I agree, telling people to do physical harm is radical,, but telling people to defend themselves or their way of life,,,is the american way,,,,

Neither.

That's not an adequate analogy to my position.
It's not to me a question of whether the Americans object to what ISIL is doing in the name of "The Islamic State".
It's how ISLAM is reacting (or in this case, NOT reacting).

No. I am not.

a) The ancient Latin legal maxim, and the standard our culture, and other cultures apply is:


b) If Islam were at all times silent, then your counterpoint would be valid.
But my contrast is the silent reaction to the 09/11/01 mass-murder; compared to the reaction to the cartoon.
The violent reaction was to a cartoon.
The silent reaction (if it can even be called a "reaction") was to mass-murder.

So you tell me mh.
Which of those two do YOU think is more worthy of protest?

there is no law that states silence is consent amongst individuals who are not PRESENT at a crime,,,,

my counterpoint is not invalid at all,, I will state again

'ISLAM' is a religion,, there are several sects with differences amongst them that follow 'ISLAM', and 'ISLAM' cant be silent as it has no voice

PEOPLE can be silent, and an absence of media coverage is not proof of such silence

radicals react violently, thats what they do

radicals do not represent all the 'people' or all the different sects that fall under the heading of 'ISLAM'



the question is like that one about why black on black crime doesnt have blacks protesting,,,,

crime is given as unacceptable or supportable, just as radicals are

but entities held to some other standard,, like our JUSTICE SYSTEM or like our media,,,,run based upon public support,, and the public voice on how they run is an important motivation for the 'freedom of speech' we continue to espouse support for in our culture,,,

exactly!

Guys, I agree with you.
But NOTE: Islam is almost the same what is Christianity.

(1) You are a believer ONLY if you IMPLEMENT what God says in the Holy Bible.

(2) If you implement what the Islamic god says in the Quran then inevitable you will be a killer/terrorist...

The source of extremism/terror is the Quran!

What is the diffrence between Islam and Christianity:
The God of the Bible forbids any violence/murder/insurgent acts.


The same person can be a son and a father, a teacher and a soldier. Before Herod and Pilate, Jesus was silent as a sheep ..

..but in the Jewish Temple He (JESUS) was like a Lion. And His name is a LION. Revelation 5:5 “Weep no more; behold,

..the Lion of the tribe of Judah (JESUS), the Root of David, has conquered...

Hosea 11:10 They shall go after the Lord; he will roar like a lion; when he roars, his children shall come trembling...

God says: Hosea 5:14 For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Judah.

I, even I, will tear and go away; I will carry off, and no one shall rescue.

I never asserted otherwise, though there are accessories laws, etc.

Perhaps you meant "must" instead of "cant".

But this is wrong; again.

a) There's top-down:
Catholicism has in common with Islam, supernaturalism. Catholicism speaks, through its priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the Pope.
Islam has imams and ayatollahs.
What's the difference?

b) There's bottom-up (aka "grass roots")
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have a tradition of sending pairs of their members door to door, to proselytize.
And what of this bottom-up ISIL non-silence.
I'd say, rather less that peaceful proselytizing, and rather more mass-murder, terrorism, and destruction of irreplaceable antiquities and the history they betoken.

Abraham Lincoln, the U.S. president often credited with freeing the slaves said:

ISIL's horrific destruction and atrocities have been front page news for months.
In all this time, after all this senseless terrorist ISIL carnage; can you name one Muslim protest with a magnitude half that of the protests over the Danish cartoon?
I can't.*

Bingo!
And just as honest Abe suggested, such silence can speak eloquently, particularly in context of when that same party was NOT silent.

You have a standing invitation to cite an example. But I think you won't, because I think you can't, because I believe there isn't any such anti-ISIL protest in Islam, of a proportion worth reporting on.
If there were, it would be front-page news.

If I confined my news feed to a single blog, I'd be vulnerable to confirmation bias on this.
But I live on a hilltop. I get over 18 digital TV channels, and countless radio stations. I have access to the major networks:
- ABC
- CBS
- FOX
- NBC
- PBS, and on radio access to
- BBC.
And as you can see, I also have Internet access



https://news.google.com/news?vanilla=1

Think objectively mh.
Why would the press cover the Muslim protests over the Danish cartoon, but refuse to cover Muslim protests over ISIL carnage?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." SETI slogan

I agree. A complete and conspicuous absence of even a single report from any source whether in text, audio, or video; of any significant Muslim backlash against ISIL's thugs is not proof there isn't any.
But after this much time, with so many news feeds from so many different networks / nations / continents; it raises serious questions.

And if you were a member of a wholesome religion, and thugs started perpetrating atrocities in the name of your beloved religion, wouldn't you want the public to know the atrocities were not in conformance to that religion, but exploiting it?

And sincere, pious believers take steps to keep fidelity to the faith they claim.
The proof Muslims will protest insult to their religion has already been cited.
They rioted over the cartoon, and more recently perpetrated mass murder at Charley Hebdo in France.
But slaughter innocence by the thousands, and pan-Islam's formerly vehement protestors fall mysteriously silent.

For sake of argument, let's pretend this is true. On that premise:

It wouldn't matter.
- The radicals could lead their own protests.
- Muslims, grass-roots Islam could do as they've done before, and protested.
THEY DON'T!

* mh:
Newspapers do not exist to inform the public.
Newspapers exist to bring revenue to publishers.
It is a journalistic axiom:
Dog bites man? Not a story.
Man bites dog? THAT's the story!
If there were anti-ISIL protests in Islam it would be front page news.
It would sell newspapers. And that is the purpose of commercial journalism.
The silence we agree exists may not be as inarticulate as you wish to believe.

