9/11 and 7/7 were more than what you say, although I take your point. The machinations of the worldly imperial spirit on all sides knows no bounds. That spirit has no problem using selective arguments rather than going at the root cause of all that ails humanity concerning which humanity has control – meaning could simply all agree to do otherwise, as in be peaceful and not self-centered. By the way, it is no mistake on my part to be mixing "worldly" with "spirit."
There are many people in the world in so-called high places who simply believe that everything is there for the taking and that the strong can have it for a while without consequences. They are sociopaths, all. They are wrong, but no amount of truth-telling sways them, as they believe such truth-tellers are fools.
I though, know there is righteousness for a reason that transcends. We are born clean slates and too ripe for temptation, but what we do matters far beyond the here and now. This is a test, a filter. There is no proving it to the sociopaths or others, as testing itself precludes proof. Stop testing, and things are different. It's analogous to wave particles. It is a quantum leap.
In addition, Arabic or other names do not prove whether or not one professes Islam. Pleading with me for an honest answer is rather insulting; although you don't know me, so I won't take offense. Also, professing Islam does not prove either way whether anyone would sympathize with terrorism. Let me be clear here, I sympathize but disagree. If that's a colorful position, perhaps anyone holding so ought to consider the semantics.
I supposedly run the risk in the U.S. of being designated some sort of potential violent extremists for saying that I sympathize. Well, I sympathize with the dupes who join the U.S. Marines too, so what are the powers that be to do with me but remain coy themselves and leave me to wage the war of truth against falsehood. They hate me, but they are stuck with me unless they want to risk God turning his back even further to them.
They are confused, and I have no problem saying it.
As for Muslim morality, that's a huge issue. We would have to define "Muslim." If you want to know whether or not I agree with Mohammed, I do not. I've read the Qur'an and find it severely lacking. Jesus preached and exemplified total pacifism. Mohammed claimed Jesus a true prophet but rejected Jesus's true message. That is no paradox. That is a pure error. All Muslims should look at it straight on in the absolute spirit of truth. Unfortunately, such statements on my part are intimidated away in much of the Ummah.
You want to know why I asked you if we agree on the particulars. If you disagreed, it would present a different course. There's nothing esoteric in it.
Let me say that every time I've ever attempted to engage a Muslim in a discussion that would lead to the root questions, I've never been taken up on it. I been told that delving into such would be harmful to simply getting along, but now I've presented something to you before such a position can be taken in a timely preclusive manner. In other words, it's too late to use it without proving my point by doing so. That's an afterthought on my part by the way. I didn't set you up aforethought.
Look, watch this whole video:
Then realize that I know all the ways that that video is starting history upon each point it attempts to make. The history always starts with the Muslims doing something that if it were true that the history starts there, those Muslims would look much worst than if the truth is told that the history never starts where the Zionists and their fellow Cretans place it – no offense to all Cretans. No doubt there are souls from Crete who are interested in the whole truth. I am using only one connotation here where I'm specifically referring to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense, and it is nonsense.
Some of the Arabs in that film have agendums that went unspoken. The Egyptian woman in particular presents a case study. One need simply study her mother's photo (deliberately included) to see much about which questions might be posed to derive the root motivations behind supporting the Zionists in their aim of destroying the religion of Islam.
Yes, in spite of the carefully chosen term "radical," they seek the destruction of the religion. I seek the peaceful conversion of Muslims. It's a totally different starting place. They see first the subversion of Islam to water down and sugarcoat Mohammed's zeal while also waging hot wars against Islam (as Mohammed had it in mind, which for me is the one and only Islam, just as what Jesus has in mind is the one and only Christianity). Then, continuing with the creeping ideological method, they will acculturate all "moderate" and "liberal" Muslims and finally see the death of Mohammed's spirit. It is an indirect, closed method. Mine is direct and open. It's a huge difference and all the difference in the whole of Creation really.
Lastly, on that video, it's only one wing of the Empire. There are others who will allow some sharia for instance with the same aim of then diluting it and twisting it into Western liberalism afterall.
Peace and truth and love are one.
P.S. I obviously answered questions posed that were deleted, but it's worth it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)