ISIS "JVer" beheads American journalist

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

If you take the Bible at face value most Christians don't agree with Western values regarding any of those things either.

 

 

Most Christians who take the Bible at face value are a minority in the Christian faith. I don't know one Christian who does, including my priest.

[cbfalcon 824]

 

 

Fair enough. When I ask this question, I ask it in reference of Muslims who do not live here in America.

 

How can any of us feel qualified to answer that at all?

 

The only ones we have knowledge of are the ones that get news coverage. And guys cooking dinner for their kids and quietly living their lives don't tend to make headlines.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

 

How can any of us feel qualified to answer that at all?

 

The only ones we have knowledge of are the ones that get news coverage. And guys cooking dinner for their kids and quietly living their lives don't tend to make headlines.

 

 

I read a pol a year or two back that asked Muslims around the world how they felt about the U.S, politics, western values, and religon. The majority poled held a negative view but they also weren't in favor our destruction.

[naomi 343]

 

Would you agree that the majority of Muslims don't agree with western values? Freedom, Womens rights, voting rights (were applied), religon, religon in schools, homosexuality, our sexual culture, etc.?

 

 

If you take the Bible at face value most Christians don't agree with Western values regarding any of those things either.

 

Freedom: The bible honors "liberty of conscious." Outward righteousness means nothing if it's not real inwardly. Men can't change where men are at inwardly. Only God can. There's no point for pursuing a non-inward change in a man. You couldn't spread Christ's actual gospel (found in the bible) by the sword if you tried, because it's not founded in outward adherence.

 

The bible talks more about the humble Christian rendering to Ceaser what is Ceaser's than rising to ranks of leadership in order to instill theocratic rule (which it doesn't at all).

 

Women's rights: You wouldn't have women like Queen Esther and the judge of Israel Deborah in the bible if there was proclamation that women were only to be limited to one realm in life. You wouldn't have passages like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

Voting rights: Same deal.

 

Religion: See freedom.

 

Religion in schools: Depends on the Ceaser/collective Ceaser.

 

Homosexuality/sexual culture: If the western value here is 'sexual liberation' then the bible is at odds with it. Most importantly it represents values in that regard as something that needs to be personally connected to. Another huge area where outward adherence is not a goal of anyone who understands the bible because they know that having that alone means nothing.

 

I would be way more uncomfortable with a leader who actively appeals to Christ/the Judeo-Christian God and doesn't take at face value the gospel in the bible.

[BudBro 117]

If you take the Bible at face value most Christians don't agree with Western values regarding any of those things either.

nor should they. yet, the church has become a reflection of western culture instead of being the cultural influence. humanity has no fear of god any longer, especially those of the western influence. it's too hard to say sex is only for marriage, and marriage is only once and only between a man and a woman, and women aren't created equal, and they were created as a helper to man. there are roles, like on a team. a team of 11 qb's wouldn't fare well against a team that has players that play the role they are assigned. western culture worships in the church of feminism, so as not to offend someone's perception of themselves. women suffer for it, and men resign themselves to a slow and painful death. the church is filled with men who have taken a beating in the feminist world and have shut down their hearts to any type of godly adventure. the women await their knight in shining armor to lift them on to the white horse, and the men dream of a chance to love them lavishly. but, men know the women have been cultured to take the reins once aboard and ride the horse into the lake. culture has trained us it's better for the men and the horse to just leave the horse in the barn.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

nor should they. yet, the church has become a reflection of western culture instead of being the cultural influence. humanity has no fear of god any longer, especially those of the western influence. it's too hard to say sex is only for marriage, and marriage is only once and only between a man and a woman, and women aren't created equal, and they were created as a helper to man. there are roles, like on a team. a team of 11 qb's wouldn't fare well against a team that has players that play the role they are assigned. western culture worships in the church of feminism, so as not to offend someone's perception of themselves. women suffer for it, and men resign themselves to a slow and painful death. the church is filled with men who have taken a beating in the feminist world and have shut down their hearts to any type of godly adventure. the women await their knight in shining armor to lift them on to the white horse, and the men dream of a chance to love them lavishly. but, men know the women have been cultured to take the reins once aboard and ride the horse into the lake. culture has trained us it's better for the men and the horse to just leave the horse in the barn.

 

 

Yeah.....Take that b!tches!

[naomi 343]

nor should they. yet, the church has become a reflection of western culture instead of being the cultural influence. humanity has no fear of god any longer, especially those of the western influence. it's too hard to say sex is only for marriage, and marriage is only once and only between a man and a woman, and women aren't created equal, and they were created as a helper to man. there are roles, like on a team. a team of 11 qb's wouldn't fare well against a team that has players that play the role they are assigned. western culture worships in the church of feminism, so as not to offend someone's perception of themselves. women suffer for it, and men resign themselves to a slow and painful death. the church is filled with men who have taken a beating in the feminist world and have shut down their hearts to any type of godly adventure. the women await their knight in shining armor to lift them on to the white horse, and the men dream of a chance to love them lavishly. but, men know the women have been cultured to take the reins once aboard and ride the horse into the lake. culture has trained us it's better for the men and the horse to just leave the horse in the barn.

