| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Glenn" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2008 07:00:49 PM |
| Object: |
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
* Army of God - An American anti-abortion terrorist group. [2]
* God's Army - A terrorist group in Myanmar.[2]
* Nagaland Rebels (1947-present) Active in predominantly Christian
state in Hindu majority India. Involved in several bombings in 2004.
Goal: Independence from India after annexing parts of neighboring Indian
states and Burma if it has Christian majority.[2]
* National Liberation Front of Tripura (1989-present) A group that
seeks the independence of Tripura from India to create a Christian
Tripura.[2]
* Phineas Priesthood An American based Christian Identity movement. [2]
* National Democratic Front of Bodoland, active terrorist in the
Indian state of Assam, involved in the murder of Bineshwar Brahma,
prominent Hindu Bodo activist.[2]
Islamic
* Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)[2]
o Based in the southern islands of Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao.
o Branched off of the Moro National Liberation Front.
* Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen)[2]
* Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt)[2]
o Seeks to establish Islamist state in Egypt. Usually targets
secular establishments, government buildings, police, the military,
minorities, tourists, and “morally offensive” buildings.
* Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)[2]
o Seeks to establish Islamist state in Algeria. Began
operations in 1992 after the Algerian government ignored election
results that gave victory to Islamist political parties.
* Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades[2]
* Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)[2]
o In Arabic, "Supporters of Islam."
o Also known as "Partisans of Islam or Helpers of Islam."
* Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
worldwide)[2]
o In Arabic, "the foundation", "the base", or "the database"
kept by intelligence services of anti-Soviet Afghani fighters.
o Also known as Qa‘idat al-Jihad, Islamic Army for the
Liberation of the Holy Places, World Islamic Front for Jihad Against
Jews and Crusaders, Islamic Salvation Foundation, and the Osama bin
Laden Network.
o Related: Alneda (former web site), As-Sahab (affiliated
public relations organization),
o Cells: Buffalo six, Hamburg cell,
* Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists;
southern Lebanon)[2]
o In Arabic, "the League of the Followers."
o Acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic
Resistance Movement.
* Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi's Sunni network, operating in Iraq
o on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist
Organizations
* Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement - al-Qaeda linked separatist
group in China's Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an
Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups East Turkestan
Liberation Organization, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan
Information Center[3][2]
* Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egypt (active since the late 1970s)[2]
* Fatah al-Islam - Lebanon[4] (al-Qaeda inspired group which
briefly took over Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in 2007, before being
defeated by the Lebanese Armed Forces)
* Hamas - West Bank, Gaza Strip. Listed as a terrorist organization
by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States[2]
* Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) - Pakistan and Kashmir[2]
* Hezbollah - Lebanon; Listed as a terrorist organization by
Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and the United States[2]
* Hizbul Mujahideen - Pakistan and Kashmir[2]
o Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan[2]
* Jaish-e-Mohammed - Pakistan[2]
* Jaish Ansar al-Sunna - Iraq[5]
* Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia[2]
* Jundallah - Iran and Pakistan (affiliated with the USA and
Al-Qaeda)[2]
* Lashkar-e-Jhangvi - Pakistan[2]
* Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan[2]
* Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - Morocco and Spain[2]
* Moro Islamic Liberation Front - (Islamic separatists; the
Philippines)[2]
* Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip[2]
* People Against Gangsterism and Drugs - South Africa[2]
* RSM or Rajah Solaiman Movement - Philippines[2]
* Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat - Algeria
* Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan - Pakistan[2]
* Students Islamic Movement of India - India[2]
* Takfir wal-Hijra - Egypt/Sudan/Algeria[2]
* Taliban - Afghanistan[2]
* Turkish Hezbollah - Kurdish organization operating in Turkey[2]
* Turkish Islamic Jihad - Turkey[2]
Jewish
* Jewish Defense League[2][2]
* Kach[2]
* Kahane Chai (designated as terrorist by Israel, the EU, and USA)[2]
Sikh
* Babbar Khalsa[2]
* International Sikh Youth Federation [3]
* Khalistan Zindabad Force [4]
All of these groups demand a Khalistan (Land of the Pure) in the Indian
state of Punjab and adjoining areas for Sikhs. Most have a variable
amount of support from Sikhs abroad and have been in existence since the
1980s. Many have been weakened and have cut down on activities, yet they
continue. The militancy in Punjab has claimed approximately 100,000
lives, according to estimates put forward by Amnesty International: this
figure involves killings by both Sikh militants and the Indian forces.
With the exception of the first two, the other groups have only been
proscribed in India.
