CAIR OK : Press Release on a Middle East Website

[Wingnut]

quote: Twould be hilarious if God was just being sneaky about it, making you all look like kooks, only to shock the crap out of us later with how reasonable you are.

It would be pretty fun to have the last laugh, but then, I don't think anyone would be laughing.

I really haven't said anything on this thread, but I have been reading everyone's posts. I could post quite a bit and it would be a long read, but I don't really have the time to do it.

There is a common theme that I see in most of the posts I will comment on....
It looks as though most are disillusioned with the church and everyone seems to understand God in their own way. I guess I would wonder where you (whoever) have gotten your concept of God from? Other people, books, lectures, or the Bible? I've always believed it's best to go to the source for information, so to me, the Bible would be the best place to find out about God and what he's up to.
A lot of stats have been passed around earlier on. One I saw a while back said that something like 85% of people believe in God. What does that mean? Do they believe he exists, that there is a God, have faith in Him, etc..? I have found that "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So in order to talk about religious things I have to bring it around to Jesus. Most people have a problem with that and that's fine. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block to people.

Why do /did you go to church? Was it because you felt you need to, it was the right thing to do, social reasons? I would think that if someone was compelled to go because of some particular personal reason, they would never be interested in attending or becoming active.
From my own experience; growing up, I rarely went to church, maybe 2-3 times ever. My parents were annoyed with people that kept wanting them to join the church so they quit going.  When I became a Christian, things changed. I started wanting to read the Bible and go to church. It wasn't from my own desire, but from a change in my heart that was telling me to go.  My point here is that church is not about rituals, it's about relationship. Unless the reason is to visit with God on his terms and to hear what he has to say, it's pretty much pointless, hence, no desire to go or it's meaningless. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, except through me. (John 14, 6).

As for the hypocrites in the churchs...I say, so what! Are we more concerned with them or with God. My focus of going to church is to talk to God and listen to ways I can improve my relationship with him.  

So the bottom line is, where do you stand with Jesus?
What are you trusting in to get to heaven? If you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven? What are God's requirements to get in?

Also, don't twist my words. I have not said "If you don't believe in Jesus your doomed to burn in hell" or called anyone a "sinner" or anything like that. I have just asked some pointed questions to get people thinking about the "here and now" and the "later on". Comment if you like.

I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.
Feel free to call me a kook, bigot, or whatever. I don't really care. I already have been just for stating fact.

[MichaelC]

That's actually not a bad point, what makes a Christian Fundamentalist, a Fundamentalist?

According to http://www.answers.com/fundamentalist&r=67

Fundamentalism

  1.  A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
 
2. a. often Fundamentalism: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
     
2. b.  Adherence to the theology of this movement.

quote:I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.

Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals?  It can only be redundant if you deny the Christianity of many if not the majority of Christians.  

Example, plenty of Christians (regardless of opinion) don't purposefully hate on Homosexuals.  It doesn't make them less Christian.

Example, many Christians are accepting of the concept that humans have rights.  In all that entails.

Example, many Christians aren't concerned with evangelism, they leave other people alone.

Example, many Christians accept mainstream scientific principles.

Example, many Christians don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  It's more of a road map, a display of the moralistic stories meant to help you be a better person.

If everyone had to be just like you to be a Christian, you'd be the only one.

[rwarn17588]

<Wingnut wrote:

So the bottom line is, where do you stand with Jesus?
What are you trusting in to get to heaven? If you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven? What are God's requirements to get in?

<end clip>

Answer to all: Beat the heck out of me. Anyone who claims to have those answers is going by faith alone -- or guesswork.

Trouble is, you've got a lot of people who have the faith that they have the right answer, yet they all have widely different answers. Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.

[kakie]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

That's actually not a bad point, what makes a Christian Fundamentalist, a Fundamentalist?

According to http://www.answers.com/fundamentalist&r=67

Fundamentalism

  1.  A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
 
2. a. often Fundamentalism: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
     
2. b.  Adherence to the theology of this movement.

quote:I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.

Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals?  

Fundamental, or strick, or conservative, or literal, or pure or true Islam is what is tearing up the world.  10,000 islamists attacks since 9/11.  

There are several world-wide movements in place to create a global islamic state.  If it takes 100 years they will be seeking this goal.  Unless we stand up to it.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.

