In most of the polls last night, the issue that led most people to vote for Bush was the issue of Moral Values. It wasn't the war in Iraq and it wasn't terrorism although those two issues ran 2-3. Americans are opposed to same sex unions and their votes in record number proved it. Let the judges take note. Let the politicians take note. There is hope for America. Thank You Father for stirring up Your children to go and vote for righteousness.
***MORAL VALUES was the PRIMARY ISSUE***
- Thread starter BB
- Start date
Perhaps it was simply which of these two has better moral values? Or maybe it was as simple as which of these two is more likeable. Or maybe it was the wives! 
Immigration issues also were strong last night, the Arizona Vote and Tancredo getting reelected strongly and Daschle getting the boot!
Texian
Immigration issues also were strong last night, the Arizona Vote and Tancredo getting reelected strongly and Daschle getting the boot!
Texian
SouthernGal
"Don't retreat...reload"
You're exactly right.
When I went to bed early this morning, I was thinking about the election and wondering why I felt so relieved that Bush seems to have been re elected, since I can't stand the sight of him and that's what dawned on me.
I'm not happy that Bush won as much as I'm happy to see that moral values do still prevail in this country.
I was thrilled to see that every state that had a gay marriage issue on their ballot rejected their state allowing gay marriage in each instance.
I'm also thrilled that a Bush win will piss off the Hollyweird people. Maybe they'll start leaving the country now too.
And a bonus is that Daschle is gone too!
When I went to bed early this morning, I was thinking about the election and wondering why I felt so relieved that Bush seems to have been re elected, since I can't stand the sight of him and that's what dawned on me.
I'm not happy that Bush won as much as I'm happy to see that moral values do still prevail in this country.
I was thrilled to see that every state that had a gay marriage issue on their ballot rejected their state allowing gay marriage in each instance.
I'm also thrilled that a Bush win will piss off the Hollyweird people. Maybe they'll start leaving the country now too.
And a bonus is that Daschle is gone too!
Hi Lynnie. Lots of answered prayers, thank God.
Alan: Millions of Christian Americans voting in record numbers would disagree with you.
NO UN: I'm relieved as well. I rejoice at how sick Hollywood must feel this morning.
Alan: Millions of Christian Americans voting in record numbers would disagree with you.
huh? Deborah, what planet do you live on? Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment that stated marriage is between a man and a woman. He also refuses to permit stem cell research except on already existing embryos which was a huge issue in the campaign. He also wrote into law a ban on partial birth abortion. Now he gets to appoint 3-4 Supreme Court judges who will preserve America's long-standing moral values. Thank God.
NO UN: I'm relieved as well. I rejoice at how sick Hollywood must feel this morning.
BB said:
Millions of pseudo ‘christians’. I’m surprised they don’t split in half with one foot marching in one direction for anti-abortion and the other marching in the opposite direction for war.
Please, let’s not associate morality with the ‘christian’ element that parades around claiming they have God on their side.
People are pragmatic
As much as the some would like to believe otherwise, people are extremely pragmatic. Bush is certainly no dream-child of the bible-toting fundamentalists. But when it comes down to it - the shades of gray between Bush and Kerry were clear enough for people to be more scared of Kerry than the fallibilities and errors that Bush has already shown.
Why the Dems chose to run a flaming socialist is beyond me.
As much as the some would like to believe otherwise, people are extremely pragmatic. Bush is certainly no dream-child of the bible-toting fundamentalists. But when it comes down to it - the shades of gray between Bush and Kerry were clear enough for people to be more scared of Kerry than the fallibilities and errors that Bush has already shown.
Why the Dems chose to run a flaming socialist is beyond me.
A.T.Hagan
Inactive
<strong>Why the Dems chose to run a flaming socialist is beyond me.</strong>
Because the primary system pretty well demands such candidates.
It has slowly gotten to the point that candidates who have a real chance of appealing to the middle and thus having some chance of really getting a meaningful majority cannot make it through the primary process.
Ronald Reagan was the last one to manage that and without some one of similar charisma in one party or the other chances are we're going to continue to see these very narrow decisions where a less than 5% swing in the electorate equates to victory or defeat.
.....Alan.
Because the primary system pretty well demands such candidates.
It has slowly gotten to the point that candidates who have a real chance of appealing to the middle and thus having some chance of really getting a meaningful majority cannot make it through the primary process.