Other religious terrorists
* Aum Supreme Truth (Aum Shinrikyo) - Japan (homicidal religious
cult)[2]
* Lord's Resistance Army - Christian/Pagan/Muslim terrorist group
that operates in northern Uganda, it seeks to overthrow the Ugandan
government and create a country based on the ten commandments.[5][2]
Nationalistic terrorist organizations
Irish Nationalists (Ireland)
* Irish National Liberation Army (1974-Present)[2]
o Splinter group:
+ Irish People's Liberation Organisation (1986-1992,
defunct)
* Irish Republican Army (1922-1969) split into 'Official IRA' and
'Provisional IRA'.[2]
* Official IRA (1969–present)[2]
o Been on ceasefire since 1972.
* Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) (1969-) Listed as a
proscribed terrorist organization in the UK.[6]
o Supporters of the PIRA evolved from the split in Sinn Féin
which saw the formation of 'Official' Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn
Féin. Provisional Sinn Féin was later known simply as Sinn Féin (while
'Official' Sinn Féin eventually became the Workers' Party).
o Under ceasefire since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.
However the British and Irish governments claimed they were responsible
for the 2004 Northern Bank robbery, although this has never been proven,
and denied by the IRA.
o Ended armed campaign in September 2005.
o Splinter groups:
+ Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (1986-present)[2]
# Also known as the "Continuity Army Council" and
"Óglaigh na hÉireann" (Gaelic for 'Warriors of Ireland')
# Does not recognize Good Friday Agreement.
+ Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) (1997-present)[2]*
# Also known as the True IRA and Óglaigh na
hÉireann (Gaelic for Warriors of Ireland).
# Does not recognize Good Friday Agreement.
Ulster Unionists/Loyalists (Northern Ireland)
* Ulster Volunteer Force (named after the Ulster Volunteers
1912-1921, current UVF has existed since 1966)[2]
o Very closely linked with the Red Hand Commandos (1972-present).
o Splinter group: Loyalist Volunteer Force [2]
* Ulster Defence Association (1971-present)[2]
o Also called the "Ulster Freedom Fighters," or UFF.
o On February 22, 2003, announced a "complete and utter
cessation" of all acts of violence for one year. It said it will review
its ceasefire every three months, although in February 2006, the
Independent Monitoring Commission reported that the UDA continued its
paramilitary activities, as well as involvement in organized crime, drug
trafficking, counterfeiting, extortion, money laundering and robbery
o Splinter group: Red Hand Defenders[2]
* Loyalist Volunteer Force (1996-2005)[2]
* Orange Volunteers (1998-present)[2]
Indonesia
* Laskar Jihad; Islamic ultra nationist group[2]
Israeli/West Bank/ Gaza
Jewish (Historical)
Main article: Zionist political violence
* Lehi (1940-1948) - regarded as a terrorist group by the British,
by Zionist organizations and the UN mediator. [6]
Arab
Main article: Palestinian political violence
Main article: :Category:Palestinian militant groups
* Abu Nidal[2]
* Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades[2]
* Black Hand (Palestine)[2]
* Black September (group)[2]
* Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)[2]
* Hamas - listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[7]
Canada,[8][9] the United Kingdom,[10] the European Union,[11] Israel,
and the United States,[12] and is banned in Jordan.[13]
* Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)[2]
* Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command
(PFLP-GC)[2]
* Popular Resistance Committees[2]
* Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement[2]
* Palestine Liberation Front[2]
* Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (1964-present) - On
December 14, 1988, the PLO officially renounced the use of terrorist
tactics. In 1993 it became the PA (Palestinian Authority). Although it
claims it does not support terrorism, documents show that the PA/PLO has
actively supported and sponsored various terrorist groups in
Israel.[14][15] According to the NCIS, the PLO is "the richest of all
terrorist organizations." (1993)[16][2]
* The Holy Jihad Brigade[2]
* Tanzim[2]
[endit]
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
23 Jan 2008 09:06:25 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy of the No True Scotsman. As I've pointed out to many
people in the newsgroups, the definition of a Christian doesn't
include anything about doing or not doing violence. Being a Christian
is about accepting Jesus as the Son of God and that he sacrificed
himself for their sins.
Christians perform acts of violence all the time. That these acts
aren't Christian or "Christ-like" in nature does not mean that the
perpetrator isn't Christian.
Like most Christians who post in the newsgroups, these individuals may
assume that they can ask for forgiveness for their bad behaviors and
have it granted. Some, such as the anti-abortion groups that have
committed murder, may even feel that god wants them to do these
actions.