" The radicals could lead their own protests. "

Right. One of the best revolutionaries was Jesus.
We all have to be revolutionaries to change the world...like our God does.

But He forbids military uprisings. He forbids us to be like Islamists and murderers. Because rebels/murderers do NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.

This is the difference between Islam and the TRUE God who is PEACE. His name is "Peace".

Thanks Vs.

Yes.
It was a bumpy road to get here.
The Crusades, and the Inquisition are often cited.

But Christianity (unlike Islam) has undergone The Reformation.

I'm not aware of any wholesale human slaughter being perpetrated today in the name of Christ.

If you ask any U.S. citizen:
"If there would be a religious meeting place built in your community, which would you want it to be?
- A church?
- A temple? Or
- a Mosque?
I suspect the Mosque would be the least selected choice.

Again, I'm certain there are good, decent Muslims.
But sadly; they do not seem to wield much sway over the radicals that tarnish their brand.

My friend,

(1) There is NO reformation in the Global Church of God because the Holy Scripture TODAY is the same as 1500 years BC. Nothing is changed..
Church is the global fellowship of believers...and the laws for the Church instututed by the Head of the Church JESUS are the same...They are in the Bible. In other words: The Organisation called the "CHURCH of GOD" is NOT changed and could not be changed.

(2) Local churches (catholics) stopped comiting some crimes (inquisitions) but they are still living in sins..(a sin of idolworship..).

So, Christianity could not be reformed...but some crazy churches/denominations could be changed.

Islam is the same as it was in its original form ..the "radical form". But it is practiced only by the TRUE believers. That is why when they study the SOURCE of terrorism- the Quran- they always commit violence. ALWAYS. Not-practicing muslims are in fact "secular Muslims" who are not dangerous for us. They are just illiterate to be dangerous.

That is why how to stop the violent Islam?
My answer: " The radicals could lead their own protests. "
We should be in some sence "radicals" too to change the world and stop Islam. How to be radical?

Share you ideas. :)

I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

Some laymen may think of the Holy Bible as a book.
It is more formally a volume of many books, an aggregation of a variety of texts, or "books", from a variety of sources.

Even if the text hadn't changed it would hardly matter.
What was Reformed was not the holy scripture, but how it was interpreted, and how the religion is practiced.

The following often quoted letter written to moralist Laura Schlessinger demonstrates that point.

Some may quote this for mockery, or ridicule.
My intent here is rather more clarification. As psychologist Joy Browne says: "Subtlety is an oversold virtue."
The quotation may not be polite. But it is at least, not subtle.

An ENORMOUS amount has changed, as the Laura letter demonstrates.
It's not scriptural change.
But what has changed is far from "nothing".

If you believe that your Religion gives you the "Right" to kill,start with yourself!
And Louis is dead-on about his assessment of Islam!

My friend,

I will explain you what I mean.

I do not believe in any oral tradition existing before the writing the Holy text.
Why? It is impossible to keep such facts that we read in the OT. Read Genesis and Exodus and you will see what I mean.

But the Jewish Oral Tradition existed only after the text ALREADY was captured and analyzed by religious Jews.


What is the Church of God that cannot be changed?

The Church is not a church building but a body of believers.

Romans 16:5 says � greet the church that is in their house.

The Church is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head. Ephesians 1:22-23: And God placed all things under his feet (JESUS')and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until Christ's return.

1) The universal Church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ/believers. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free and we were all given the one Spirit to drink(1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: Paul, an apostle � and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia. Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

Summary: The Church of God is not a building or a denomination. According to the main doctrine of the Bible, the Church is the body of Christ i.e. all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

We are the Church of God. We - people- cannot be reformed. But we should be transformed/changed into the Image of the Son of God.
Changes in the local churches (christian reformation) do not touch the whole organisation/the Global Church and they do not affect us because our MAIN doctrines are CONSTANT and they could NOT be changed on the basis of our unchanged Holy Scripture.

Well done Vs.

I've only cyber-known you for less than a day.

But you seem to be a sincere and committed churchwoman.

Thank you for your constructive contributions @mingle2.

I love you too, my friend.
God bless you always.
May my God will be your God one day. Amen. Amen. Amen.

You are telling only half the story. There was a time when journalism was an honored profession and the push was to get the big story but it was still told objectively. That is no longer the case. The goal today is still to make profit and find a sensational story, but only if it has the proper ideological "slant". The mostly left wing press will sensationalize a "nothing" story about a conservative to make him/her look bad and ignore the biggest story of the year if it makes their leftist politicians look bad.

OMG,we're in for a rough ride!

My friend,

Do not forget to answer to these questions:

( 1) That is why how to stop the violent Islam?
My answer: " The radicals could lead their own protests. "
We should be in some sence "radicals" too to change the world and stop Islam.
(2) How to be radical?

Share you ideas. :)

Why I ask you about that? Because your input is already appreciated by me... ;)

Truth!!!

there is a lot of broadbrushing the billions who follow Islam here,, being the popular opinion, I refrain from bothering to continue with the ciruclar discussion

I will reiterate my agreement with the original point though,, there isnt a 'moderate' <place religion name here>

you are either of that religion or you arent

you are of that religion in a BALANCE(the bible and all holy books have their fair share of strict and violent consequence and their share of patient and passive consequence as well)

or you are a RADICAL , who abides merely by the violent parts of doctrine with no consideration for the parts which teach patience and passivity,,,

Wrong, lady,
radical is not violent.
Note that!


Radical:
-believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change

-relating to the most important parts of something or someone; complete or extreme

Now try to consider my last questions taking into consideration these definitions.