That girl and so many others abused by "muslims" will be unevenged and unintervened by the west because of oil IMO.

The price of that oil ?

Blinding political correctness and Forty pieces of silver......

MEDC - let's be upfront here, okay? I didn't bring the issue of heaven or he11 into this discussion, nor did I bring it in reference to this girl, or any of thousands dieing around the world at the hands of "Islam" or any other group or individual.

Tucktummy raised an issue that IS germane, however, if one believes in a life after death.

I'm a little surprised by your post however. "My view" of Christianity is the same view of salvation that all Christians hold and is NOT "just my opinion" or "just my view." I would think that it is your view also, though only you can truly answer that question.

So are you saying that NO talking about HOW one answers the question of how one is in heaven following death is "appropriate," especially when someone else raises the question and all I am attempting to do is to answer the question of HOW, so that there can be real hope and not just wishful thinking?




Perhaps that is how you and some other may see it. But I've said nothing "less than positive" about this young girl and have acknowledged that she was a tragic victim of inhumanity to others by the zealots in her faith and family. The question Tucktummy posed had nothing to with her life or death, it had to do with what happens AFTER death for ANYONE. What would be your answer to that question, MEDC?



MEDC, this is disgusting, to say nothing of being a DJ. What is YOUR "slant" on what happens after death? What is YOUR "slant" on how a person is saved and can be in heaven?
Shall we get into an argument about "slants" of view? I don't think so, nor do I think it's appropriate for you to inject that into this thread to shut up discussion of a legitmate question.

So let's make it very simple, MEDC, just how many ways ARE there for someone to "be in heaven" following their death, in YOUR opinion and view? That is a simple, honest, straightforward, question and NOT an "angry retort." Since tone is difficult to "read" in a post, I just want to clarify that I ask that in humbleness and sincerity to clarify just what YOUR view is and how it might be different from "my" view.

thank you for proving my point FH.

Bob, just HOW should the "west" avenge this girl's death and/or just HOW should the "west" intervene in the religious practices of that area, or any area of the world?

What does oil have to with Darfur, Afghanistan, etc.?

Or are you saying that "liberal politicians" don't have the backbone to endure military action and the inevitable "causualty counts" as the "price to pay" for intervening and avenging? Is this another way of saying some politicians in the West want to "stick their head in the sand and hope that radical Islamists will just go away and not spread their hatred around the world?"

Your statement is very unclear and, on the surface, seems to lay the blame for these sorts of killings at the feet of a "do nothing West" rather than on the indigenous people and THEIR tolerance and acceptance of this sort of behavior.

That's the same behavior that resulted in their "jihad" against the West, and it has NOTHING to do with oil and everything to do with imposing their religious radicalism on everyone else, and KILLING those those who do not "comply." Stone young girls, strap bombs to young children, send out everyone else to blow up whomever they wish while they hide safely in caves. Just HOW is any of this the FAULT of the "West," oil or no oil?

You are quite welcome.

And thank you MEDC for proving my point. You want to be an attack dog but you don't want to answer legitimate questions. I guess that's similar to the RCC not wanting to answer questions about "errant priests" who abuse what God has said. What IS it, MEDC, that you have against the Gospel Message?

run with this all you want FH.... see if you can find someone to take the bait to discuss your views of heaven and ****** on a thread that was started to discuss what happend to a poor child... who, IMO, is "home" with the Lord.... no matter what your myopic views of heaven are.

Find some other fish willing to take your hook FH.... this one has seen this bait one too many times to get a hook in my mouth. Not biting FH.

See ya.

Thank you for answer my question. You don't believe that that the only way to heaven is THROUGH Jesus Christ. A bit wordy of a reply, but at least you finally answered the question, "IMO, (she) is "home" with the Lord.... no matter what your myopic views of heaven are. "

I know it won't mean anything to you, but your claim that this thread was "a thread that was started to discuss what happend to a poor child" was CHANGED by the very first post response of Tucktummy's comment:


SHE found that the idea that this girl might not be in heaven to be MORE disturbing than her being stoned to death by ISLAMISTS. I sought more clarification from her since her comment seemed to be focused on the "Christian view" of entry into heaven.




