The best, and surest, way to make peace is to remove those who would make war.
toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
elohiym
Well-known member
No need to. Amazon will cease to exist when Christ comes...
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
A Soto Zen priest would have to write a book called Zen at War proving it.
Wow! Go figure. There is such a book, and I think this is only the second time I've mentioned it to you on this forum. Oh well, third times the charm?
Considering so many refuse to love their neighbor, it's apparently the only way to establish peace.
elohiym
Well-known member
Impossible. The carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to the law of God. Therefore, an unbeliever cannot obey the command to love his neighbor. Not possible.
No! I dread the day.
Am 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
You simply are attacking me for my religious beliefs, and accuse me of being immoral when I am only being frank and factual. It would be immoral for me to sugar coat the truth.
I can. Your post.
MrRadish
New member
Some of its adherents were complicit, perhaps (although there was also Buddhist resistance to the movement) but there's a big difference between that and your assertion that "Imperial Japan was driven by Buddhism".
So there!
I am rubber, you are glue, everything bounces off me and sticks to you.
So ner ner ner.
a) State Shinto and Zen Buddhism come from completely different origins and are completely seperate religions - especially after shinbutsu bunri in 1868.
b) The main motivation for the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't religious, it was political and economic.
c) Even the religious dimension to it (fervent nationalism and devotion to the Emperor) had been established for political reasons mere decades before, and, again, was unrelated to Buddhism.
Obviously I haven't read the book yet - it is almost as long as an AMR post, after all - but I get the impression that the book argues that quite a few Japanese Zen Buddhists sided with their country against the US. Still doesn't really justify called Buddhism the driving force behind Pearl Harbour, does it?
Just trying to bring my mind closer to my sole.
lain:
elohiym
Well-known member
So the motivation for kamikaze pilots was political and economic, but not religious? :think: News to me. I thought they were simply brainwashed religious fanatics. :idunno:
I counter then...
The main motivation for the attack on 911 wasn't religious, it was political and economic.
lain:Motives for 911 attack.
Okay. A driving force. The other was Shinto. So religious fanaticism was the driving force...and we're back to my original point after all the nitpicking and hair splitting. :sigh:
Skavau
New member
Again, I have no reason to believe this. Certainly speaks for nothing in my life, or anyone I've interacted with. You have certainly no way of knowing it beyond presuming it to be so.elohiym said:
You dread the day - but consider it righteous?
And no, I am not attacking you for your religious beliefs. I consider the entire notion of vicarious redemption and the prospect of millions of people vanquishing in hellfire for what they could not believe as profoundly immoral.
What was immoral about my post?
elohiym
Well-known member
Are you perfect?
I haven't presumed anything.
I dread someone being put to death for murder, but consider it just. Don't you?
You just contradicted yourself.
See above. Implying God is immoral, whether you believe in him or not, is immoral.
Skavau, you have set yourself in opposition to a belief you are completely, and I mean completely, ignorant of. It's pretty ridiculous, from my perspective, and profoundly sad because I don't want you to perish.
MrRadish
New member
The kamikaze thing came a lot later, right near the end of the war, and was more about honour, nationalism and desperation than religion. Pearl Harbour was something different.
If you presume that suicide attacks are usually inspired by brainwashed fanaticism you might as well say that every soldier that goes on a dangerous mission is a brainwashed fanatic. 0% chance of survival, 1% chance of survival, what's the difference?
I counter then...
The main motivation for the attack on 911 wasn't religious, it was political and economic.
Couldn't agree more. Sociopolitical anger about America and the West's global influence and perceived hypocrisy and greed, manifested through religious furore. Like religious wars throughout history, it wasn't really about religion.
Well, no. I don't think Buddhism or Shinto were the driving forces, except inasmuch as Shinto was being used as an amplifier of nationalist, pro-Imperial sentiments the government was trying to engender in the population. But given that this movement came from the government, it obviously wasn't the driving force.
