There is a significant difference between Christ executing judgement himself and a misguided person doing it.

 

To compare someone's belief that Christ will return, in the flesh, to execute judgment on the world, to someone who claims they're executing God's will by killing someone is ridiculous.

 

Romans 12:19 says, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

 

Now, I choose to believe this and that Jesus will return to judge the world. So, by believing the things I do, am I on the same level as an Islamic suicide bomber in your mind?

 

The difference is that a Christian is commanded by the Bible to love everyone, friends and enemies, and leave punishment and judgment to God. A Muslim is commanded to try to convert non-believers or kill them.

 

Again, there are Christians who distort the words and meanings of the Bible and do horrible things. My point is the fundamental difference between the two books that guide these religions. A muslim can find numerous verses where they're commanded to kill infidels. Can you show me where Jesus commands His followers to convert the world to Christianity or kill them? Therein lies the difference, and if you can't see it, then you just don't want to.

 

 

The reference was to Muhammad as "God" killing and destroying - and to Jesus as God killing and destroying.

 

By reading these posts it appears that many believe that the muslim religion (muhammad) says:

 

Convert the infidels or destroy them.

 

along those same lines the Christian religion (God) says:

 

Convert the infidels or I will destroy them.

 

How different are the faiths and if they both offer the same options, just different methods, why is one better or more RIGHT than the other? I guess it is just what YOU (the general you) believe, or even more importantly, the tradition in which you were raised.

There is a significant difference between Christ executing judgement himself and a misguided person doing it.

 

To compare someone's belief that Christ will return, in the flesh, to execute judgment on the world, to someone who claims they're executing God's will by killing someone is ridiculous.

 

Romans 12:19 says, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

 

Now, I choose to believe this and that Jesus will return to judge the world. So, by believing the things I do, am I on the same level as an Islamic suicide bomber in your mind?

 

The difference is that a Christian is commanded by the Bible to love everyone, friends and enemies, and leave punishment and judgment to God. A Muslim is commanded to try to convert non-believers or kill them.

Again, there are Christians who distort the words and meanings of the Bible and do horrible things. My point is the fundamental difference between the two books that guide these religions. A muslim can find numerous verses where they're commanded to kill infidels. Can you show me where Jesus commands His followers to convert the world to Christianity or kill them? Therein lies the difference, and if you can't see it, then you just don't want to.

 

 

Aren't we at war killing our enemies and not loving them? Just as the Radical muslims are at war with and killing their enemies and not loving them? Again, explain the difference.

 

I guess you can be like the kids at my school and say "well they hit ME first."

The reference was to Muhammad as "God" killing and destroying - and to Jesus as God killing and destroying.

 

By reading these posts it appears that many believe that the muslim religion (muhammad) says:

 

Convert the infidels or destroy them.

 

along those same lines the Christian religion (God) says:

 

Convert the infidels or I will destroy them.

 

How different are the faiths and if they both offer the same options, just different methods, why is one better or more RIGHT than the other? I guess it is just what YOU (the general you) believe, or even more importantly, the tradition in which you were raised.

 

The difference is that a righteous, holy and perfect God is the one doing the executing and judging in Christianity. You may not find that a significant difference. I do. To me, it's a huge difference.

 

Jesus wants true followers, not converts at the end of a sword. I don't have time, nor does it seem necessary, to point out doctrinal differences in two religions, one teaching love and the other teaching world domination by conversion or death.

Aren't we at war killing our enemies and not loving them? Just as the Radical muslims are at war with and killing their enemies and not loving them? Again, explain the difference.

 

I guess you can be like the kids at my school and say "well they hit ME first."

 

Are you making the assertion that all American are Christians or am I missing something?

The difference is that a righteous, holy and perfect God is the one doing the executing and judging in Christianity. You may not find that a significant difference. I do. To me, it's a huge difference.

 

Jesus wants true followers, not converts at the end of a sword. I don't have time, nor does it seem necessary, to point out doctrinal differences in two religions, one teaching love and the other teaching world domination by conversion or death.

 

I appreciate this post. Thanks 5wide. While we both could go on and on to point out the doctrinal differences in these two religions it seems more than apparent that doctrine does not matter to some . . . we would be wasting our breath or even worse . . . (I think the bible calls it casting pearls before swine;))

Are you making the assertion that all American are Christians or am I missing something?

 

The assertion I am making, goes along with what has been posted on the thread . . .

 

How are our actions now different from Al Quada? We see them as our enemy so we kill them before they kill us.

 

And I think it is naive to suggest that there aren't religious over-under, whatever, tones in this war. It is evident on this message board.