As God himself has seen fit not to tell them to cut it out, we can
only assume that he doesn't particularly care one way or another.
<snipped the list for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
24 Jan 2008 01:09:38 AM |
|
|
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy ...
lol! You're talking logical fallacy?
Come now, Jerry...
When I mentioned the Russians had the capacity to nuke the US, you
objected, "Oh please, the Russians can't even find all their nukes."
It doesn't matter that they can't find them all, it only matters that
the ones they can find can reach the US.
THAT, Jerry, is a non-sequitur objection to a FACT, it is an illogical
objection to a point, and in fact destroys your argument and credibility.
Get off yr wooden horse, Jerry, and smell the wood burning.
Attempt some intellectual honesty, Jerry, even if you never acknowledge
it to me.
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
24 Jan 2008 03:21:11 AM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 11:09 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy ...
lol! You're talking logical fallacy?
Come now, Jerry...
When I mentioned the Russians had the capacity to nuke the US, you
objected, "Oh please, the Russians can't even find all their nukes."
It doesn't matter that they can't find them all, it only matters that
the ones they can find can reach the US.
JERRY
First, your argument attempts to shift the burden away from the point
I made rather than deal with it.
Second, regarding your argument:
Point taken, but the point I was trying to make is that not all of the
nations that have nukes have any reason to attack us, nor will they.
In fact, the following paragraphs went into that argument in greater
detail. Russia will not be taken over by madmen who don't care if
they destroy their own people and country, Great Britain, France and
Israel, same argument. They all know that should they target us with
their nuclear missiles that nuclear retribution would be immediate.
They stand to lose everything and gain nothing.
Only a nuclear country with a religious fundamentalist base government
would do so, as they believe they are acting in God's name, or
possibly the case of China where they may believe their elite can
survive in bunkers while their nation is destroyed but it would remove
what they consider the threat of an imperial US government that can't
be trusted and might target them first.
(Only slightly offtopic but I was reading today an article that US
military experts profess that they must have the ability and
willingness to strike pre-emptively at other nations, and with nuclear
weapons, in order to remain safe. Personally, I think all those
individuals should be committed, medicated and kept in little rubber
rooms.)
Of the nuclear nations likely to field such a government, only
Pakistan stands out.
Of nations attempting to become nuclear, North Korea and Iran stand
out, but both are still years away from becoming a nuclear power, and
much can happen in that time.
THAT, Jerry, is a non-sequitur objection to a FACT, it is an illogical
objection to a point, and in fact destroys your argument and credibility.
JERRY
No, it doesn't destroy my argument as my points are still valid and
have not been responded to by you. Only by addressing my points can
you render my arguments invalid, Glenn.
GLENN
Get off yr wooden horse, Jerry, and smell the wood burning.
Attempt some intellectual honesty, Jerry, even if you never acknowledge
it to me.
JERRY
I'm being quite honest, Glenn. I also acknowledge that you are quite
honest, though I think your constant doom-crying is silly and
misplaced in the Usenet newsgroups, but I'm not telling you that you
don't have a right to do it, only that I think it's silly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
24 Jan 2008 01:47:52 PM |
|
|
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:09 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy ...
lol! You're talking logical fallacy?
Come now, Jerry...
When I mentioned the Russians had the capacity to nuke the US, you
objected, "Oh please, the Russians can't even find all their nukes."
It doesn't matter that they can't find them all, it only matters that
the ones they can find can reach the US.
JERRY
First, your argument attempts to shift the burden away from the point
I made rather than deal with it.
Your argument is dishonest.
"Christianity" is "Following Christ," Living like Jesus, Emulating
Jesus. Jesus did not practice war to establish His Kingdom, nor did he
practice or advocate violence or acts of terror.
Granted that there are no perfect humans, therefore there are no perfect
Christians. However, there is a mega leap -- a leap in fundamental
misconception -- between being imperfect and practicing acts of violence
and advocating terrorism.
Those who advocate violence or acts of terror are not following Jesus,
and they are not "Christian" regardless of their claim.
The definition of who is "Christian" and what is "Christianity" has been
distorted and the title is misused.
I made a statement in the OP which is accurate, and your argument is false.
Second, regarding your argument:
Point taken, but the point I was trying to make is that not all of the
nations that have nukes have any reason to attack us, nor will they.
Again, I point out your error. Your are basing your assessment on the
present political alignment of nations, which is ever changing, and will
continue to change.
The EU is becoming Modern Rome, and will rule the world. Satan will rule
the world through that nation. It is that Nation who will rule, and
destroy, the world which will also destroy the United States with
nuclear weapons.