Ronald Reagan was the last one to manage that and without some one of similar charisma in one party or the other chances are we're going to continue to see these very narrow decisions where a less than 5% swing in the electorate equates to victory or defeat.
.....Alan.
atlantajack
Inactive
BB said:
Hopefully the judges will continue to do their job, which is to be unbiased!
Jack
SouthernGal
"Don't retreat...reload"
atlantajack said:Hopefully the judges will continue to do their job, which is to be unbiased!
Jack
No, their job is to enforce the laws of the land - not create new ones or bypass ones they don't like (which is what they have been doing).
So, precisely what could a president do for you to keep your guns, save your family from gays, and protect God?
Last I checked, he was in charge of military, and had veto power over Legislative branch. That checks and balances thing. Kerry (or GWB) could not legislate away your guns, release the gays to attack your family/marriage, and prevent you from reading the Bible or believing in whatever God you want to believe.
Hook, line and sinker, lots of people bought into that load.
Last I checked, he was in charge of military, and had veto power over Legislative branch. That checks and balances thing. Kerry (or GWB) could not legislate away your guns, release the gays to attack your family/marriage, and prevent you from reading the Bible or believing in whatever God you want to believe.
Hook, line and sinker, lots of people bought into that load.
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Can you say "leader", Drew? I though you could, neighbor. And God doesn't need "protecting", friend, but the righteous obviously do these days, as there is hostility on every side for all who have standards.Don't look now but your "I hate Christ and Christians" mask has so much mud on it Rob, that we can't really hear you. You might say your whole bunch of fruits just went on ignore. You won't escape a moral mandate that easy. With a little Help and effort, you never know; we might even run some of worst of the antichrist and perverse out of our faces, away from our children, and right back in their closets or under their rocks. It is certainly high time for a change. At very least, you LOSERS are going to have to figure out that no one is listening to you self-destruct for at least four years, no matter how loud you whine. Do yourself a service and get that one thing through that obstacle course you use for a central processing unit. Better yet, be kind to yourselves and REPENT.
Just for the record, I do have real love for you, Rob, but your attitude, your beliefs, your deleterious influence on others, your words, your thinking, STINKS, so the only form that love can take for the present is exposure, censure and opposition, lest you eternally perish, and your evil take root in society. I have never claimed to be perfect, but you have proven to me that you are one of those so far gone that the only hope of ever reaching you is use any and all means in the hope of gaining your undivided attention, while praying that your wilfully invited demons will be disabled temporarily and sufficiently for you to do your own thinking long enough to cry out to God for forgiveness and deliverance.
What kills me, BB, is that the brain-dead left, including the media pundits, are in total mental overload to spin this moral mandate into something else. Listen to them sputter and howl! They are so far gone they are incredulous and unbelieving that anyone could actually care about MORALITY more than money, or the other gods of their Agenda.
Much to be thankful for, my brother, and much yet to be done, but it is answered prayer in good measure to see Americans stand against The Enemy in this one thing, whatever else we face. It is indeed a step toward reprieve of certain and swift judgment. God would have spared even Sodom for a few righteous. How much more will He do for the sake of The Remnant?
Thanks be to God, Who gives US the victory, through Jesus Christ Our LORD.
Tras
KateCanada
Inactive
I'm kinda laughin right now at people that have never read a bible. AN ELECTION WAS WON BECAUSE THE EXTRA VOTERS THAT CAME THROUGH ARE BIBLE READING FOLKS!!!! Even if you don't care, don't believe, you should read the thing that influences your countries elections. Read it, it will explain why they relate to GW and NOT John Kerry. It's really that simple. You may not believe what some believe, but, you will understand theirs beliefs and what motivates them.
1) A Christian believes in GOD.
2) A Christian believes in God's teaching of moral values.
3) God say's believe in # 1 and # 2 and he will take care of "your" life needs, "your" needs! No greed in his word. Don't be greedy now!
4) War! War against evil worshipers in the world. Yep, God put GW in power for a significant reason. Islam vs Jews period. US significance you ask? Superpower of the world for a reason! Isreal protector till Christ returns. Christian domanated country! Planned by God.
My belief anyways, that's why I stand so passionately behind the American people!
Kathy
1) A Christian believes in GOD.