I'm pretty sure it's Wingnut.

[]


I tried everything in my power to resist.

[kakie]

In an editorial opinion in the Dallas Morning News, it recapped the Holy Land Foundation Terrorism Funding Trial.

..."Despite the absence of verdict, what emerged was highly valuable and deeply damaging evidence that the radical Muslim Brotherhood is the guiding light behind the U.S. Muslim community's leadership. It is impossible for any intellectually responsible person to regard as positive or even benign organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society or others who presume to speak on behalf of all American Muslims.

..."Earlier this month in Washington, a handful of prominent Muslims gathered to explain to an American audience why the Muslim Brotherhood was a clear and present danger both to American Muslims and the nation. Naser Khader, a Muslim parliamentarian from Denmark living under death threat for speaking out against Islamic radicals, even called U.S. government officials "useful idiots" for continuing to succor extremists...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.4224821.html

[Wingnut]

Michael,
I think some things need to understood first. There has to be a standard that can be looked at, used, and understood. That would be the Bible. Some like to say "It was interpeted wrong", "people make mistakes" etc. Lets understand  "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" . (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
If you were all powerful and worked through men, would you allow your words to be said wrong? I wouldn't if it was me. With that said, let believe that the Bible is true and correct.

quote: Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals? It can only be redundant if you deny the Christianity of many if not the majority of Christians.  

I don't really agree. I don't see how someone can just start claiming that they are a Christian without Christ. Sin is what separates us from God and Jesus came to bridge the gap for us. Romans 10: 9, That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  1John 1:9, If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I don't know how one can claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible. I don't believe that one can pick and choose what parts to believe. If it is from God, (see above), why would one not believe it? Yes there are some different ways people believe, but it needs to have the Bible back it up or it most likely a theory developed by man and not God.
As for fundamentals I think the Apostles creed sums it up well:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.  
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic (universal Christian) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

quote: If everyone had to be just like you to be a Christian, you'd be the only one.

Why would I be the only one? You can't say that. You don't know me or my beliefs.
It's not like everyone just makes up what they will believe. I know some people don't like things in the Bible and won't believe it or agree with it (like hell for example) but that doesn't make the Bible incorrect, or that there are others that do believe it.


 

quote: Example, plenty of Christians (regardless of opinion) don't purposefully hate on Homosexuals. It doesn't make them less Christian.

I don't think I understand you point, but it sounds correct.

quote: Example, many Christians aren't concerned with evangelism, they leave other people alone.

True, but that will be less of their reward in heaven. The Bible, of course, tells us to spread the Gospel, but some people won't for various excuses.

quote: Example, many Christians accept mainstream scientific principles.

Whats wrong with that? There is a lot of science that lines up with the Bible.

quote: Answer to all: Beat the heck out of me. Anyone who claims to have those answers is going by faith alone -- or guesswork.  

All these answers are in the Bible.  I John 5:13, These things I have written to you who elieve in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
This is not complicated, although some will make it out to be.

quote: Trouble is, you've got a lot of people who have the faith that they have the right answer, yet they all have widely different answers. Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.

That gets back to the standard, the Bible. If we can't trust what God has said, then everything people have believed in forever is in vain, then it doesn't matter. I would rather put my faith in something true and resonable than something that is made up or changes all the time.

quote: I'm pretty sure it's Wingnut.

By all means correct me. What am I wrong about? What standard do you guys go by?

Thanks for listening.

[rwarn17588]

Wingnut wrote:

If you were all powerful and worked through men, would you allow your words to be said wrong? I wouldn't if it was me. With that said, let believe that the Bible is true and correct. [...]

I don't know how one can claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible. I don't believe that one can pick and choose what parts to believe. If it is from God, (see above), why would one not believe it? [...]

If we can't trust what God has said, then everything people have believed in forever is in vain, then it doesn't matter. I would rather put my faith in something true and resonable than something that is made up or changes all the time.

<end clip>

You have many texts that claim to be divinely inspired. One of them could be wrong, and among those that could be wrong is the Bible.

See above. As I've said before, some things are bound to get lost in translation. I know intelligent Christians who scrutinize the Scripture and are skeptical. Skepticism is healthy, and does not mean disbelief.

As for your last point, how do you know parts of the Bible weren't made up? You don't. And your last sentence assumes that God has remained the same, where the Bible shows that God evolved over time as a more merciful and less vengeful being.

