Here's a good column. He sure had me fooled!

So You Want to Play Hardball Eh?
by DarkSyde
Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:46:45 PM PDT
They are vehemently against abortion, they resist progressive woman's rights. They view homosexuality as a crime against nature and God, some advocate the death penalty as an option for it. Separation of Church and State is despised by these folks; they insist the nation is founded on the principles of their religion, and they work hard to bring that de facto theocracy about. They deplore strong language, gay characters, and sexual content on TV and in the media. And they ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits their ideological purposes, including provisions against torture or due process. They're anti-stem cell research, pro-creationism, and generally distrustful of science. These folks are easily whipped into a state of frenzy with ideological manipulation to the point where they will commit violence, or at least tacitly endorse that violence is acceptable, if it advances their Divine agenda. They then take great pains to justify that violence, including unprovoked attack of civilian areas, under certain conditions, with convoluted theological gymnastics. They are almost to the man pro-death penalty ... Am I railing against the religious right again?

Could be, but my target here is actually Al Qaeda and related fundamentalist Wahhabism; the source of terrorism, the scourge of our planet, the Axis of Evil.

More at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/21/224645/582

I sort of agree with you AM. I beleive that modern, far-right fundalmentalists practice these two religions in much the same way. On the other side of the coin, however, I beleive that the true teachings and intentions of these two religions share many similiarities, and are actually parallel.

Here's a couple interesting links, they are definately opinions. The second link I thought was interesting, not because of the similarities about their beleifs, but how the muslims would almost rather reach out to christians because of their similarities (and that they beleive it is backed by scripture) and not segregate because of differences.

http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html

http://muslim-canada.org/jesus.html

Huge difference in the two religions. One is based on grace and the other acts. If you take a viewpoint on Islam from a western source what purpose does that serve. That is not who we are having issues with.

Yeah,
Huge difference in the religions from point of view of extreme adherents of either.

Reminds me when I was a kid and dating this beautiful young lady who was a member of the Church of Christ. I went to church with her on many occasions. About half the sermons were diatribes against the Catholics. The other half were diatribes against the Baptists!

You want to have your "extreme views" unquestioned but you question others "extreme views". People that do not believe in religion or God have just as many if not more extreme views and so much in common it is almost a religon in it's self. When you point out them out you are intollerant.

Sorry, TK,
Didn't mean to be offensive by use of the word "exteme". Just wanted to differentiate between religious people who find common ground with those of other religions and those who focus on differences.

By the way, I'm always glad to have my views questioned. Though a conservative in the most important ways (fiscal responsibility, personal liberties, respect for the constitution, etc.), I definitely come from the liberal tradition in which beliefs are subject to rational examination.

No offense SS. I believe everything is black and white in the end. I can see why Islam is extreme and I have no trouble with it as long as they stay on their side of the line. Cross the line and you have to choose which side you would rather live with. Liberal views make little sense when you boil them down to black and white. Pick one and try it.

turns out that the king IS AL QAEDA........you guys have everything in common tk-oops i mean bin laden.........well birds of a feather sure do flock together!!!!!!!

It's when you take those "extremist" views and use them as leverage to do harm to others. The fundamentalist christians, muslims, hindus, etc. are all guilty of having people supposedly acting within their faith and performing atrocities against others, sometimes even in the name of God, this doesn't apply as a blanket to everybody within tht religion. (wasn't that Paul the apostle that once persecuted Christians??). Faith without acts is not enough. Example, Bush claims that "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." Now really TK, tell me where Christ told his followers, at any time, to kill your enemy?? Do his acts suggest a faith in Christ if he believes that God has put him in a position to kill people? That's a pretty black and white question, isn't it?? Stay within the New Testament, the basis for Christianity, nothing out of the old testament, nothing copied from the codecs of hammurabi.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Dukie,
Jesus preached against war but he also said in the gospels “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Jesus said it is inevitable that wars will continue until He returns (Mark 13:7-8), and He did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies (Matthew 8:5-10). Other New Testament passages accept the necessity of maintaining armies and the worthiness of military occupations (Luke 3:14, Acts 10:1-6)

Just War Theory
Clearly, the Christian ideal is total elimination of war and brotherly love among all people. However, in this imperfect world, war may be forced on those who do not desire it. St. Augustine (354 - 430) and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) are primarily responsible for formulating the theory of the Just War which has remained the majority Christian approach to war to this day. There are many variations on the just war theory, but these are the basics:

There must be a just cause for the war.
War must be waged only in response to certain, grave and lasting damage inflicted by an aggressor.
The motive for war must be advancement of good or avoidance of evil.
The ultimate objective of war must be to bring peace.
Revenge, revolt, a desire to harm, dominate, or exploit and similar things are not justification for war.
Every possible means of peacefully settling the conflict must be exhausted first.
There must be serious prospects of success; bloodshed without hope of victory cannot be justified.
The war must be declared by a legitimate authority. Private individuals or groups should seek redress of their rights through their governments, not by acts of war.
The war must not cause greater evil than the evil to be eliminated.
Non-combatants (civilians) must not be intentionally harmed.
Prisoners and conquered peoples must be treated justly.