In fact, the following paragraphs went into that argument in greater
detail. Russia will not be taken over by madmen who don't care if
they destroy their own people and country, Great Britain, France and
Israel, same argument.
You are wrong, see above.
You are wrong, because a madman like Hitler does not care if he destroys
his own people.
They all know that should they target us with
their nuclear missiles that nuclear retribution would be immediate.
They stand to lose everything and gain nothing.
You wrongfully believe that sanity is/was involved in Napoleon and
Hitler's attempt to conquer the world, or Marxism and Stalin's conquest
and rule of Gog and Magog.
Only a nuclear country with a religious fundamentalist base government
would do so, as they believe they are acting in God's name, or
possibly the case of China where they may believe their elite can
survive in bunkers while their nation is destroyed but it would remove
what they consider the threat of an imperial US government that can't
be trusted and might target them first.
Interesting that you name the flaws in your position, and yet do not see
how those flaws destroy your position!
Jerry, you seem to equate "religious fundamentalist" with Christianity
and Islam, while you ignore that Modern Science is a religion which some
men practice with rigorous fundamentalist fervor; or that Hinduism,
Sikhism or Buddhism have religious fundamentalist in their numbers; or
that those who oppose Christianity, or anyone other than their own
religious views -- as 'fundamentalist extremists' as the Taliban -- can
practice those extreme fundamental views as rigidly and to such extremes
as did Hitler and Stalin.
You, Jerry, not only ignore the evidence of your own argument, but you
ignore the evidence of current human events!
(Only slightly offtopic but I was reading today an article that US
military experts profess that they must have the ability and
willingness to strike pre-emptively at other nations, and with nuclear
weapons, in order to remain safe.
I read the same statement made by a Russian. The idea of pre-emptive
strike is coin of the [military] realm -- always has been.
Personally, I think all those
individuals should be committed, medicated and kept in little rubber
rooms.)
Of the nuclear nations likely to field such a government, only
Pakistan stands out.
Of nations attempting to become nuclear, North Korea and Iran stand
out, but both are still years away from becoming a nuclear power, and
much can happen in that time.
I don't agree with the "it will take years" estimate. NK already tested
a nuclear device.
...."since North Korea and South Korea have still not officially made
peace, strictly speaking, the war has yet to officially end."
...."The current model of the Taepodong- 2 could not carry nuclear
warheads to the United States. Former CIA director George Tenet has
claimed that, with a light payload, Taepodong-2 could reach western
parts of Continental United States, though with low accuracy.[19] There
is also the possibility of nuclear terrorism, that is asymmetrical
delivery of nuclear weapons (e.g. by smuggling into or near an American
city by civilian cargo ship/plane, or on a boat to near the US coast).
...."now possesses a full arsenal of nerve agents and other advanced
varieties, with the means to launch them in artillery shells. and has
supplied its forces with with chemical-protection equipment...
THAT, Jerry, is a non-sequitur objection to a FACT, it is an illogical
objection to a point, and in fact destroys your argument and credibility.
JERRY
No, it doesn't destroy my argument as my points are still valid and
have not been responded to by you.
Responding to an invalid point by pointing out that it is invalid IS
responding.
Only by addressing my points can
you render my arguments invalid, Glenn.
Wrong, you offer an invalid argument, it is invalid on its face.
GLENN
Get off yr wooden horse, Jerry, and smell the wood burning.
Attempt some intellectual honesty, Jerry, even if you never acknowledge
it to me.
JERRY
I'm being quite honest, Glenn.
NO, you are not being honest. You reject Bible prophecy, and that
current human events are in the process of fulfilling that prophecy
BECAUSE YOU REJECT GOD, AND THAT GOD HAS CONTROL OF HIS CREATION!
You, like many other intellectuals, liberals and atheist, believe
mankind can control its own destiny -- and THAT is an elemental form of
dishonesty.
I also acknowledge that you are quite
honest, though I think your constant doom-crying is silly and
misplaced in the Usenet newsgroups, but I'm not telling you that you
don't have a right to do it, only that I think it's silly.
You think my efforts are silly because you reject the truth.
Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
24 Jan 2008 10:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 11:47 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:09 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy ...
lol! You're talking logical fallacy?
Come now, Jerry...
When I mentioned the Russians had the capacity to nuke the US, you
objected, "Oh please, the Russians can't even find all their nukes."
It doesn't matter that they can't find them all, it only matters that
the ones they can find can reach the US.
JERRY
First, your argument attempts to shift the burden away from the point
I made rather than deal with it.
Your argument is dishonest.