 

Women were created equal in the sense being "created equal" means...your standing before God. That statement is talking about mankind which includes women.

 

It never meant "all men are created equal... having the same attributes, same strengths and weaknesses."

 

I can personally talk about how the stated, intended design for a family and household struck me being female...you definitely focus more on the "submission" part (which is first taken in a perverted way because of our culture), than the responsibility that is being outlined for the man...to love his wife even as Christ loved the church. A wife isn't called to submit to a husband who her conscience can see is not himself submitting to the Lord. She follows Christ above all. When both man and wife are following that scripture, it can work as intended, and you can see how it suits both too. It should never work oppressively, and something is wrong if it is.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

^^^ The above posters are great examples.

 

People could look at them and say "Jesus, these Christians sure hold some pretty hard line views!" And some do, but the vast majority do not.

 

I suspect it is similar for people of Islamic faith.

[MDC 5,893]

 

 

Most Christians who take the Bible at face value are a minority in the Christian faith. I don't know one Christian who does, including my priest.

I'd argue that most Muslims aren't literalists either.

[Reality 2,710]

 

 

Would you agree that the majority of Muslims don't agree with western values? Freedom, Womens rights, voting rights (were applied), religon, religon in schools, homosexuality, our sexual culture, etc.?

Polls conducted show a majority of Muslims worldwide support Sharia law. It doesn't matter if he agrees or not, it's simply fact that they don't.

[drobeski 3,061]

Heritage Foundation Panel Berate Muslim Woman Aft: http://youtu.be/oY5X1_eGCJY

[naomi 343]

There's a lot of differences between Islam and Christianity, but the core most difference is that you have to be with a program in order to be in Allah's good graces.

 

That is true of every other religion too, although the Allah in the religions can be a more esoteric identity. Securing your well-being hinges on your performance.

 

The bible is the only proclaimed 'holy writ' that says actions with appeal to God, as it recognizes him. can mean nothing. It's not your conformity sought, it's you. Control for the purposes of this world is not the end-game.

 

That philosophy - your salvation is founded in your conformity, can be oppressively mingled with human movements and institutions. Catholicism is similar and it's why violence is in the history of the church. The bible says that Christ is your mediator, that he already ultimately mediated on the Christian's behalf, that no man is a mediator between men and God. Christ does not have a man who is his "vicar on earth." There is no spiritual hierarchy in the world that evolves what is right and wrong.

 

Whether a Muslim is moderate or radical by western perception, the underlying principle, what your hope is in, is on the same foundation that's open to relativity.

[BudBro 117]

I would be way more uncomfortable with a leader who actively appeals to Christ/the Judeo-Christian God and doesn't take at face value the gospel in the bible.

 

the new covenant of the gospel is that god will write his commands on your heart (instead of onto stones), and by the spirit, granted to you by the life of the son, walk you in his ways. the new covenant of the gospel is the ability to fulfill the laws, every jot and tittle of them.

 

 

When both man and wife are following that scripture, it can work as intended, and you can see how it suits both too. It should never work oppressively, and something is wrong if it is.

 

wholeheartedly agree. modern church may know this, but is afraid to step on toes to teach it.

 

^^^ The above posters are great examples.

 

People could look at them and say "Jesus, these Christians sure hold some pretty hard line views!" And some do, but the vast majority do not.

 

I suspect it is similar for people of Islamic faith.

 

i think the vast majority hold the views, just deny them in the face of persecution from the worldly opinion that they are prudish and old fashioned. most believe they have to defend themselves and would rather not start.

 

kinda hard to explain, but it was designed to be difficult to keep the laws of your own strength, yet offers you the ability to give it a go on your own, if you choose to pursue holiness on your own, with your own imagination of what's holy. ultimately, it shows you what you can't do on your own to live up to the expectations of god, and that you will fall into the hands of a wrathful god if you do not fulfill them all (almost 500 of them). if you could do it on your own, you wouldn't fear him with reverence or need him or want him. yet, it isn't treachery or difficult when the revelation comes. he designed you to be in communion with him, to desire his company. and he provides all that is necessary to be in relationship, and grace to build the parts that need built. that's the "gospel," the good news.

 

the islamic faith lacks the understanding that god, himself, will take your heart and abide there, enabling you and equipping you to accomplish what he wishes and commands and desires of your life. the god of islam doesn't offer to help, just demands your obedience.