A for effort TK. Mark 13 does say that wars will continue, and even be worse than at that time (the beginnings of the sorrows), it does not condone it, it says that "ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them."

As far as the centurion in Matthew, the point is not that Jesus condones war or violence, it is that Jesus loves all of us, irregardless of who we are. Even if you are a man that has soldiers beneath you. I've mentioned this on another post a little while back. With Christ all can be forgiven. Same goes for the passage in Acts. The point was that the gift of the Holy Ghost fell on a Gentile. I think during this period, centurions where about as common as cab drivers in New York City, Israel was an occupied nation.

Here's one or two for further consideration, if you truly beleive that Christ has called on his disciples to kill other people:
Peter 3:11 "Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it."
Luke 3:14 "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

Duckie,

I am not much for parsing out passages to make a point. I go with the overiding theme. Jesus himself would be opposed to war for pure gain of one at the dteriment of the other but he also understood the issues of nations and govt's hence the render unto Ceaser idea. Now we are very clearly to oppose evil. How do you know for sure that Islamofacisim is not the face of evil hiding behind Laah's skirt? How do you reconcile the fact that the same players are on the same ground fighting the same battle over 100o's of years? What about defending gods chosen people?

Fishpolease,

You better be careful to use the one "true" method for bible interpretation or you cannot converse with TK on the subject!

If you do not know the one "true" method of bible interpretation just ask TK, he'll tell you how it is interpreted "correctly".

Now don't go getting all emotional like the woman you are Wacky. The duke and I are having a civil conversation about things you do not understand.

Back to name calling. Right on queue.

At least I can start to see the humor of your predictability.

Your conversation is only about things you want to believe I do not understand. Again trying to categorize everyone so your world fits into the picture you have drawn. Pathetic

I am not the one making preemtive posts on threads were I have no skin in the game. You act like a silly school girl playing soroity games and then cry when you get called on it. Be gone little girl.

Once again resorting to your highest level of communication. Maybe I should reply with, I'm rubber your glue, or something a little more close to your level of understanding.

OK girly!

Good one.

Let's see, render unto Ceasar, I have to consider this out of context.

Matthew 22:16-22
"16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way."

One of the greatest difficulties with any religion is interpretation. My interpretation of the above passage?? Ceasar represents the wordly, that of the flesh, therefore it has no need or use with God and should be left for the worldly. You cannot take a coin with Ceasar's inscription and spend it in heaven.

So, as far as rulers are concerned, what about the good ole story of Saul, the children of Isreal who pleaded for a king to rule over them? We know how that ended, right??

How about Solomon, and the idolatry?

Power corrupts, that story has been around forever. And although, I believe scripture tells us not to concern ourself with such matters, but instead pray for our rulers, (I am guilty of concerning myself) I have a difficult time sitting back and watching anyone misrepresent the teachings of Christ while starting skirmishes that are seemingly for personal gain (Iraq).

I consider Islamofacism evil, as do I consider fundamentalist Christians that feel entitled to kill based on ANY reason to be perpetuating evil. Unfortunately, the extremists commit these attrocities while flagrantly evoking the name of God, and therefore become newsworthy and somehow, become the representatives of there religion. And because the meek, who try to follow the teachings, lay quiet, the world's tendency is to view any follower, whether they tow the party line or not, to be associated with this extremism.

As far as the same players bit? Well, what did the angel tell Hagar after she was cast out of Abraham's house by Sarah?? This battle has been going on since the origin of the Arab race (arab being defined as "mixed blood" children of Abraham through Hagar)

Can you defend Israel? Can you redirect the pre-determined works of God? I believe we should come to the aid of all those oppressed, the infirm, the jailed, but God does not require me to pick up a sword and kill the transgressors. It is acheived through prayer and faith and acceptance that the God's plan supercedes my desires and that I be a servant, both to man and God.

Here you go tk. Bush passing himself as the Lord.