"Christianity" is "Following Christ," Living like Jesus, Emulating
Jesus. Jesus did not practice war to establish His Kingdom, nor did he
practice or advocate violence or acts of terror.
Granted that there are no perfect humans, therefore there are no perfect
Christians. However, there is a mega leap -- a leap in fundamental
misconception -- between being imperfect and practicing acts of violence
and advocating terrorism.
Those who advocate violence or acts of terror are not following Jesus,
and they are not "Christian" regardless of their claim.
The definition of who is "Christian" and what is "Christianity" has been
distorted and the title is misused.
I made a statement in the OP which is accurate, and your argument is false.
JERRY
No, Glenn. I wish your argument was true. As we can see in the
newsgroups, very few Christians are "Christ-like" which is what
prompted Gandhi to say "I like your Christ, I do not like your
Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
we teach and tell that the only thing necessary to be "saved" and to
be a Christian is that they have to accept Jesus as their savior, that
he died on the cross for their sins.
We don't tell them (though Jesus does) that to be like him they have
to give away everything they own, take up their cross and follow him.
And, your statement IS the logical fallacy of the No True Scotsman.
Second, regarding your argument:
Point taken, but the point I was trying to make is that not all of the
nations that have nukes have any reason to attack us, nor will they.
Again, I point out your error. Your are basing your assessment on the
present political alignment of nations, which is ever changing, and will
continue to change.
The EU is becoming Modern Rome, and will rule the world. Satan will rule
the world through that nation. It is that Nation who will rule, and
destroy, the world which will also destroy the United States with
nuclear weapons.
JERRY
Ok, now we've moved from politics to your apocalyptic nonsense, which
is simply an unsupported opinion on your part, Glenn. I'm not going
to debate you on that as there is only opinion and your opinion
carries no more weight than mine or anyone else's.
<snipped the rest>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS |
24 Jan 2008 10:49:50 PM |
|
|
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:47 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:09 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
rogue wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:00 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
[Source]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Organizations
The following is offered for your consideration. The problem being that
certain groups may act in violence and cause war.
In my mind, the most important (aka, dangerous) are
Al-Qaeda see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
and
Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
A partial list:
"Christian"
[Disclaimer: Terrorism has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and any
group who practices violence is not "Christian".]
JERRY
Logical fallacy ...
lol! You're talking logical fallacy?
Come now, Jerry...
When I mentioned the Russians had the capacity to nuke the US, you
objected, "Oh please, the Russians can't even find all their nukes."
It doesn't matter that they can't find them all, it only matters that
the ones they can find can reach the US.
JERRY
First, your argument attempts to shift the burden away from the point
I made rather than deal with it.
Your argument is dishonest.
"Christianity" is "Following Christ," Living like Jesus, Emulating
Jesus. Jesus did not practice war to establish His Kingdom, nor did he
practice or advocate violence or acts of terror.
Granted that there are no perfect humans, therefore there are no perfect
Christians. However, there is a mega leap -- a leap in fundamental
misconception -- between being imperfect and practicing acts of violence
and advocating terrorism.
Those who advocate violence or acts of terror are not following Jesus,
and they are not "Christian" regardless of their claim.
The definition of who is "Christian" and what is "Christianity" has been
distorted and the title is misused.
I made a statement in the OP which is accurate, and your argument is false.
JERRY
No, Glenn. I wish your argument was true. As we can see in the
newsgroups, very few Christians are "Christ-like" which is what
prompted Gandhi to say "I like your Christ, I do not like your
Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
we teach and tell that the only thing necessary to be "saved" and to
be a Christian is that they have to accept Jesus as their savior, that
he died on the cross for their sins.
We don't tell them (though Jesus does) that to be like him they have
to give away everything they own, take up their cross and follow him.
And, your statement IS the logical fallacy of the No True Scotsman.
Second, regarding your argument:
Point taken, but the point I was trying to make is that not all of the
nations that have nukes have any reason to attack us, nor will they.
Again, I point out your error. Your are basing your assessment on the
present political alignment of nations, which is ever changing, and will
continue to change.
The EU is becoming Modern Rome, and will rule the world. Satan will rule
the world through that nation. It is that Nation who will rule, and
destroy, the world which will also destroy the United States with
nuclear weapons.
JERRY
Ok, now we've moved from politics to your apocalyptic nonsense, which
is simply an unsupported opinion on your part, Glenn. I'm not going
to debate you on that as there is only opinion and your opinion
carries no more weight than mine or anyone else's.
<snipped the rest>
Thanks for your comments, I do hope you will "watch"
"And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." Mk 13:37
Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