Skavau
New member
No. Whether or not I am perfect has nothing to do with whether one or not can love one's neighbour.elohiym said:
You presume - through your beliefs that people of an unsaved nature (shall we say?) or an unbeliever cannot love their neighbour.
Whether or not someone is put to death for murder has little in comparison as to whether someone is destroyed and then tortured for eternity purely for thought-crime.
I criticise your religious beliefs and label them immoral.
This is certainly what you believe. I do not. I myself am criticising a concept, a pseudo-father figure held to be true by other people.
What have I said regarding it that was wrong? So far you've not criticised my analysis, merely insisted that it was righteous.
And on that note, it is after all as if what I originally said was so. You believe that people will perish and suffer for what they think. This is righteous stuff, eh?
I was waiting for this. Union people are beginning to organize in their refusal to build the Ground Zero mosque. This Sharia mosque expressing a complete lack of sensitivity can easily lead to violence.
http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750
http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750
Of course. You can't find anything in the Bible that says we should force others to worship our way, but you think there are "implications."
Pope Paul VI made the Church's position clear:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Lumen Gentium
As usual, you're making it up as you go.
elohiym
Well-known member
The first suicide pilot crashed his plane at Pearl Harbor when he made a suicide attack on Kaneohe Naval Air Station. Perhaps they were not organized officially as Kamikaze then, but the ideology that drove the suicide was identical...and religious.
How you can separate out the religion from that is astounding to me. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
The difference is the suicidal ideology and religious motivation.
Read Zen at War and get back to me.
:e4e:
elohiym
Well-known member
Clear as mud.
There is no salvation outside the church. There is no salvation for those who reject Christ, as the Muslims do. Learn to read the Bible.
As usual, you are being obtuse.
Let me give you a preview of Sharia Law in the United States by looking at it in Britain
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/sharia_law_in_canada_and_brita.html
The spread of sharia law to the entire world is part of jihad. In Canada and Britain, jihad is advancing.
A June 2010 report entitled "Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights" begins with Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council Suhaib Hasan saying, "If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country [Great Britain] into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal." Furthermore, "once[,] just only once, if an adulterer is stoned[,] nobody is going to commit this crime at all," and finally, "[w]e want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
This perverse logic is illustrative of the brutality that is sharia law's penal code. The writers of the report have compiled evidence of "the discriminatory nature of these courts and make recommendations for curtailing sharia and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality, and are incompatible with human rights." The authors explain that "whilst there is an obvious difference between stoning a woman to death and denying her the right to divorce and child custody, the fundamentals and misogyny behind sharia's civil and penal codes are the same -- it is just a matter of degree. It is deceptive, or at best a mistake, not to see the civil aspects of sharia law as part of and an extension of its penal code."
It takes time. There is no rush. All that is important is the objective. Now with Obama as president and the country in recession and confusion, the time is ripe for a symbol of victory at Ground Zero.
From the Cordoba link
But, why not build it a little bit farther away? Let’s say a mile away?
No one should be driven out of his or her own neighborhood – especially for religious reasons. It is unconstitutional and un-American. Our congregation has been peacefully worshipping in this area for almost three decades. Our neighbors have encouraged us to remain here and the City and the Community Board have encouraged our continued presence here. The community has backed up their support by approving every resolution and challenge in the community center’s favor.
That is the problem. They take a simple opportunity to express human compassion and show some awareness of the Golden Rule as a demand to leave the area. Politics denies compassion. Is that what you admire?
I cannot respect people that are so cold and callous as to be incapable of moving further away in respect to what happened during 911. This simple act of human decency is worth a million Interfaith platitudes.
elohiym
Well-known member
So are you immoral more or less than 10% of the time? :think:
Seriously, it's not an presumption. For example, I don't need to presume that a serial killer, rapist, child molester, or thief cannot love his neighbor while doing those things. I can know it with certainty. Can't you? :idunno:
How can someone be destroyed and then tortured for eternity? :idunno: That doesn't make sense. Seriously, you are incredibly ignorant of what Christ taught, and this isn't the thread where I am going to teach you.
