Destroying Islam

[Arthur Brain]

Years :think:

You all have proven me right since the start of these discussions, having exemplified much of what I say. The key wasn't to drill the truth over and over again, as the truth was evident enough- but rather to treat the whole matter as a painting that simply needed to be mounted right. And that's what I did on this thread, and now I'm finally satisfied after all this time

Well if you're finally satisfied then please take your nutcase self off of this thread. I'm sick of reading your bonkers diatribes against women. Get a life and enjoy the single one at that.

 

[Crucible]

Well if you're finally satisfied then please take your nutcase self off of this thread. I'm sick of reading your bonkers diatribes against women. Get a life and enjoy the single one at that.

Cool story.
You failed to answer my question :rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Cool story.
You failed to answer my question :rotfl:

I'm not interested in your questions or your sad little soundbites. I'm just sick of you derailing the thread with your asinine grudges against women.

 

[Tambora]

I'm not interested in your questions or your sad little soundbites. I'm just sick of you derailing the thread with your asinine grudges against women.

Yep.
He needs to scoot so you and I can get back to fussing about nuking Muslims.

 

[Crucible]

I'm not interested in your questions or your sad little soundbites. I'm just sick of you derailing the thread with your asinine grudges against women.

Nah, the answer simply puts an end to your feminized nonsense is all

And I'm not the one who brought it up, your neighborhood feminist did. Post #2 actually- the first on your thread :chuckle: (Not that you'd hold a woman accountable)

It's sad that not even the subject of nuclear war escapes the mental disease of feminism.

 

[Rusha]

You play one very well.

Well, he does play one consistently ... but I am unconvinced.

 

[annabenedetti]

Here's the list of skills needed to do this one thing women excel at:

-be born a woman
-have sex

You can beautify it all you want

I don't need to beautify what's already beautiful in itself: my love for my children and their love for me.

In fact, all you're really doing is making an idol of yourself for men to labor under.

All you're really doing is making a fool of yourself.

 

[annabenedetti]

We did. Immoral? For me, it is a bit larger than me. I have a hard time trying to intervene in war-ethics. I 'think' you count numbers, which is what our government did and you do what may save the most lives, even if you are taking others. I can't really give more than that because, as I said, I'm much like you in sentiment. I don't think you or I should necessarily be in charge of overseeing wars. I 'think' neither you nor I have the stomach for it.

True. Is a wife of an extremist, or the mother of an extremist innocent? :idunno: I am not cut out for making war decisions, just trying to express why the eye-for-eye decision exists and might necessarily (I don't know) need to be employed.

I'm not sure we'd have no remorse, but yes, that's basically what this thread discussing, I believe.

I'm not necessarily the guy that can carry a thread like this, just a voice that thinks I can understand a bit what is going on, and further, realizing I'm not the guy to sit on that war council. I 'think' the chief end of a war must weigh costs and do the most expedient thing, "regardless." if I ever had to make that choice, I would do it, and decisively, but I couldn't live with it, for the entire rest of my life. I'd ever have it hanging over me. Some will go further and make it a weight of American lives vs. other lives and will place a different valuation on the decision. I think I understand national interest as well. Again, however, this is why I'd never want to be in that seat.

Is it kind of like this? - You see a gangster drive up to your house with one grandchild inside your house, you are a good shot, and have one shot. He is going to toss a bomb into your house. You can shoot the bomb right now, in his hand. He has his wife and child in the car.
Less innocents will be killed if you don't take the shot. I'd HATE to be in that position and would backpedal madly away from accusation whichever way you choose. I'm just not that guy. I understand you if you say "yes" and I understand you if you say "no." I think I'd have to take the shot, and it seems to me, its similar to what we are talking about here.

I think, no bones about it, that it has got to be the hardest decision ever, and I'm just not made for this kind of thing.

I appreciate your thoughts, Lon. I'll try to get back to this in a day or two. I've been away all day, and am too tired right now to think through a decent response at the moment.

 

[annabenedetti]

I know some folks think Christians should be passive.
I don't.
I believe there is a time to coddle lovingly and a time to be a ruthless warrior.

