Unspoken

By implication the struggle between Hesher Islam and Coughlin is symptomatic of a far larger and unresolved debate, which might be summarized as being over whether or not "Islam is a religion of peace", an assumption which has undergirded the War On Terror From September 11 onwards.

One of the implicit strategies of the War on Terror has been to fight Islamic terrorism in conjunction with the populations of Muslim countries. In Iraq, for example, the alliances between Coalition Forces and local groups have formed the basis for attacking and eventually destroying al-Qaeda.

This strategy has many benefits, not in the least because it allows the West to form alliances with groups and populations who might otherwise set their faces against America if it openly declared itself against Islam. It would be hard to imagine how to proceed in either Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan if America were to openly declare that Islam was in fact an ideology as noxious as Nazism. But citing the advantages of a policy assumption doesn't answer the question of whether the assumption is true; it doesn't settle the question of whether Wilders -- or Coughlin -- are correct. I am agnostic on the point. Nor do I expect any answers soon.

There seems to be a bipartisan political consensus not to examine the subject of political Islam publicly. It is the most verboten of foreign policy subjects. But like other "open secrets", its exclusion from formal discussion doesn't banish it from public consciousness. It merely pushes it underground, like Barack Obama's middle name.

The key problem with subjecting the question of political Islam to debate is that every other conclusion except that of regarding it as a "religion of peace" implies consequences no one dares face. Concluding that Islam is a 'religion of war' would precipitate a revolution in diplomacy, energy policy and military strategy. It's a bottle of nitro nobody wants to shake; it's a can of worms nobody wants to open: not a Republican administration and most especially not a Democratic one.

Explosive questions such as this are as likely to be resolved by events as by debate. To a very great extent the West is genuinely hoping that Islam is a "religion of peace"; and I suspect many Muslims are too. Unfolding events will resolve the issue -- and perceptions -- one way or the other. Ten years from today we'll have a better understanding of the truth.

I suppose you didn't choose to read the links I provided to you? Here -- I'll post a contrast here for you to read....

Armstrongs denial of the Trinity...
The Trinity: "God is not merely one Person, nor even limited to a `Trinity,' but God is FAMILY. The doctrine of the Trinity is false" (The Missing Dimension In Sex, H.W. Armstrong, p. 37).
"The concept of a Trinity is nowhere found in the Bible. it has been formulated by men under the influence of Satan. The Trinity hides from man God's plan of salvation. The Trinity doctrine maintains that the Godhead is a closed unit into which no one else can enter" (Good News Nov./Dec. 1990, p. 10).

The Evangelicals Doctrine of the Trinity:

The core elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are these:
1. There is one true God, the LORD, i.e., Yahweh, or Jehovah. (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Acts 17:29; James 2:19)
2. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is this one true God, the LORD. (John 17:3; 20:17; cf. Ps. 110:1)
3. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is this one true God, the LORD. (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 10:9-13; Phil. 2:9-11; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)
4. The Holy Spirit, who was sent by the Son from the Father, is this one true God, the LORD. (Acts 5:3-4, 9; 2 Cor. 3:17-18)
http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_4

You still haven't addressed John 1: 1-14.

Let's review my point

I don't know what your "Trinity" theory has to do with that.
Nowhere do I find "Trinity" in the Bible.
There are only two, the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. The holy spirit is the power through which they do their work.

And my point is that the person whose theology you are basing your beliefs on was incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture. This was NOT foretold, the US is NOT a replacement for Israel as God’s Chosen People. Therefore, your assumption that this was foretold is off-base. The Trinity interpretation was simply used as an example to show that your source’s Scripture interpretation is flawed. The thought that God would use one people-group to bring judgment on another people-group is something that can be extrapolated from the way God worked in the Old Testament. We, our country, the US - I believe we are protected precisely because we continue to stand with Israel (although I also think we stab them in the back too often.) I believe that if our country ceases to be an ally of Israel, that protection will be removed.

Honestly, I didn’t wish to debate the Trinity - it was an example. Not that the fact that every major evangelical denomination as well as the Catholic church’s agreement on the subject means that it’s right, but it ought to make you think a little more carefully before you categorically deny that all those theologians may have a truth that your church is denying. And I don’t see how an interpretation of John 1:1-4 denies the existence of the Trinity. How can you prove something does not exist? It’s like me saying I went to the mall with my husband, when I also had my kids along. But then you saying my kids weren’t there because I didn’t mention them. Sorta silly if you ask me!

Israel went to war against the Jews.
This isn't a replacement. Pekah, the son of Remaliah, was the king of Israel.

If you'll just think a minute, you'll see that todays nation if Israel isn't "House of Israel".

Any reading of the four historical books of I and 2 Kings and I and 2 Chronicles will convince even a casual student of the Bible that these four books of the Old Testament are devoted to the separate national histories of the 10-tribed "House of Israel" to the north, and the "House of Judah" (the Jews) to the south

Try to think of this:

In the preceding chapter (Genesis 48) is the vitally important account of how the name of Israel passed upon Ephraim and Manassseh, Joseph's two sons!

But the most important verse is verse 16. Read it again!

"The angel [messenger] which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lad; and LET MY NAME BE NAMED ON THEM, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

Which tribes, then, according to your Bible, should wear the name of Israel? Judah? No. Simeon or Levi? No.

The name of the House of ISRAEL was very clearly passed down to the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, in that order!

Ephraim was prophesied to become a company of nations, and his brother, Manasseh, a great single nation!

These two brothers were to possess the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or ISRAEL!

They, uniquely among the other children of Jacob, were to have the name of "ISRAEL" upon them!

Yet millions of professing Christians remain blissfully ignorant of these vitally important scriptures which clearly identify the "lost ten tribes," or the "covenant people," prophesied to inherit the national greatness promised the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Look ... think of "the House of Judah" as today's nation of Israel,

I hope this helps. If not, there's not much else to say.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.