Should there be a consequence for my alleged immoral beliefs?
I don't think this is the thread to do that. Start a thread and post your assertion, and I'm sure you will get a variety of opinions from people who call themselves Christian.
You're telling me what I believe, even though I don't believe it.
Strange.
Have a chip on your shoulder? :idunno:
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Yes, its called shunning!
Religious fanatics are only effective when they have an audience! So long :wave:
Skavau
New member
I am sure my behaviour, as everyone else's behaviour can be described as - at times, anti-social. Falls short of respecting others as I would like to be.elohiym said:
You seem very adept at conflating things here. How exactly can you compare a serial killer, rapist, child molester or a thief with someone who simply holds a different metaphysical world view?
And on this note, I wouldn't say that I could know that any of those could not love or could not change through rehabiliation to love. To assume they could not ever love is indeed, and remains a presumption based upon their failings. People are not so easily defined as wholly good or wholly bad.
Many Christians, if not most Christians who repeat the inevitability of the unbelievers being destroyed, or repeat their insistence of some final judgment happen to also accept the notion of a literal hellfire. It is not my place to directly interpret the Bible and then assume it means that for every Christian. You know as well as I do the immense amount of interpretations of the Bible despite how infallible you may believe it to be.
No.
You've implied to me that my opposition to belief is going to cause me to perish. However, I suspect you would argue that my refusal (actual: inability) to accept JC as my personal lord and saviour is what would cause me to perish. But I would have to ask you: what would cause me to perish?
Barbarian observes:
Pope Paul VI made the Church's position clear:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Lumen Gentium
Only to the willfully ignorant.
I asked earlier for you to show me where it says we should force people to worship the right way, and you couldn't do it. Show me where it says that you have to be a Christian to be saved.
You don't know who can be saved, and your attempt to limit God in who He will save is completely futile.
Barbarian chuckles:
As usual, you're making it up as you go.
Funny how those who are, never realize it, um?
Pope Paul VI made the Church's position clear:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Lumen Gentium
Only to the willfully ignorant.
I asked earlier for you to show me where it says we should force people to worship the right way, and you couldn't do it. Show me where it says that you have to be a Christian to be saved.
You don't know who can be saved, and your attempt to limit God in who He will save is completely futile.
Barbarian chuckles:
As usual, you're making it up as you go.
Funny how those who are, never realize it, um?
A literal-minded approach to this situation won’t do. Legalism and the letter of the law go right out the window.
Given the presence of other mosques in Manhattan and the fact that this is a business, and not residential, area, the only logical conclusion is that the center’s location and inception was intended to incite controversy...and to serve as a very deliberate provocation.
This is not a matter of free expression or tolerance of religion. This is a matter of decency, decorum, and the self-restraint that should be expected within our freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. Saying that it’s your “right” isn’t good enough. Hiding behind that liberty is a despicable, slippery, cowardly way out of avoiding direct responsibility.
This is an insulting proposal made by either callous, tone deaf, and ignorant men, or an outrageous act of provocation imagined by smug monotheists almost as demented as the murderers who destroyed the towers.
Given the presence of other mosques in Manhattan and the fact that this is a business, and not residential, area, the only logical conclusion is that the center’s location and inception was intended to incite controversy...and to serve as a very deliberate provocation.
This is not a matter of free expression or tolerance of religion. This is a matter of decency, decorum, and the self-restraint that should be expected within our freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. Saying that it’s your “right” isn’t good enough. Hiding behind that liberty is a despicable, slippery, cowardly way out of avoiding direct responsibility.
This is an insulting proposal made by either callous, tone deaf, and ignorant men, or an outrageous act of provocation imagined by smug monotheists almost as demented as the murderers who destroyed the towers.
- Status