 

We are right, they are wrong, they should die.

 

When religion becomes about who is wrong or right it becomes dangerous.

The assertion I am making, goes along with what has been posted on the thread . . .

 

Not really, but...

 

My original post pointed out that muslims are commanded by the Koran to convert or kill. Period. The references to Christianity came later, from elsewhere and I responded to show the differences.

 

How are our actions now different from Al Quada? We see them as our enemy so we kill them before they kill us.

 

You see no difference in a planned terrorist attack on innocent civilians and a retaliation to catch the terrorists. :eek:

 

And I think it is naive to suggest that there aren't religious over-under, whatever, tones in this war. It is evident on this message board.

 

Any war against Islamic funamentalists would have to have a religion tone to it, wouldn't it? I mean, that's the primary reason they're fighting.

 

We are right, they are wrong, they should die.

 

When religion becomes about who is wrong or right it becomes dangerous.

 

This is not a religious, Christian vs. Muslim, crusade from America's standpoint. We, America, were attacked and we retaliated. Whether you agree with how America retaliated is your own personal opinion and a different debate...however, in the simplest of ways this is no different than Japan bombing Pearl Harbor. We retaliated then and it wasn't Christians vs. Japan.

Thousands? Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

No, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our resources have not been overextended in the least. Showing compromise is not the answer against radicals. This is the reason it has been our national policy not to negotiate with terrorist for decades. Negotiation only leads to more terrorism.

 

I could probably post 20 articles with quotes from U.S. military officials disputing your statement that "our resources have not been overextended in the least". Standards for military recruiting have been lowered, career officers are leaving the military in droves, and we must rely more and more on what are essentially mercenaries in Iraq to support operations there. And we are flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet in a country that will probably never be able to manage its own affairs, while our deficit and the debt explodes. Yeah, we're not overextended.

Off set, in my mind, by the thousands of innocent lives of Iraqi citizens killed over the course of this war, and the apparently less important lives of our soldiers.

 

And you total up about a month's worth of abortions. Remember there have been more babies aborted in this country than Hitler had killed in the Holocaust.

 

And we are sickened by Hitler's actions and uphold the actions of this country.

And you wonder why Catholics have a difficult time with you. :lol:

 

Very nice and very funny.

I look forward to having many laughs with my Christian brothers of the Catholic denomination in heaven.:thumb:

Dude you are seriously starting to weird me out!

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been reading your posts over the last few weeks and gone "yep, that's almost exactly what I think." This is getting creepy. :creepy: :thumb:

 

Scary part is that I have the same thing going on.

 

 

But mine is with Gametime.:scared::eek:

I wasn't trying to fire you up and I apologize if I did. I can appreciate your point of view. I just happen to be devoted to my political party ( Dem) and will continue.

 

So, your opinion is that the Dem candidate is ALWAYS the best candidate whether they are the best candidate or not?

The World Trade Center bombing was done weeks into Bill Clinton's first term ... 9/11 came more than eight years later. Yet Clinton never gets any credit for capturing and convicting the perpetrators and the fact that there wasn't another attack for the rest of his two terms.

 

When we go eight-plus years without an attack after 9/11, I'll give Bush similar credit.

 

Does the attack on the USS Cole in October of his last term not count?

How about the attacks on the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?

Or on June 25, 1996, a truck bomb exploded near the United States’ Military Barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

 

Even though these did not happen in the US three of them were on soverign property of the US and the fourth was a US military base. My point with this is, if Clinton had done anything more than blow up an aspirin factory maybe these attacks would not have escalated to 9/11.

 

There is plenty ofblame for both sides politically for where we are today. The biggest difference I see between the last two Presidents is that one took action while one took a cigar in the oval office.

Does the attack on the USS Cole in October of his last term not count?

How about the attacks on the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?

Or on June 25, 1996, a truck bomb exploded near the United States’ Military Barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

 

Even though these did not happen in the US three of them were on soverign property of the US and the fourth was a US military base.

You might want to read some earlier posts when that topic was discussed. Let's be honest ... we can't be expected to be impregnable with our facilities in other countries.

 

And ... the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut during Reagan's term, but I never hear those from your side hammer him on that like they do Clinton.

My point with this is, if Clinton had done anything more than blow up an aspirin factory maybe these attacks would not have escalated to 9/11.

Best I recall, your side hammered him for it and accused him of trying to deflect attention from Monicagate.

There is plenty ofblame for both sides politically for where we are today. The biggest difference I see between the last two Presidents is that one took action while one took a cigar in the oval office.

And which right-wing site did you get that one from?