TexasCHLforum.com

Andy...thanks for the great video link. Glad someone else doesn't mind speaking the truth for a change.

TAM...I hope you enjoy it - even though some parts are disturbing.

TAM....I appreciate your viewpoint. About the TV though. The admonition to turn the other cheek is not to someone stealing, but to a deliberate assault which could be life threatening. A modern literal translation might be: "if someone assaults you, turn the other cheek so they may assault you again." I don't really believe that is the core issue for people living according to Jewish law and the OT as interpreted by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Albert Barnes, in commenting on these passages says it well:
"The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life."

I believe that, and the totality of Scripture gives me reasonable assurance that God doesn't intend me to be a doormat for criminals - as you said. I believe we agree on the principle.

Wow! Enough theology for me today.

And thank you for your service.

I have known Dr. Caner for a long time. He grew up a Muslim in Turkey. After his conversion to Christianity, he often spoke of a game he used to play with airport security to keep them on their toes. (Pre TSA days) When the security people would not search him very thoroughly before boarding a flight, he would say "Allahu Akbar" and start speaking in Arabic. (This was way prior to 9/11) It always startled the security people. He then spoke to the gathered crowd about his conversion and why he was no longer a threat.

strat9mm.....YES.

We need to remember that we have not only the words of Scripture to direct us, but we also have an exemplary life lived as revealed by those same words. How are we to understand Jesus making a whip and driving the money changers from the Temple courtyard? How are we to understand His provoking redress of the Pharisees and Saducees? How are we to explain the OT instructions to the children of Israel to "cleanse the Promised Land?" God is a bit more complex than we understand so simply. We dare not interpret Scripture based on just a few verses, but rather the whole Word of God. After all "His ways are not our ways."

Of course one may interpret Scripture for themselves, but might I suggest that anyone who uses a firearm to defend himself or his family may run into a terrible dilemma with the inviolate admonition to turn the other cheek and surrender the cloak - if they interpret all of what God's Word says based on one verse. Why? Because there is no Scripture that adds the words "but in this situation...." Are those verses what God intends our response to be for every situation? No. Only for issues involving revenge. Jesus is speaking to those who are held hostage by a hostile army and would enjoy nothing better than a little revenge.

In my view standing up for ones' rights and principles hardly falls into the category of revenge. No one is issuing a call to arms for Christians. Indeed, the whole attack on Christianity is to sit down and shut up and to only practice your faith inside the church walls. Anyone who does not do so is promptly shouted down. Often the loudest voices are other Christians.

In any event, this is not the place for theological discussions - except perhaps the Quran. There are numerous perfectly usable English translations. I have read it, several times. If you really want to understand Islam, that is a good start. Just don't stop there. As I said, make a careful study of countries with a majority Muslim population.

Added: teraph...good words. I agree. There are Muslims who despise what is happening. One difference you should ask those Muslims you know is their opinion about about whether radical Islam is a "twisting distortion" of the Quran, or if it is a call to orthodoxy. Then you might want to read the book entitled "Unveiling Islam" by Dr. Ergun Caner and his brother Emir Caner. The book will be money well spent.

ShootDontTalk wrote:Except for the glaringly obvious fact that in the case of the Patriot Guard and Westboro neither side showed up with guns.

I suspect what I said was true. I don't think anyone confuses the PG with the Hell's Angels or any other non-PG group. It is certainly true that others showed up (frequently) with the veiled threat of violence against WBC, but, as you said, the PG would not have tolerated it.

I also wonder if WBC caved to the respect of the PG (relatively few in number compared to the crazies) or if the avalanche of hate and threats directed at them from all quarters finally had an effect. We will probably never know for sure. I would like to think they caved to decency, but that may be a stretch for such indecent people.

I agree 100% that the PGR approach worked perfectly as long as you are confronting basically non-violent people. In the case of radical Islam, with a stated goal of bringing the whole world under the rule of a caliphate, those tactics are suicide.

We need to remember history. There is only one response that other such tyrannies we have frequently confronted truly respect. The use of force. I suppose the modern parlance is "in your face." They perceive ANY other response as weakness. Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The exception might be the Soviet Union, but the threat was very real and they knew it. History clearly teaches us how to confront radical Islam. The question is will we learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Perhaps it is just ignorance that drives other responses. I wonder how many Americans really understand that Islam is NOT "just another religion." It is more a theocratical system of government practiced under the rule of the Imans. A study of Iran will shed light on what I am saying. It is alien to American understanding.

As for glee or apathy, leftists and those who hate the idea that there might be a God gleefully join in the attacks on Christians while condemning those who provoke radical Islam. Curious behavior.

Apathy? It is difficult to convince Christians to stand up for themselves. As long as it doesn't happen to them personally, no one even notices. Shades of 1937 Germany. The only part of WWII my father-in-law ever spoke of was the complete idiocy of Germans who, in 1945 as the death camps were being liberated, insisted they didn't exist. It was only when they were forcibly dragged into those camps and made to bury the tens of thousands of dead that they came face to face with their own apathy.

Except for the glaringly obvious fact that in the case of the Patriot Guard and Westboro neither side showed up with guns.

With all due respect though, the silence about offending Christians in this country is deafening. And I dare say there are far more Americans complaining about whatever Ms. Geller did than there are Muslims world wide complaining about the guys showing up with guns to kill.

BTW I think you know that if America ever becomes a majority Muslim country the age of discussion and exchange of ideas will be over.

On a personal note. I'm not aiming my comments specifically at you. But you will have to admit that there are a great number of people in this country who gleefully tolerate open warfare on Christians. Isn't it odd that there is a profound concern for not doing the same thing to Muslims. I wonder why that is.

ScooterSissy wrote: Again, no argument from me as to the right to do so; but how can anyone possibly say that a contest to portray Mohammed in cartoons was not directed at Muslims?

I have not advocated at all any sort of repression of her rights, so I don't quite understand how "millions have died so we can all have that right" is germane to my statements.

As far as what does it matter - simply a subject for discussion.

Simply as a matter for discussion, I cannot understand why you're so concerned about offending millions of Muslims when you don't utter a peep about the almost daily barrage of offenses against millions of Christians? And that list includes the genocide directed against Christian men, women, and children taking place every day in many countries. To me, the dichotomy and apathy in America is troubling.

I am simply amazed by all the respectful Americans, many of whom openly participate in the open war on Christianity in this country, including disgusting "art" exhibits, ridiculing Christians for their faith, laughing at their beliefs, insulting their intelligence, chuckling at the cartoons (on and on the list goes) and otherwise claim Christians are "forcing" their beliefs on non Christians, who are now so swift to declare the utter stupidity of those who poke fun at religious people. Why the deafening silence about the attacks on Christianity from those who now cry "foul"?

Had these "Americans" the courage of their convictions - that they hate all religion, they would be selling cartoons outside the Mosques. Instead, their courage only extends to attacking, verbally, with printed materials, and "art", Christians who they know will not attack them. Now suddenly, they claim poking fun at religions is not a good thing to do. Their courage is legendary.

I think Americans should be respectful of all religions, not just those who retaliate. I think Americans should take the First Amendment seriously. After all is said and done: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.