Utah Gunman was Bosnian Muslim Refugee

[forrestkc]

And you just fell into a trap, that was beautifully set if I might add.

I thought the majority of Muslims were peaceful...why is it then that a secular Arab who practically worshiped Hitler (the Baath party is the middle eastern Nazi party) was more tolerant than moderate Muslim governments (Jordan and Egypt), much less traditional Muslim governments?

Enjoy that one.

Also, I hope you know that I'm just trying to get at you on that one, I do respect your ideas.

On a serious note, I'm going to suggest you invest in some of the Caner brother's works, specifically Unveiling Islam.

Haha, . Actually, you have a point, secular regimes like Saddam's, who by all indications was probably an atheist, are the most tolerant regimes of other religious beliefs in the Muslim world, more fundamentalist regimes are the most intolerant. Islamic regimes are indeed intolerant of other religious beliefs. This brings to mind the Taliban destroying the ancient Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan.

[apothanein kerdos]

And you just fell into a trap, that was beautifully set if I might add.

I thought the majority of Muslims were peaceful...why is it then that a secular Arab who practically worshiped Hitler (the Baath party is the middle eastern Nazi party) was more tolerant than moderate Muslim governments (Jordan and Egypt), much less traditional Muslim governments?

Enjoy that one.

Also, I hope you know that I'm just trying to get at you on that one, I do respect your ideas.

On a serious note, I'm going to suggest you invest in some of the Caner brother's works, specifically Unveiling Islam.

Haha, . Actually, you have a point, secular regimes like Saddam's, who by all indications was probably an atheist, are the most tolerant regimes of other religious beliefs in the Muslim world, more fundamentalist regimes are the most intolerant. Islamic regimes are indeed intolerant of other religious beliefs. This brings to mind the Taliban destroying the ancient Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan.

Can we not talk about that? To this day, that just bothers me. I'm no fan of Buddhism, but they were an ancient work of art...

The truth that I'm hoping you see is, though, that Saddam WAS Hitler...he modeled everything after how Hitler ruled. Yet, a moderate, watered down Muslim regime that doesn't even follow strict Sharia law is more preferable to the guy who hat Hitler as his hero.

[forrestkc]

Sorry, forrest, it doesn't take an annointed prophet to know a phoney when one sees one.You have been on the opposite side of the fence in every thread you involve yourself in regading pertinant Christian beliefs and issues. And you outright condemn and try to smear any media, not even knowing the writer of the articles or their personal background, to push your secular agenda. This makes you the hypocrit and bigot that you have accused others of. And when you are wrong, you resort to name calling or changing the subject, whatever.

Then it should show in what you write instead of all your antiChristian, liberal propaganda that you have brought into this forum. Anyone can say they have read the Bible. But by their fruits ye shall know them. Even Satan knows what is in the Bible. From all appearances, you know absolutely nothing about New Testament Christianity for one who claims to have read the Bible, or what is going on around the world insofar as it concerns the church of Jesus Christ, but yet you have the audacity to come here and defend any issue you can find and go against the Word of God.

Who have I called names on here?

I don't see Christianity as hateful and intolerant. That is why I disagree with you quite often. In fact, I think that hate and intolerance are anti-Christian. I do not believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross just so the religious right could bastardize his teachings in their efforts to push a political platform. You see my Jesus did not have a message of hate. He did go around just bashing others. He was not mean spirited. So I suppose we just look at scripture from different viewpoints.

[forrestkc]

Can we not talk about that? To this day, that just bothers me. I'm no fan of Buddhism, but they were an ancient work of art...

The truth that I'm hoping you see is, though, that Saddam WAS Hitler...he modeled everything after how Hitler ruled. Yet, a moderate, watered down Muslim regime that doesn't even follow strict Sharia law is more preferable to the guy who hat Hitler as his hero.

I would not say that Saddam was Hitler. I mean, while Hitler was your first rate, power hungry, evil dictator, Saddam, was a third rate, power hungry, evil dictator. I have always argued that a third rate secular dictator like Saddam is preferable to a radical Islamist regime. In fact, that was one of the main reasons I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea from the start. As far as keeping radical Islam under control, it takes a murderous dictator like Saddam was.

However, all that said, I still do not think that all Muslims are indecent and unconscionable people.

[apothanein kerdos]

Can we not talk about that? To this day, that just bothers me. I'm no fan of Buddhism, but they were an ancient work of art...

