 9/11 attacks and other acts of terrorism and there are millions of Muslims the world over who oppose the tactics of Bin Laden but those stories don't increase ratings or sell newspapers.

Yes, there has been a few, but there has not been widespread condemnation of the extremeists.

Stephanie wrote:Christ ordered his followers to obey his commandments if they love him. He never said anything about doing harm or discriminating against those who don't. He gave instructions to those who believe in him for their code of conduct, telling them what they must do but never once did he tell them they were to discriminate against those who did not believe in him. What he said was, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me." If Christ told his followers to punish those who didn't follow his commandments that you'll have to show me because it is something I have never seen. My understanding of biblical scripture, as limited as it has always been, is that the whole reward and punishment system was to be left to God, not preachers or priests or anybody professing faith.

I highlighted a section that is very important and that you need to remedy, if you want to have this discussion.

The first thing you need to do then is some research. Instead of relying on what others tell you the scriptures say, do as Paul admonished Timothy to do. In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul told timothy to study and rightly divide the word of truth. The scrpture fairy doesn't come down and tap us on the head and all of the sudden we know the scriptures. We have to read and study and most importantly we have to let the scriptures speak for themselves, instead of trying to make them say what they don't

Stephanie wrote:I'm sure you're worried Muslims will try to infiltrate and convert American Christians. Islam has spread, and continues to spread, very quickly and obviously there are those willing to use force. I'm equally sure many Muslims fear the influence of Christianity and western cultures on their youth and others they see as vulnerable. After all, Christians have been seeking to convert nonbelievers for two thousand years, and sometimes there has been a good deal of force involved, now hasn't there?

Am I worried about ismalm spreading? No, I'm not. I am concerned about their use of religion to justify terrorism. I am also worred about a president who seems to either not understand that or maybe his loyalities are quite where they need to be. I am also worried about a congress that is more concerned with being the mouth peice for this president than they are about actually protecting the liberties of this nation.