[Jeff Man]

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Islam's "Conquest of Rome" Will Save Europe from Its Subjugation to Materialism and Promiscuity  

Following are excerpts from a program with Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, which aired on Qatar TV on July 28, 2007.

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Some friends quoted a hadith that says Islam would conquer Rome. Does this mean that we will vanquish the Europeans once again?"

[...]

Al-Qaradhawi: The conquest of Rome – the conquest of Italy, and Europe – means that Islam will return to Europe once again. Must this conquest necessarily be though war? No. There is such a thing as peaceful conquest.

[...]

Al-Qaradhawi: The peaceful conquest has foundations in this religion, and therefore, I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da'wa and ideology. Europe is miserable with materialism, with the philosophy of promiscuity, and with the immoral considerations that rule the world – considerations of self-interest and self-indulgence. It is high time Europe woke up and found a way out from this. Europe will find no life saver or life boat other than Islam. Islam will save Europe from the raging materialism from which it suffers. The promiscuity, which permits men to marry men and women to marry women, is horrifying. All religions condemn this. [Islam] is capable of granting Europe and the entire West the world to come, without denying them this world. It can grant them faith without denying them science. It can grant them truth, without denying them power. It can connect them to the heavens, without tearing them away from the earth. It can grant them spirit, without denying them matter. The message of Islam is a message of global balance, and therefore, I believe the next conquest will be conducted through da'wa. But, of course, the Muslims must start acting in order to conquer this world.

Watch the clip:  http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1592.htm

[Wingnut]

quote: And your last sentence assumes that God has remained the same, where the Bible shows that God evolved over time as a more merciful and less vengeful being.

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.( Malachi 3:6)
God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
(Numbers 23:19)

quote: As for your last point, how do you know parts of the Bible weren't made up? You don't.

It's easy to make that kind of claim, but hard to prove. On the other hand, we have no evidence that it is made up. The Bible is cross-referenced through out. It would be very difficult to make some of it up.
Let's give God some credit. As before, God is sovereign, he can keep his word from being perverted by man. There are men that will twist what it says to suit their own purpose, which is to deceive people for their money and such.

quote: As I've said before, some things are bound to get lost in translation.

Read the front pages of a Bible. It takes years to translate the Bible. Many of the original texts are used by teams of scholars to make the translations as correct as possible. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls that have been translated, which have turned out to be books and parts of the Bible, have turned out to be virtually verbatim to todays translations.

quote: You have many texts that claim to be divinely inspired. One of them could be wrong, and among those that could be wrong is the Bible.

The quotes I posted are from the Bible. As I said before, it's easy to discount the Bible by saying it could be made up or in-correct, but there is no proof after all these years to support those statements.
Those that believe the Bible is made up or faked should read Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell, a former atheist.

[TheArtist]

I think the question " What is God?" is fundamental to understanding what God says and wants. What the Bible says.

There are the 2 very different perspectives of God. I like how Carl Sagan put it...  


In a 1996 interview with NPR's Fresh Air, Sagan said: "I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no. You have to specify which of the countless kinds of God you have in mind." Now, the word God is used to cover a wide variety of very different ideas, ranging maybe from the idea of an outsized light-skinned male with a long white beard who sits in a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow--for which there is no evidence, none at all--to the view of Einstein, of Spinoza, which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature ... if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God."

How you understand or "interpret" something like the bible greatly depends on your "approach" or perspective to "What is God?"

Basically this will determine what parts of the Bible you interpret as being literal or figurative.

Is God literally a "He"? or is God literally "Love"? That right there is pretty critical if you ask me.

If X=10 and 10=ab then ab=X  right?

If "God is Love" and "God is Good" and
"God is Wisdom, Knowlege, Truth, Life, Alpa and Omega, All in All, etc." all of those things are the same, just different facets of one thing.

One scientist was saying. "We know we havent found the "equation for everything" because what we have isnt beautiful enough. Even in math, pure science, the truth is beautiful. E=MC2 is said to be a beautiful equation.

When someone is in a relationship and they are being abused, they say they are in love or love the person. We know its not Godly Love, for Love is also Beautiful and Wise, Good and Truthful. To be in a Godly relationship we look to those things.