The Antichrist is the greatest deceiver of all time. The Bible indicates that the he will pretend to be religious - in fact he will ultimately pretend to be God, and will be worshipped as God half way through the Apocalypse. More than any other president Bush wears his religion on his sleeve for political gain, and to deceive the world. He believes he's been appointed by God (rather than the Supreme Court), and sees himself as on a divine mission. Let's face it - that's only a short drive from believing he's actually divine. Bush recently told an Amish group in Pennsylvania that "God speaks through me." Another story that ran in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz tells how Bush had told Middle East leaders that " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did” First of all, what is interesting about these voices Bush is hearing, voices which are effectively telling him to go kill people, is that Jesus consistently taught his disciples to overcome evil with good rather than with bombs and bullets and violence.

It is eminently reasonable to assume that the voices Bush is hearing are not coming from God at all, but from Satan. It is also reasonable to assume that the devil does not desire peace, but war and death and destruction. Why is it that when an ordinary citizen hears voices telling him to kill people, we lock him up for the safety of both himself and the community; yet when Bush hears voices telling him to kill, fundamentalists rejoice and pretend he was chosen by God to be president?

The respected Washington-based News Magazine “Capital Hill Blues” reports that bad news from Iraq and falling poll numbers have already pushed Bush to the edge of a mental collapse:

“Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.” In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be doing “God’s will” and then tells aides to “**** over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration."

In another under-reported story, a very prominent Washington psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank has diagnosed Bush as a paranoid and sadistic megalomanic. In his new book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, he writes that Bush's years of heavy drinking "may have affected his brain function" and he "fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated." His diagnosis? "Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office . . . before it is too late." Unfortunately, that is no longer an option. Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

Unfortunately, Bush already seems to have fooled a lot of people into believing he really is God. One man in Florida recently said, "this is the first time I felt God was in the White House." There is even a website dedicated to his worship called "BUSH IS LORD". How's that for an abomination?!

Duke,

Render unto Ceaser means give the "man" what is his and god what is gods. Taxes are a good example as is follwing the law of the govt.

"I have a difficult time sitting back and watching anyone misrepresent the teachings of Christ while starting skirmishes that are seemingly for personal gain "

Do you not pass judgement on the heart of the man based on your thoughts? Who has the right to pass judgement you or God?

I seem to remember that one sin is no greater than any sin. So lets say GW is wrong and sin's should you not flog yourself equally for your sin?

Those who are leading sinful lives, often try to prove themselves religious by judging others and holding their own lives as superior. Yet it was precisely this kind of comparative religiosity that Jesus hated and condemned in the Pharisees. Whatever high moral standards they may set for themselves, it was always offset and covered over by the fact that they couldn’t resist the temptation to take pride in themselves by judging others. Judging the sins of others is always a kind of sanctimonious boasting, and it is always very empty boasting at that, because in judging others, we put ourselves in God’s place, taking pride either in what we have done or avoided doing. We make our righteousness our own work, rather than what God has worked in our life. We are no longer grateful, but proud.. Instead of confessing our own sins and allowing God to work more deeply in our life, we try to earn our salvation by proving how much more worthy we are than anybody else. But we are not more worthy than anybody else, and while the former produces a humble and forgiving heart, the latter method produces a proud and judgmental spirit.

It's good to pay taxes and that you think Jesus wants you to pay taxes. I think in the above passage you are missing the point, because it is not telling you to make sure your taxes are paid by the deadline.

"17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites? "
Jesus recognized that these were men only trying to use Christ's teaching to get out of paying taxes. But Jesus does not care about money, things of the flesh are really a waste of time and irrelevant in a spiritual domain, therefore, let Ceasar have his money, after all he printed it, it has his face on it, he can have it.

Back to the point though, I think there is a possibility that this can be a fruitful conversation. How does Bush represent Christ's teachings, and not just Bush, how about Pat Robertson? How long has he been on TV as a minister? Lately, he's made a couple of pretty outlandish statements. Like the whole "maybe we should" concerning Hugo Chavez and my personal favorite, about how the New Orleans disaster was punishment, Sodom and Gamorrah style. Did Pat forget this?

"1 Pet:16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

Did Pat believe that everyone was so evil that God struck it down, or did he think the Christians that perished or lost in NO were collateral damage?

Really, the point of the whole thing is whether these representatives, that are internationally reknowned, truly represent the teachings of their faith. I charge that George, Pat, Osama and Al-Zahwari all have distorted the real message so that they could justify killing people. Is that judgemental, or just pointing out the obvious?

"Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

By the way, flogging does not redeem you of your sin, true repentance does.