Too much moderation on these boards?

Na, when jar does it, as he does in his answer to you, where he commits many more violations of the rules as well, they aren't REALLY violations, because they are TRUE. Didn't you know that? Let a creationist claim the same, however, and it doesn't fly.

"Why they might be annoyed with us" implies that Muslim terrorist attacks on the West have good cause -- their "annoyance" with "us" (implying among other things that the WTC attack was justified revenge, although the US had nothing to do with the historical developments uhder discussion).The thread was begun in response to the previous thread about Islam, where some of us argued that Islam itself teaches and has historically practiced aggression against "infidels" or nonMuslims. It is hard to ignore the obvious intent to dispute that claim and give historical political justification to Muslim attacks, in other words a whitewash. Otherwise the title is meaningless, since everybody has reason to be annoyed with everybody else if you get into all the hsitorical particulars of any conflict. The US could certainly be "annoyed" that Muslim pirates kidnapped and enslaved American "Christian" sailors in the time of Washington and Adams for instance.If the thread were neutrally titled, something like "History of East-West conflict since ......" this wouldn't have to have come up until it's actually stated or implied in the thread later.Edit: Even on that thread at the time, I made it clear that it was the tendentious TITLE that invited objections. Edited by Faith, : To add link to thread under discussion

I believe that is jar's implication, not mine.

The very title of your thread says it, jar, especially coming as it did right after a discussion about Islam in which you disagree about Islam's naturally aggressive nature and vilify those who see its source in their beliefs. Obviously you are looking for historical causes of their terrorism, what else? They have no way to make legitimate war right now, so this is how they express themselves, these are the violent acts that we have been saying come out of their ideology and need no historical justification. Let me hasten to add that I'm sure there is SOME element of historical provocation TOO, but it is unnecessary. Conquering the world for Allah is their mandate.Your record of negative comments against the West and against fundamental Christianity, your insistence that Allah is the same God as Christianity's, and your calling the beliefs of Bible Christians "bigotry" and "wilful ignorance" and calling God according to our view a "pimp daddy" and your laughing at those Christians who have died for the cause of Christ over the years, as having a false view of God, and your denouncing Christian history as peculiarly evil, the Crusades and so on, and much much more, certainly suggest that you are looking for some way to prove that the West is evil and Islam is good, AGAIN. Why not? It's your usual line. If you don't want to give that impression, CHANGE THE TITLE OF YOUR THREAD.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you were reading carefully you would have noted that nobody is talking about the ethnic group, country or people. It's about the religion. The religion prescribes aggression."Might be annoyed" is pregnant with implications that it takes willful obtuseness to miss.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have searched on various terms and could not find the relevant posts. I found some roughly in the ballpark but not the best ones so I don't see any point in posting them. I really thought my paraphrases would be recognized by you, since they seem to me to be very representative of your point of view. If not, I apologize and withdraw my statements.By the way, there is a bug in the Search feature, unless it's just another AOL problem. I put the word "martyr" in plus "Faith" to see where that might have come up in the past, though I'm not sureI used that term in the discussion in question. I got a find, one post, but it didn't have the word "martyr" in it. This happens a lot when I use Search. I may get one or two that do have the term I'm searching for, plus a long list of posts that don't have it.

Of course from my side I'm answering contentious comments. Actually, I believe jar's position is unique, despite the many who are on his side. I also thought I was characterizing jar's point of view in a recognizable way and am surprised that my paraphrase didn't ring any bells. But be that as it may, I shall be more careful in future.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I hope so of course. On one of his threads he recognized that the moral argument against God didn't hold together. But that hasn't undone his nihilism that I've seen. In other words I'm supposedly influencing him to become a Christian and a creationist or at least trying, I gather. Cute. Wish it were so. Wish God would exercise that power through me to influence him and many others.What I appreciate about Robin is his objectivity and neutrality. I think he's unique at EvC and that may be why some, Moose in particular, are confused by him. He's an atheist, or as he prefers to call it, a nihilist, and believes in evolution, but at the same time he's sincerely asking questions about all of it, and he sees through a lot of the posturing on the evo side.He also doesn't think like a scientist. He thinks like the English teacher he is, and he understands logic as a built-in function of language and reason, and understands it better than the scientists here it seems to me. I feel an affinity with all these things about him, despite his believing none of what I believe.

All the more reason it is important to lead people to Him through His Son.