Goes along with the meaning of the word "meek" in scripture.
The Greek word is praus.

It does not have the exact meaning as our English word "meek" which denotes pacisisim.
So when it says that the meek will inherit the earth, it is not talking about pacifists.

"Praus" is passive and aggressive rolled into one, not just one side of the coin.

The Greeks and Romans armies were equipped with well trained war horses.
These horses were trained to be so aggressive that they would kick, stomp, bite, ram with their bodies, and trample down during a battle.
They would even charge through a wall of fire.
They showed no mercy.
They were so brutal and ruthless that is was said that in some battles, more of the enemy was killed by the war horses than the soldiers.
But when the battle was over and they returned home, these same savage horses were so docile that little children could climb and play all over them.

They were warriors when they needed to be and they were docile when they needed to be.
They were called "praus".

Which brings me again to one of my favorite passages of the bible that also describes what "praus" is.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV​

(1) To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:​

(2) A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;​

(3) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;​

(4) A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;​

(5) A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;​

(6) A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;​

(7) A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;​

(8) A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.​

It takes all of this combined to be "praus", not just one side of the coin.

The meek (praus) will inherit the earth.

Marking this post to get back to you, Tam.

 

[Crucible]

I don't need to beautify what's already beautiful in itself: my love for my children and their love for me.

Cool story.
So women are equal, and deserve equal merit and authority based on that..
interesting.

And here I was thinking the whole world was built upon labor and leadership

All you're really doing is making a fool of yourself.

Lol
I have no delusion that you, a woman, would ever have to be worried about feeling like a fool while acting like a fool.
It's a bit part of the problem, really- women aren't expected to act like either men or women, but rather as children not to be held to a standard of an adult

 

[Crucible]

Yep.
He needs to scoot so you and I can get back to fussing about nuking Muslims.

Using the Bible to go the convenient route and shoot warheads at whole societies of innocent people- when there is an alternative- says all that needs to be said about you.

That type of Christian, who ultimately confides in a war horse above compassion. We're called to righteous war when it is necessary, not to be rampaging warmongers blowing up chunks of the Earth lain:

 

[Tambora]

Marking this post to get back to you, Tam.

No biggie.

 

[annabenedetti]

I know some folks think Christians should be passive.
I don't.
I believe there is a time to coddle lovingly and a time to be a ruthless warrior.

Goes along with the meaning of the word "meek" in scripture.
The Greek word is praus.

It does not have the exact meaning as our English word "meek" which denotes pacisisim.
So when it says that the meek will inherit the earth, it is not talking about pacifists.

"Praus" is passive and aggressive rolled into one, not just one side of the coin.

The Greeks and Romans armies were equipped with well trained war horses.
These horses were trained to be so aggressive that they would kick, stomp, bite, ram with their bodies, and trample down during a battle.
They would even charge through a wall of fire.
They showed no mercy.
They were so brutal and ruthless that is was said that in some battles, more of the enemy was killed by the war horses than the soldiers.
But when the battle was over and they returned home, these same savage horses were so docile that little children could climb and play all over them.

They were warriors when they needed to be and they were docile when they needed to be.
They were called "praise".

I don't know any Greek, so I went to Strong's to see what they had:

This difficult-to-translate root (pra-) means more than "meek." Biblical meekness is not weakness but rather refers to exercising God's strength under His control – i.e. demonstrating power without undue harshness.
[The English term "meek" often lacks this blend – i.e. of gentleness(reserve) and strength.]

Note the part I bolded: "without undue harshness."

Strength isn't synonymous with being ruthless, I think that's stretching the translation.

Which brings me again to one of my favorite passages of the bible that also describes what "praus" is.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV​

(1) To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:​

(2) A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;​

(3) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;​

(4) A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;​

(5) A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;​

(6) A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;​

(7) A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;​

(8) A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.​

It takes all of this combined to be "praus", not just one side of the coin.

The meek (praus) will inherit the earth.