Typical of bombthrowers, MEDC. And what I have come to expect from you. Cut and run. Bombast and no substance. Opinions and no discussion. MEDC is right and everyone else is wrong who might happen to, "shudder," disagree with MEDC's "view." Here you are again, "saving" everyone else from a discussion that YOU find "offensive." You are on the slippery slope of censorship MEDC, showing the untruth of your claims on Mimi's thread yesterday.

Are you, or are you not, a Christian, MEDC? Do you, or do you not, believe that the only way to be saved and have a future in heaven is THROUGH Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ ALONE?

If not, why not simply take off the sheep's skin and let everyone see the real you?

Nope... just trying to save YOU from looking like the one hit wonder that you have become on this site FH.... you really have no idea how you are perceived by many here do you FH??? Some people have actually called you nuts... I am beginning to wonder if they are in fact right.

My views of heaven and Christianity FH do not need to be shared with the likes of you FH. Now... I am off to worship... in a church... hmmm, you know what a church is don't you FH... that is the place that many Christian's go to have fellowship with their brothers.... oh, that's right, you are church of one.

Bombs away.

FH - I just wonder if sometimes God makes an exception to the rule?

I don't expect you know the answer and I never meant to provoke a discussion.

Bob, just HOW should the "west" avenge this girl's death and/or just HOW should the "west" intervene in the religious practices of that area, or any area of the world?

"Avenge" was my emotional response. I have studied opinions as to the circumstances under which "the west" will intervene in "evil" regimes on behalf of "their subjects".

That is : when it serves their own purpose so to do. I am saying only that we in the west rage against such evil as this stoning but our overnments will only respond if it serves their purpose economically.


What does oil have to with Darfur, Afghanistan, etc.?

Nothing. There is nothing in DRC, Rwanda, Zimabwe or elsewhere in the shocking trouble spots in Africa for example. If there WAS oil, and supplies were threatened you can bet you rlife we'd be there like a rat on a cheeto

Or are you saying that "liberal politicians" don't have the backbone to endure military action and the inevitable "causualty counts" as the "price to pay" for intervening and avenging? Is this another way of saying some politicians in the West want to "stick their head in the sand and hope that radical Islamists will just go away and not spread their hatred around the world?"

yes. But not only liberal politicians. Even conservative governments like the US and UK do nothing but bark where trade or oil issues might be affected

Your statement is very unclear and, on the surface, seems to lay the blame for these sorts of killings at the feet of a "do nothing West" rather than on the indigenous people and THEIR tolerance and acceptance of this sort of behavior.

The blame lies with Islam and its adherents. But for evil to prosper requires only that good men do nothing

That's the same behavior that resulted in their "jihad" against the West, and it has NOTHING to do with oil and everything to do with imposing their religious radicalism on everyone else, and KILLING those those who do not "comply." Stone young girls, strap bombs to young children, send out everyone else to blow up whomever they wish while they hide safely in caves. Just HOW is any of this the FAULT of the "West," oil or no oil?

amzingly I agree with you.Its not our fault. I would only add that the arabs know they have the west by the balls while they supply 82 % of worlds oil. Saudia Arabia and iran would not DARE be so agressive to the west if we did not need their oil so desperately IMO.

Without our dependence on their oil, the Middle East would be just a nice place to dive, with a load of history to photograph IMO.

Thats why we will continue to see horrors like this baby being brutalised by a mediaeval culture and will do NOTHING

A fair question, TT. I believe that God does what you could call "make an exception" to the rule. That "exception" happens before the age of accountability, whenever that may occur for each individual.

I understand your emotional response. It's very hard to see something as unjust as a stoning of a young girl and NOT have an emotional response. I think of Jesus' response to the "outraged" Jews who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. BTW, where was the man who was involved with this young girl? What was his fate?

I also understand your frustration about the response, or more specifically the lack of physical intervention, on the part of other nations. This is not, however, solely a "problem" of the "West." What other countries don't respond as you think the response should be? I'd venture it's all, or pretty close to all, of the other countries of the world.




I'm not "buying" the "oil is the defining issue" argument. Again, if these atrocities are so bad, why are few, if any, countries not leaping to the military aid of the "oppressed?" I think you touched on a bit and I also believe that there is more to it than just "economic interest."