[MDC 5,893]

The big similarity between Christianity and Islam is that they're both voodoo based on funny books. You might as well be telling me that Zeus can beat up the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[naomi 343]

^Clearly have to just agree to disagree there.

 

On another note..most people have noticed how the media hasn't been in consensus about calling the group ISIS or ISIL.

 

Breaks down where both and other acronyms for them in the press come from.

 

So, they just said "hey, call us the Islamic State" at the same time of sharing Foley's murder.

 

So it shall be done. Check out the headlines under 'World.' (eta: it already updated and now TIME's article is featured. ...anyway, the switch is taking place).

 

'We' (western media) should have decided what we want to call them. They're not a State except in their own minds, and we just appeased that.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The government calls them ISIL and I think it's because it's a lot less catchy than ISIS

[Casual Observer 597]

Who enabled this Frankenstein's monster, whether called ISIL or ISIS? Those people must feel horrible.

[GobbleDog 816]

Who enabled this Frankenstein's monster, whether called ISIL or ISIS? Those people must feel horrible.

Two collasal mistakes led to Iraq today.

 

1. Disbanding Iraq Army in '03 - 400,000+ armed men with military training owed back pay, sent packing to face high unemployment and very angry.

2. Backing Nouri al-Maliki in '06 who ousted all Sunni's. He just quit the other day.

 

 

Bush mulligans

[rholio 339]

Two collasal mistakes led to Iraq today.

 

1. Disbanding Iraq Army in '03 - 400,000+ armed men with military training owed back pay, sent packing to face high unemployment and very angry.

2. Backing Nouri al-Maliki in '06 who ousted all Sunni's. He just quit the other day.

 

 

Bush mulligans

 

That's two, agreed. Was this one of the groups Obama looked to help against Syria? Not sure.

[drobeski 3,061]

Not signing a status of forces agreement, horrible. Arming these guys in syria.

Being too busy being cool to recognize the threat.

Being an Islamist supporter and apologist.

[SUXBNME 1,337]

Heritage Foundation Panel Berate Muslim Woman Aft: http://youtu.be/oY5X1_eGCJY

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Two collasal mistakes led to Iraq today.

 

1. Disbanding Iraq Army in '03 - 400,000+ armed men with military training owed back pay, sent packing to face high unemployment and very angry.

2. Backing Nouri al-Maliki in '06 who ousted all Sunni's. He just quit the other day.

 

 

Bush mulligans

How about starting a needless war in the first place?

[SUXBNME 1,337]

How about starting a needless war in the first place?

That almost every Dem in a position of power supported also? Or is the blame everything on Bush still a thing?

[rholio 339]

That almost every Dem in a position of power supported also? Or is the blame everything on Bush still a thing?

 

Well, the White House was behind the reports of WMDs, so... yeah, this is still on Bush.

[Googballz 39]

 

Well, the White House was behind the reports of WMDs, so... yeah, this is still on Bush.

The Clinton White House?

[GobbleDog 816]

The US started the Iraq War to flex military muscle and restore domestic/foreign confidence, following 9/11. No 9/11, no Iraq War.

 

WMD's was simply justification for the UN. That evidence turned out to be totaly uncredible, but Iraq was in violation of numerous other UN agreements as well (not accounting for WMD's, not letting inspectors inspect, flying in no-fly zones, shooting at US aircraft, etc.) And most everyone in the world thought Iraq did have WMDs. I think Iraq perpetuated that myth (kinda ironic).

 

Following 9/11, Iraq was the perfect turkey shoot. Easy to beat, Muslim, and Americans would support that war. Anyone remember the night it started? It was announced earlier the day/time and sure enough that night "shock and awe" was being broadcast around the world. And it had nothing to do with "WMD's or liberating the oppressed."

 

Right or wrong... I'm kinda on the fence. It did achieve the goal.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The US started the Iraq War to flex military muscle and restore domestic/foreign confidence, following 9/11. No 9/11, no Iraq War.

 

WMD's was simply justification for the UN. That evidence turned out to be totaly uncredible, but Iraq was in violation of numerous other UN agreements as well (not accounting for WMD's, not letting inspectors inspect, flying in no-fly zones, shooting at US aircraft, etc.) And most everyone in the world thought Iraq did have WMDs. I think Iraq perpetuated that myth (kinda ironic).

 

Following 9/11, Iraq was the perfect turkey shoot. Easy to beat, Muslim, and Americans would support that war. Anyone remember the night it started? It was announced earlier the day/time and sure enough that night "shock and awe" was being broadcast around the world. And it had nothing to do with "WMD's or liberating the oppressed."

 

Right or wrong... I'm kinda on the fence. It did achieve the goal.

How did the war achieve any goals? We basically lost, much like in Vietnam we eventually had to leave with our tails between our legs. Difference is Vietnam actually worked out long term whereas Iraq likely will not

[GobbleDog 816]

How did the war achieve any goals?