The truth that I'm hoping you see is, though, that Saddam WAS Hitler...he modeled everything after how Hitler ruled. Yet, a moderate, watered down Muslim regime that doesn't even follow strict Sharia law is more preferable to the guy who hat Hitler as his hero.

I would not say that Saddam was Hitler. I mean, while Hitler was your first rate, power hungry, evil dictator, Saddam, was a third rate, power hungry, evil dictator. I have always argued that a third rate secular dictator like Saddam is preferable to a radical Islamist regime. In fact, that was one of the main reasons I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea from the start. As far as keeping radical Islam under control, it takes a murderous dictator like Saddam was.

However, all that said, I still do not think that all Muslims are indecent and unconscionable people.

Nor do I. But true Qu'ran following Muslims are indecent and willing to kill you if you disagree with them.

[forrestkc]

Nor do I. But true Qu'ran following Muslims are indecent and willing to kill you if you disagree with them.

That may well be true. I have no plans to read the Koran though. I have a PERL book in my office that has been sitting there for me to read for at least 6 months now. I would be willing to guess that the Koran would even be a drier read than even a book on PERL, and at least PERL would be another language I could add to my resume.

[apothanein kerdos]

Nor do I. But true Qu'ran following Muslims are indecent and willing to kill you if you disagree with them.

That may well be true. I have no plans to read the Koran though. I have a PERL book in my office that has been sitting there for me to read for at least 6 months now. I would be willing to guess that the Koran would even be a drier read than even a book on PERL, and at least PERL would be another language I could add to my resume.

Actually, the Qu'ran isn't that big. It doesn't take much to read...and I'll add, it's a really good literary piece. Whenever you get the chance, I'd highly suggest you read it.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Tmrfiles: You said

This makes you the hypocrit and bigot that you have accused others of. And when you are wrong, you resort to name calling or changing the subject, whatever.

I took that to mean you were accusing Forrestkc of calling people names, maybe I'm not reading it right?

There is only one way to look at the teachings of Jesus in New Testament Christianity, and it is not your way or the liberal way.

To me, that is a very dangerous thing to say. I would argue that yes, there is just one correct way to look at the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, but there are many ways people look at His teachings and interpret it. If there was just one way to look at the bible's teachings, there would not be so many different denominations of the Christian church. If there was just one way to look at the teachings of the bible and the New Testament, why does this forum itself have boards titled "Doctrinal Questions" and "Study Group"? If there was just one way to look at the teachings of Jesus, there would be no need to be arguing in the first place, because everyone would be on the same page. It is obvious to me that everyone here is NOT on the same page, and there are many ways people look at the teachings of Jesus, even if there is just one correct way to view it. You are insinuating that you know the right way to look at Jesus' teachings, and that Forrest's way of looking at Jesus' teachings is wrong. You may think you have it all completely figured out, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are completely along the same lines as of God's intentions with the bible.

The reason this is dangerous thinking in my mind, is that because you feel you have it all figured out, those who don't agree with you must be wrong. Because you think that you are along the same of thought as God intended with the bible, you are speaking "the" true word of God. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with you is speaking out against the true word of God. It leads to demonization of people with different interpretations than your own, and creates an environment in which is is much easier to hate. You may feel that Forrest is misguided, but that doesn't mean he is intentionally going counter to the word of God. Here are a few of your quoted postings that make me feel you are demonizing Forrest for his beliefs which are contrary to yours:

You have been on the opposite side of the fence in every thread you involve yourself in regading pertinant Christian beliefs and issues.

And you outright condemn and try to smear any media, not even knowing the writer of the articles or their personal background, to push your secular agenda.

This makes you the hypocrit and bigot that you have accused others of.

Then it should show in what you write instead of all your antiChristian, liberal propaganda that you have brought into this forum.

From all appearances, you know absolutely nothing about New Testament Christianity for one who claims to have read the Bible, or what is going on around the world insofar as it concerns the church of Jesus Christ, but yet you have the audacity to come here and defend any issue you can find and go against the Word of God.

You are quite the drama king, forrest.... and now you are playing Mr. innocent... again.

No one has ever implied what you are writing here, and this is just another example of your liberal anti-Christian slant

Because a Bible believing Christian defends the Word of God, speaks out against sin, as Jesus and the Apostles did, you call that bashing others and being intolerant.