I would submit that Afghanistan and Iraq show bit more that JUST concern over oil supplies. While petroleum and/or trade may be a factor at times, it is not the primary factor, imho.




There is no question about your concluding sentence. That is a truth. One question that I would have, not necessarily to you but more in a rhetorical sense, is WHERE are the Muslims in the UK, the USA, France, Spain, Germany, etc. and their LACK of condemnation of these actions, of which the stoning of this young girl is but the latest atrocity perpetrated in the name of their religion?

Where are the "human rights" people? The "feminists?" The "pacifists" who don't think any military intervention is justified for ANY reason?




I understand what you are saying, but I have a different perspective on it. We DO (as do all industrialized countries) have a dependence on oil, everything from plastics to fuel.

But the REASON that those countries "take advantage" of the USA, Great Britian, etc., is that they know we are NOT Imperialistic, whereas they are and seek to impose that Imperialism through Islam.

Let's face it, IF the USA wanted to be Imperialistic, it could do so. But ours is NOT a history of Imperialism, despite what could be considered some acts of Imperialism (beginning with conquering the native Indian tribes in America). We conquered Japan and Germany, as two prime examples, rebuilt the countries, and LEFT them to self-governance. It is because the countries of the West are primarily NOT imperialist in nature or outlook that these other countries can "thumb their collective noses" at anyone, and do so with relative impunity. How many UN resolutions, for example, did 'ol Saddam simply ignore in the knowledge that the UN "had no balls to back up it's words?"

The other issue is perhaps a bit more endemic to the USA, but may also apply to the UK. The refrain most often heard over the years is "we can't be the 'policeman' of the world." Interpretation: don't get involved. Interpretation: Appeasement rather than confrontation.

History SHOULD teach us the truth of your statement; "for evil to prosper requires only that good men do nothing." Certainly the UK should know that, from it's experience in WW II. Certainly the USA should know that from it's experience with Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks.

But war IS he11, and war does take lives. The questions are "what IS 'worth fighting for" and "what diseases are best tackled before they become an epidemic?"

No one in their right mind WANTS war just for the sake of war, least of all the professional soldiers. But we HAVE soldiers because there ARE others who would seek to take what we hold most dear by force. They are not content to "live and let live." Sooner or later the "Sudatenland" expands as the hunger is not satisfied. This "war" is being forced upon the world by the Islamic radicals and supported by the Islamists around the world who do not stand up and say "no." It is allowed to grow and become a very real threat to the rest of the world through the "indigestion" that the mere thought of war gives to many. Those "types" would rather bury their heads in the sand and hope that the extremists stay away from THEM.

In the past, there was some "sense" to that in that many countries were separated by vast oceans. Today, the oceanic barriers are no defense against threats that can easily cross the oceans in a relatively short time.

So we find ourselves in agreement. Something SHOULD be done. But I also suspect that we are in the "minority" that thinks there ARE some things "worth fighting for."

Nope, you don't have to MEDC. I already know you won't anyway. It IS interesting, however, that you seem perfectly comfortable with attempting to shove YOUR views down my throat. Why is that, MEDC?

If you want to "take on" my "views" that are founded in the Word of God, be my guest. That is precisely why I asked you to define your view as to how anyone is saved. It's NOT "my opinion" or "your opinion," it's what does the Word of God say REGARDLESS of any man's opinion.

But maybe that IS the problem. What IS your opinion of the Word of God? Suggestions or commands? Truth or falsehood?

You want to attack me and call me crazy, be my guest. But do, as a professing believer, have the courtesy and honesty to attack with the Scripture and not just your opinion. Or is it the fact that Scripture clearly teaches that there is ONLY one way to heaven, and that one way is Jesus Christ, that you don't like? Is that what defines your perceptions and your judgment of someone being "nuts?"

WHERE are the Muslims in the UK, the USA, France, Spain, Germany, etc. and their LACK of condemnation of these actions, of which the stoning of this young girl is but the latest atrocity perpetrated in the name of their religion?

It is this issue that sickens me above all else in my PC-choked country.

When anyone dares to accuse " Muslims" or "islam" of intolerance or atrocity, the authorites and media tut-tut and tell us that "its a small number of radical nutcases who do these acts". Maybe, but the tacit support for them is very widespread according to polls for the BBC and MORI in Britain.