 

"The US started the Iraq War to flex military muscle and restore domestic/foreign confidence, following 9/11."

 

 

Done and done.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

"The US started the Iraq War to flex military muscle and restore domestic/foreign confidence, following 9/11."

 

 

Done and done.

Except not. Like I said, we basically lost. It has made us look weak abroad and I don't think it restored confidence domestically. Maybe if the '08 crash hadn't happened...but as things stand now "confident" is not a word I'd use to describe the national mood.

[Googballz 39]

 

"The US started the Iraq War to flex military muscle and restore domestic/foreign confidence, following 9/11."

 

 

Done and done.

Not sure I remember Bush saying we went into Iraq because of any link to 9/11.

 

However, I do remember about 17 UN Resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War that Saddam ignored.

 

Seems to me the UN got us into Iraq.

[GobbleDog 816]

Except not. Like I said, we basically lost. It has made us look weak abroad and I don't think it restored confidence domestically. Maybe if the '08 crash hadn't happened...but as things stand now "confident" is not a word I'd use to describe the national mood.

 

The country was defeated in less than month. Hardly a loss. The occupation that followed was difficult, but the easy victory was the main goal.

 

I think you forget how Americans felt in late 2001 and 2002. Angry and worried is the sentiment I remember. The world was watching to see the US response to the biggest attack since Pearl Harbor. Blowing up Taliban huts in Afganistan wasn't going to be enough "shock and awe". Hence the Iraq War.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

The country was defeated in less than month. Hardly a loss. The occupation that followed was difficult, but the easy victory was the main goal.

 

I think you forget how Americans felt in late 2001 and 2002. Angry and worried is the sentiment I remember. The world was watching to see the US response to the biggest attack since Pearl Harbor. Blowing up Taliban huts in Afganistan wasn't going to be enough "shock and awe". Hence the Iraq War.

Well that's a pretty fockin stupid rationale.

[SUXBNME 1,337]

Well that's a pretty fockin stupid rationale.

If you weren't such a shallow thinker, you would understand it better. hth

[GobbleDog 816]

Well that's a pretty fockin stupid rationale.

 

I'm cool with that. Insane costs and thousands of Americans died/wounded and many more effected relatives/friends. Worth it or not is debatable. I still think it was, but not like I used to.

 

I'm just happy agreeing that "military muscle and restoring confidence following 9/11" were the actual goals. Not WMD's, threat to national security, liberating oppressed people, or "blood for oil". It was retaliation for 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. Hell, 70% of Americans polled in 2003 thought Iraq was involved with 9/11. It's true.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

 

Bush panned to the masses. Turkey shoot following 9/11. Legal because of broken UN agreements and Iraq's poor standing in the world. Saddam was standing in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Well I'd say 5,000 dead US soldiers, tens of thousands more wounded, trillions of dollars spent, and leaving a very dangerous power vacuum wasn't worth whatever psychological benefit you think came from the war

[GobbleDog 816]

Well I'd say 5,000 dead US soldiers, tens of thousands more wounded, trillions of dollars spent, and leaving a very dangerous power vacuum wasn't worth whatever psychological benefit you think came from the war

 

Like I said, that has been weighing on me.

 

 

I still think it might worked out much better, had it not been for those two MONSTER mistakes I mentioned earlier immediately following the war.... but too late now.

[Mungwater 588]

The problem with Iraq, in which I've posted a hundred times, was that you never just take over a country then leave. It's not the way it works, once you're there, you're there. That's why we still have based in the west, bases in Germany, bases in Japan...

 

The problem was the politicians thought they were smarter than the generals who are trained on this. That's why there is such animosity towards the politicians, you have someone like Biden trying to tell patreaus how COIN works, the guy literally wrote the book on it, I'd take his word over a politician every day of the week.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The problem with Iraq, in which I've posted a hundred times, was that you never just take over a country then leave. It's not the way it works, once you're there, you're there. That's why we still have based in the west, bases in Germany, bases in Japan...

The problem was the politicians thought they were smarter than the generals who are trained on this. That's why there is such animosity towards the politicians, you have someone like Biden trying to tell patreaus how COIN works, the guy literally wrote the book on it, I'd take his word over a politician every day of the week.

The ONE thing Obama had to do with Iraq was to negotiate how our forces were to remain in Iraq just as we remain in Japan and Germany. He managed to fukk that up, and the inevitable chaos quickly followed that failure.

[Mungwater 588]

The ONE thing Obama had to do with Iraq was to negotiate how our forces were to remain in Iraq just as we remain in Japan and Germany. He managed to fukk that up, and the inevitable chaos quickly followed that failure.

Not getting the SOFA done was a huge issue, but it wasn't more of a priority than being able to say "I ended the war.." On the campaign trail.