2) A Christian believes in God's teaching of moral values.
3) God say's believe in # 1 and # 2 and he will take care of "your" life needs, "your" needs! No greed in his word. Don't be greedy now!
4) War! War against evil worshipers in the world. Yep, God put GW in power for a significant reason. Islam vs Jews period. US significance you ask? Superpower of the world for a reason! Isreal protector till Christ returns. Christian domanated country! Planned by God.
My belief anyways, that's why I stand so passionately behind the American people!
Kathy
KateCanada
Inactive
Why on earth would a greedy guy after oil make his entire nation nuts over his religious beliefs????????????? Please tell me! 
I think your in Iraq to protect you and Isreal. I think Bush won and Arafat maybe dead now is no coicidence by the way!
I think your in Iraq to protect you and Isreal. I think Bush won and Arafat maybe dead now is no coicidence by the way!
Trasael Adnepos said:
I don’t hate anyone Tras. A Christian is one who follows Christ. That’s a basic simple truth. Did Christ war? Did he take a stick and start beating people with it? Not that we can tell. So how does one who claims to be a Christian war? How do you justify that action?
<B>Just for the record, I do have real love for you, Rob, but your attitude, your beliefs, your deleterious influence on others, your words, your thinking, STINKS, so the only form that love can take for the present is exposure, censure and opposition, lest you eternally perish, and your evil take root in society. I have never claimed to be perfect, but you have proven to me that you are one of those so far gone that the only hope of ever reaching you is use any and all means in the hope of gaining your undivided attention, while praying that your wilfully invited demons will be disabled temporarily and sufficiently for you to do your own thinking long enough to cry out to God for forgiveness and deliverance. </B>
Rubbish.
You have a problem because I reason and it doesn’t fit into your narrow, biased perception of the truth. Your mind is closed and so is your heart. You have the audacity to call people vermin and in the same sentence applaud your ‘christianity’. You define enemies geographically and anyone who doesn’t think or follow your narrow perception of the truth is either ‘evil’ or lost. At the core of your being is fear and your actions and statements are a product of that fear.
<B>What kills me, BB, is that the brain-dead left, including the media pundits, are in total mental overload to spin this moral mandate into something else. Listen to them sputter and howl! They are so far gone they are incredulous and unbelieving that anyone could actually care about MORALITY more than money, or the other gods of their Agenda.</B>
So Tras, tell me how does one support war and in the same breath denounce abortion?
.
fruit loop
Inactive
Religion doesn't belong in government
Kathy, that's the problem.....every denomination interprets the Bible differently. Christians can't agree on much of anything.
I don't want to be forced to live by Pentecostal or Southern Baptist beliefs any more than I'm sure they don't want to be forced to live by my Lutheran beliefs.
Government has no business trying to legislate morality. Government should run the BUSINESS of the country, plain and simple.
Let people get their morals in church. And KEEP them there.
Kathy, that's the problem.....every denomination interprets the Bible differently. Christians can't agree on much of anything.
I don't want to be forced to live by Pentecostal or Southern Baptist beliefs any more than I'm sure they don't want to be forced to live by my Lutheran beliefs.
Government has no business trying to legislate morality. Government should run the BUSINESS of the country, plain and simple.
Let people get their morals in church. And KEEP them there.
Tweakette
Irrelevant
BB, I don't agree. 22% said that "moral issues were their #1 concern. But that means that for the other 78% it wasn't.
If the terrorism and Iraq options had been added together into a category called something like "national security" (which would have been more analogous to the generic "moral issues") it would've won with about 35-40%.
Tweak
If the terrorism and Iraq options had been added together into a category called something like "national security" (which would have been more analogous to the generic "moral issues") it would've won with about 35-40%.
Tweak
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Your figures are skewed and manipulated at best, in terms of what America thinks, Tweakette. Have a look at the referendums opposing perversion. The Moral Majority is indeed awaking again.
Fruitloop, you have swallowed a dangerous lie. All common law, all righteous law, is founded upon morality. This hollow mantra you have adopted from the Humanist/Marxist Left poisons your soul. Discard it. Right in your state law (if it has not been very recently purged) you will find the words, "..to protect the public safety, health, and morals.." or equivalent. "You can't legislate morality" is a lie from the pit foisted on the brainwashed to undermine the rule of Law itself. No society can exist without enforced moral restraint, due to the inherent fallen sinful nature of man. It's high time we Christians recognize this attempt to warp reality.