Islam is a theo-imperialist dogma for fact, and even moderate muslims in the UK do not hide a hope that sharia law will run Britain in the future and that the star and crescent will fly over our parliament.

I frequent a Muslim discussion forum to find out more. When I mention this issue I get "Catholic priests abusing children" thrown in my face.

"where were YOU when your church did that?".

Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims are about as close in dogma as catholics and protestants.

It is hard to answer other than to say that child abuse is not actually supported by our Scripture unlike honour killings.

That actually does say a lot, doesn't it?

Two books that followers (or at least "true believers") follow. The contents of those books dose present a stark dissimilarity.

So, we are faced with the dilemna of looking at the facts and then choosing to act on them or not to act on them. It would seem "safe" to assume that the two books COULD both be wrong, but that that they can't both be right.

On the national level, however, the question is even more basic to the survival of "freedom" and of "freedom of choice." One way tolerates divergent opinions without the threat of death and one way is totally intollerant of any opinion other than Sharia Law.

When will freedom loving peoples worldwide "wake up" and realize that the tomorrow that may be will be shaped in large part by taking a stance FOR freedom and against those who would seek to end freedom other than their definition of it?

Bob:


That one is easy.

Priests do not sexually abuse children in the name of God and brag about it. Priests do not encourage children to strap on explosives and then blow up unbelievers and believers alike to show their faith. Priests do not hide behind scripture to justify their immoral, illegal and disgusting acts against children when they ignore the teachings of their God, they just eventually go to HeII because of their perversions.

Larry

Thanks Bob P and FH and Larry for your civil discussion involving implications of such a devastating topic.

I've gleaned much insight to add to my expanding world views. Amazing, Believer and TT, how this evolved from your original post..."not for normal people".

I wish love was simple.

Ace

I don't think it's as simples "what is worth fighting for" and what isn't. The problem is that what we're fighting against isn't something that can be eradicated through violence unless you're willing to wipe out millions of people.

It's relatively easy to conquer a government (such as the government of Iraq) for us these days but what's much, much harder is to change people's minds and ideas. One way, for sure, is to kill them. A dead person doesn't think any more but then all that happens is all the other people who believe consider that person a martyr and believe even more strongly.

How can you win against a faith? It didn't work against Christianity - and it currently isn't working for the moslem extremists who hate the west. I don't see how it can work against Islam.

Sometimes declaring war against something just doesn't fix the problem.

Our whole problem in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't that we don't know how to conquer a government or even set up a new one. Our whole problem is that there are 3 warring factions of stringent belief and no one has found a good way to change how someone thinks or believes yet. Violence hasn't worked. As soon as you kill one makeshift army of zealots, a bunch more rise up to take its place. It seems the more you kill - the more you have to kill because the way the system (religion) works is that people who die defending it are revered as martyrs.

Wasn't Saddam Hussien's regime sending payments to the families of suicide bombers who went into Israel before we invaded? For every one we kill, 10 more stand up to fight in their names.

How do you fight against an idea or belief? Kill as many as you can doesn't seem to work and, at what point do you have to stop and wonder if you've just slipped into evil yourself? When it's 100,000? 1,000,000? 1,000,000,000?

Heck, most all of us would agree that genocide is an atrocity. Religiocide would be genocide on an even grander, bloodier scale.


Mys

Ya'll know I'm an athiest but I have read some Bible stories.

It's situations like this mess that makes you understand why a Deity might just decide to build an Ark and have a nice big flood -- to start over. Isn't it?

Mys

It's really too bad that God didn't give us the magic eight ball rather than the Bible, or Koran, or Holy Book X. Unfortunately, I don't read hebrew, greek, or any of the languages the early texts were written in and even if I did, the bible still address different issues in different sections that can be read in different ways.

For example, many "strict interpretationists" who apparently think that God's voice inspired their favorite translation (KJV for example) suddenly find themselves talking about context of passage when confronted with the blasphemy challenge. http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/. After all, possible redemption is a key part of growing the faith and to think that there is in fact an unforgivable sin suddenly has them struggling to find context.

Really, a divine magic 8 ball would have made all this much clearer. Then we could be certain those cretins were roasting in ****** for stoning that poor girl rather than roasting marshmallows in camp heaven.