...and this is only on page 7 alone. You aren't debating anymore, you are mudslinging and accusing Forrest of not being a true Christian for disagreeing with you on this topic. Instead of doing this, perhaps a better approach would be to figure out WHY Forrest has different beliefs, not to brush him off as having an "anti-christian liberal agenda".

Now, I agree with Forrest on quite a few of his stances here on these boards, and he usually is much more elloquent than I am in stating his beliefs with factual evidence and logic. One thing that I have noticed and respected is his ability to remain rational in the face of adversity to his beliefs, and avoid (for the most part) losing his temper and resorting to name calling.

A.K. is another example of someone I respect on these boards, even though I disagree with many of (his?) beliefs. He (usually) doesn't resort to name calling or accusations when showing his stance, and typically backs up his ideas with some form of evidence. To me, that is the correct way to debate.

The issue I have with your form of debate, is that you are assuming from the start that you know how the Bible is to be read, therefore you are "right" from the get go. Because you allign yourself with "truth", there can be no arguing with you, because if I would argue with you, I would be arguing against "the word of God"!! See how unfair that is? To assume you have all the answers as to what God truly means from the teachings of the Bible is (in my humble opinion) a very narrow-minded approach to the way things work in this life.

My stance is that there are plenty of level-headed moderate muslims out there who practice the faith of Islam the way they believe it should be followed, and lead peaceful lives. There are also many radical muslims out there who practice the faith the way they believe it should be followed, and lead violent lives. The arguements I see on these boards are that because one group of muslims back themselves up with the Qu'ran to make violence justified, all muslims must be violent and radical people's at heart. This is a stereotypical arguement that is unfair to many, many muslims, because I'm sure if you talked to a muslim living in peace somewhere, he/she would argue to you that the Qu'ran advocates peace more than violence, and only advocates violence when it is against evil etc.

It is the same with Christianity; most of us here are Christian, but we interpret our faith to mean somewhat different things from time to time. There was a time in our history that many Christians interpreted the Bible to mean that slavery was allowed and acceptable, while today we interpret the Bible to mean slavery was just another word for "servant" or "employee". Some radical fundamental Christians might latch on to "eye for an eye", and use that to justify violent vengeance towards fellow men, while other more moderate Christians may turn to Jesus' passage of "turning the other cheek" as a means to advocate non-violence. Who is to judge another based on their specific interpretation of the Bible? God, that's who. No one else, just God, because God is the ONLY one who knows exactly what he means from the bible, we are merely in a continuous struggle to learn His work fully.

[Guest levotb]

Why hasn't anyone on this blog suggested that this mass murdering Muslim punk's family be summarily deported for bringing a mass murderer son onto our shores? I say, DEPORT HIS ENTIRE FAMILY! This was a hate crime, pure and simple. He targeted white Americans.

I have another question? Has the FBI bugged all mosques in the U.S., particularly those in Deaborn, Michigan? IS ANYBODY LISTENING?

The idiot Salt Lake left-wing mayor should be recalled for his efforts to turn this mass murder into an anti-White American issue.

And furthermore, how many Bosnian and other Muslim "immigrants" were let into the U.S. by Bill Clinton and more recently, G.W. Bush? This stinks to high heaven. I want political heads to roll. Were these Bosnian Muslims passed through by the USCIS and EOIR?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Why hasn't anyone on this blog suggested that this mass murdering Muslim punk's family be summarily deported for bringing a mass murderer son onto our shores? I say, DEPORT HIS ENTIRE FAMILY! This was a hate crime, pure and simple. He targeted white Americans.

Cause families are always to blame for crime in this country. While we're at it, let's incarcerate everyone who has a family member who commited a crime in this country!

I have another question? Has the FBI bugged all mosques in the U.S., particularly those in Deaborn, Michigan? IS ANYBODY LISTENING?

I doubt the FBI has done that. I would have a serious issue with the FBI if they were doing something like that.

The idiot Salt Lake left-wing mayor should be recalled for his efforts to turn this mass murder into an anti-White American issue.

And furthermore, how many Bosnian and other Muslim "immigrants" were let into the U.S. by Bill Clinton and more recently, G.W. Bush? This stinks to high heaven. I want political heads to roll. Were these Bosnian Muslims passed through by the USCIS and EOIR?

Last I checked immigrants were still allowed to enter the good ole U S of A. Since this is your first post, I'll do my best to ignore some of the hatred you just exhibited