The words you used: ruthless, brutal, savage, no mercy.... I don't think that's how Christians are meant to see the world. That's not being a pacifist, I'd certainly fight in self defense, both personally and as a country. That's not the same thing as nuking a country in order to kill everyone, guilty or innocent, old, young, women, babies.

 

[annabenedetti]

We did. Immoral?

Yes.

For me, it is a bit larger than me. I have a hard time trying to intervene in war-ethics. I 'think' you count numbers, which is what our government did and you do what may save the most lives, even if you are taking others. I can't really give more than that because, as I said, I'm much like you in sentiment. I don't think you or I should necessarily be in charge of overseeing wars. I 'think' neither you nor I have the stomach for it.

We aren't powerless. We can vote for those who are less likely to lead us into another pointless war.

True. Is a wife of an extremist, or the mother of an extremist innocent? :idunno: I am not cut out for making war decisions, just trying to express why the eye-for-eye decision exists and might necessarily (I don't know) need to be employed.

Or the child of an extremist?

Since when is it acceptable to kill innocent civilians, "just in case?"

I'm not sure we'd have no remorse, but yes, that's basically what this thread discussing, I believe.

I'm sure I don't see any pending remorse.

I'm not necessarily the guy that can carry a thread like this, just a voice that thinks I can understand a bit what is going on, and further, realizing I'm not the guy to sit on that war council. I 'think' the chief end of a war must weigh costs and do the most expedient thing, "regardless." if I ever had to make that choice, I would do it, and decisively, but I couldn't live with it, for the entire rest of my life. I'd ever have it hanging over me. Some will go further and make it a weight of American lives vs. other lives and will place a different valuation on the decision. I think I understand national interest as well. Again, however, this is why I'd never want to be in that seat.

Is it kind of like this? - You see a gangster drive up to your house with one grandchild inside your house, you are a good shot, and have one shot. He is going to toss a bomb into your house. You can shoot the bomb right now, in his hand. He has his wife and child in the car.
Less innocents will be killed if you don't take the shot. I'd HATE to be in that position and would backpedal madly away from accusation whichever way you choose. I'm just not that guy. I understand you if you say "yes" and I understand you if you say "no." I think I'd have to take the shot, and it seems to me, its similar to what we are talking about here.

I think, no bones about it, that it has got to be the hardest decision ever, and I'm just not made for this kind of thing.

It's easier to approve (or ignore, or legitimize, or minimize) killing civilians when you can approve (ignore, legitimize, minimize) from a distance. It's much more sterile that way.

I don't think your scenario is useful for the purposes of this thread, but as for self defense - I'm all for self defense.

 

[Tambora]

as for self defense - I'm all for self defense.

Yay!

 

[Rusha]

A question to those who think using nukes would somehow destroy Islam.

How?

They wouldn't. Beliefs, in the true sense of the word and meaning, cannot be destroyed. It isn't possible to destroy all of the *believers*. All this would do is send "beliefs" that were supposedly nuked into hiding until such a time that they are able to retaliate.

 

[Lon]

Yes.

We aren't powerless. We can vote for those who are less likely to lead us into another pointless war.

Or the child of an extremist?

Since when is it acceptable to kill innocent civilians, "just in case?"

Shoot, I even hate talking about things like this: The Viet Cong did some terrible things with their own children, using them as weapons and I don't even want to talk about it, how young, etc.

I'm sure I don't see any pending remorse.

Wars are not easy. I 'think' there is always remorse. I would be remorseful having to protect my family with lethal force.

It's easier to approve (or ignore, or legitimize, or minimize) killing civilians when you can approve (ignore, legitimize, minimize) from a distance. It's much more sterile that way.

I think you have to be right.

I don't think your scenario is useful for the purposes of this thread, but as for self defense - I'm all for self defense.

It seems that some of this sentiment is about self-protection. I honestly don't know.

 

[ok doser]

... get back to fussing about nuking Muslims.

you want to stick mooslims in the microwave?

:think:


worth a try, i spose :idunno:

 

[Totton Linnet]

Nazism was not totally destroyed....but pretty much