God is all of those things, all of those facets. Isnt there a story that is told about the devil which says he was incredibly beautiful, wise, intelligent, etc. but he was missing one component, one facet and that was his folly. Likewise we have the well worn fable of the "mad scientist" with all the answers and knowlege but no love or goodness. its "the knowlege of man, not Godly Knowlege". Thats the difference between the two. We hear of stories of love gone wrong because it isnt complete, it doesnt contain a balance, its not a Godly Love that is being sought.

When one asks "What does God say or want me to do?" are we asking a pagan like being? Or are we asking "What does Love tell me to do, Wisdom tell me, Goodness tell me, etc.?"

Thus, logically, the more of all of those facets we have in our life the the closer we are to God. God is all of those things together, they are all facets of the same thing.  

But here again, how you see the world, how you interpret the Bible, depends on what you take to be literal or figurative. Is "God is Love" a literal or figurative statement? Or is "God our Father" a literal or figurative statement?

If God says build your house upon the rock, not upon the sand. Is it a supernatural being saying that or is it Knowlege "knowing that the house can get washed away" or Love "caring about the possibility that someone could get hurt or killed", saying that? Knowlege, Love, Wisdom, Life, says build your house upon the rock, not upon the sand.  When we walk with God are we walking with a supernatural being or are we walking with Love, Wisdom,... the All in All, the Cosmos.

"The Cosmos is said to be. Everything that is, was and will be. Its all time, every atom, every galaxy, every thought, every law of nature, every breath."

So you see. Even if the words are the same, people can understand them quite differently. You say the Bible is perfect in translation. But there is still debate as to how to translate it. Even the word God, Lord, LORD, GOD, Spirit, spirit, etc. can be different in different bibles. Even if its the same word but has a capital letter or not is different. And that alone can influence the perspective of what you are reading.  


Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God,...

Thomas Jefferson... "notice what words he capitalizes" Laws of Nature and Nature's God...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...

This seems to be another example of someone ascribing to the "God = Sum Laws of the Universe" perspective. Creator as Cosmos.

The question,   "What is God"  "?=God"  "?=X" is "fundamental".

[Wingnut]

Kakie,
Sorry to keep going on the tangent, but I agree with you about the threat we face as a nation. It remindes me of the story about the frog in the pot. Put a frog into hot water and he'll jump out right away, but if you put him in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, he won't feel the change and die. The threat is slow and subtle, but there nonetheless. Here are some of the ways it's happening:
http://www.meforum.org/islamist.php

Yes, some will say this means nothing, but the muslims have said they will take over. Why not believe them. Look at Europe and England. England will be an Islamic country in 20 years. America will be further out, but the aim is to get it here. They have said so and we're doing little to stop it.

[Wingnut]

quote: "I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no.

I agree. Everyone's view of God is different.  Thats why I say let's narrow it down and talk about Jesus, who he was, and what he did.

Let's also keep in mind that Sagan was an atheist.

[Wingnut]

quote: How you understand or "interpret" something like the bible greatly depends on your "approach" or perspective to "What is God?"

quote: Basically this will determine what parts of the Bible you interpret as being literal or figurative.

Why do we not read the Bible and find out God's attributes and let that form our view of God? Why do we have to conceive theories about God on our own without any real information about Him? I have heard so many people say "I don't think God is like that", or "I don't believe God will do that" or something similar. That tells me that they are working off of their own self-conceived belief about God, than what the Bible really says about God.
To read the Bible, one really needs to spend some time on it. Things that may sound odd or contridictary, are explained in other areas. That's why the early church would "search the scriptures daily" so they would have a full understanding of what it says. People today don't really do that. They just believe what they are told, and in some cases it's wrong. I see that God has taken the guesswork out of understanding HIs Word.

quote: Even if the words are the same, people can understand them quite differently. You say the Bible is perfect in translation. But there is still debate as to how to translate it. Even the word God, Lord, LORD, GOD, Spirit, spirit, etc. can be different in different bibles.

Thats why we have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. There are different meanings for the different terms. A concordance is very handy for looking up those types of words. My Strongs Concordance is all about every word in the Bible and it's meaning in the Greek and Hebrew so we can have a clearer understanding of what was meant when it was said.

Thanks for your point of view.

[kakie]

I know that the Muslim Brotherhood had "training camps" in Oklahoma.  Does anybody have any more details?

Thanks