Don't project your secret fears or private manipulations of reality on to others, Rob, it won't wash. The cause of Righteousness is anything BUT motivated by fear. I have dealt with enough of you over time to understand that tough love is your only chance. Truth is narrow. Very narrow indeed, as is The Way which leads to life.
As we have been through until I realize it is futile to argue with you, the only thing certain in your mind is that there must be no absolutes. Such thinking is madness which may only beget evil and death. Take your best shots, then, but as you do, envision yourself in a bottomless pit listening to your hollow, meaningless words echo for all eternity. There is no intolerance as deadly as that which is intolerant of truth.
Tras
Fruitloop, you have swallowed a dangerous lie. All common law, all righteous law, is founded upon morality. This hollow mantra you have adopted from the Humanist/Marxist Left poisons your soul. Discard it. Right in your state law (if it has not been very recently purged) you will find the words, "..to protect the public safety, health, and morals.." or equivalent. "You can't legislate morality" is a lie from the pit foisted on the brainwashed to undermine the rule of Law itself. No society can exist without enforced moral restraint, due to the inherent fallen sinful nature of man. It's high time we Christians recognize this attempt to warp reality.
Don't project your secret fears or private manipulations of reality on to others, Rob, it won't wash. The cause of Righteousness is anything BUT motivated by fear. I have dealt with enough of you over time to understand that tough love is your only chance. Truth is narrow. Very narrow indeed, as is The Way which leads to life.
As we have been through until I realize it is futile to argue with you, the only thing certain in your mind is that there must be no absolutes. Such thinking is madness which may only beget evil and death. Take your best shots, then, but as you do, envision yourself in a bottomless pit listening to your hollow, meaningless words echo for all eternity. There is no intolerance as deadly as that which is intolerant of truth.
Tras
nanna
Devil's Advocate
I think that the increasing "Christian morality/fundamentalism" of the USA provides strength to the polarity faction ... that of the "Islamic fundamentalists".
Perversely, one cannot exist without the other, and they feed off and gain strength from the other.
This is where the concept of "turning the other cheek" comes into play ... the best way to end an argument is to just shut up.
Ironically, the 'moral' issues which contributed to Bush's election may result in increased bloodshed and hatred over all. How moral is that?
JMO
nanna
Perversely, one cannot exist without the other, and they feed off and gain strength from the other.
This is where the concept of "turning the other cheek" comes into play ... the best way to end an argument is to just shut up.
Ironically, the 'moral' issues which contributed to Bush's election may result in increased bloodshed and hatred over all. How moral is that?
JMO
nanna
fruit loop
Inactive
Right, TA.....
Fruitloop, you have swallowed a dangerous lie. All common law, all righteous law, is founded upon morality. This hollow mantra you have adopted from the Humanist/Marxist Left poisons your soul. Discard it. Right in your state law (if it has not been very recently purged) you will find the words, "..to protect the public safety, health, and morals.." or equivalent. "You can't legislate morality" is a lie from the pit foisted on the brainwashed to undermine the rule of Law itself. No society can exist without enforced moral restraint, due to the inherent fallen sinful nature of man. It's high time we Christians recognize this attempt to warp reality.
Silly me. I forget that only you and your ilk are true Christians and that you have a mandate to enforce your view of Biblical interpretation on us all.'
Fruitloop, you have swallowed a dangerous lie. All common law, all righteous law, is founded upon morality. This hollow mantra you have adopted from the Humanist/Marxist Left poisons your soul. Discard it. Right in your state law (if it has not been very recently purged) you will find the words, "..to protect the public safety, health, and morals.." or equivalent. "You can't legislate morality" is a lie from the pit foisted on the brainwashed to undermine the rule of Law itself. No society can exist without enforced moral restraint, due to the inherent fallen sinful nature of man. It's high time we Christians recognize this attempt to warp reality.
Silly me. I forget that only you and your ilk are true Christians and that you have a mandate to enforce your view of Biblical interpretation on us all.'
Yes my brother, "Thanks be to God, Who gives US the victory, through Jesus Christ Our LORD."
Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at Bush: Soros and Heinz money, Hollywood, Springstein, Bon Jovi, the press, the media, Michael Moore's movie, lies from the pit of hell itself, the superior intellect and debating skills of Kerry, the missing explosives story in the last week, the CBS lies, the communists and Islam with UBL himself giving Kerry his endorsement, and then the exit polling lies. So what happened? Here's what the press won't tell you:
There were thousands of Christians fasting and praying for the nation they love. The Lord showed me in 2000 how important and effective fasting and prayer was. Five of us in this county went on an extended fast for this country to elect the leader that would most please God, righteousness to prevail, and awakening to begin in the Christian churches. That's how important I believe this election was. Even Kerry said it is the most important election in our lifetime and I agree.
I knew early in the day on Nov 2, that Kerry would lose. I knew that God was answering the prayers and fastings of thousands of His people across this nation and world.
I believe in the sovereignty of God. I also believe God respects the free choice of Americans. I found myself praying in the last week before the election that God would stir up His people to go and vote. I believe that is exactly what happened. You will never read in the press that the secret of Bush's victory was in the prayers and fasting of God's people.
In spite of the force of the whole world against Bush, God's people knew that the major issues in this election were: the continued ban on partial-birth abortion, the nominations of 3-4 supreme court judges in the next four years, the fight against the homosexual agenda and same sex unions and...... a man who could reach God by prayer in the midst of a crisis or major attack.
Read Esther. It was fasting and prayer by her and all of God's people that moved God to wake up the King in the middle of the night to go over the books because he was bothered by something. It was f&P that caused the king to show Esther favor and tip his scepter to her and then answer her petition. I believe this story is more than just a historical event. It is also prophetic of the bride of the King in the last days crisis. Our only recourse in the face of great evil will be to turn to our King and ask Him for favor. See also Matthew 9:15 and 17:14-21.
Tweakette: Yes, there weren't enough voting for righteousness in this election, but there were enough to get the job done. I'm praying for an awakening in this nation that will force the political parties to put forth God-fearing candidates or be voted out of office.
ROB: I believe you are forcing personal moral non-violence upon the state. God never commanded the government to be non-violent. Thank God for the police in your area and the military protecting this nation eh?
Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Last edited:
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Yes BB, it is more than they can admit of that God still hears the prayers of His people, even for some of those who joined us.
Fruitloop, you are just plain attempting to dodge the facts of law, history, reason, and society, because you are wrong. We are distinctly NOT speaking of interpretation here. Like I said, it's right there in our law books, to this day and all the way back, and is absolutely inescapable for anyone willing to recognize REALITY.
What is it you are unwilling to recognize about the fact that your evident acceptance of this think-speak error does not conform to reality? Let's explore that, if need be. You need to cough up this particular lie and flush it permanently, if you are truly on the side of Truth and Righteousness. It's time to get off the fence, for any and all of US who still have a clue.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Tras
_________________
"They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
John Milton, 1642
Fruitloop, you are just plain attempting to dodge the facts of law, history, reason, and society, because you are wrong. We are distinctly NOT speaking of interpretation here. Like I said, it's right there in our law books, to this day and all the way back, and is absolutely inescapable for anyone willing to recognize REALITY.
What is it you are unwilling to recognize about the fact that your evident acceptance of this think-speak error does not conform to reality? Let's explore that, if need be. You need to cough up this particular lie and flush it permanently, if you are truly on the side of Truth and Righteousness. It's time to get off the fence, for any and all of US who still have a clue.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Tras
_________________
"They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
John Milton, 1642
BB said:
I’m not forcing anything. Do as you like but don’t claim to be a Christian if you go to war and kill. It’s as simple as that because Christ didn’t kill anyone and he preached non-violence for the hundredth time.
As far as militaries protecting people, that’s a two edged sword and if we look back in history it is very plain to see that militaries are no ones friend.
This thread is about morality and killing is never moral. That is my premise. I still haven’t seen anyone show how killing is moral and how we have risen above the immorality of war and things like the fire bombing of Tokyo that killed 100 thousand innocent people in one night. If that’s the protection my government is giving then, quite frankly, I would rather die than be a part of actions like those.
<B>Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.</B>
So much for a book and the danger of subjective interpretation. Now you can take your book and drop the ‘A’ bomb on Hiroshima AND Nagasaki and sleep comfortably. My interpretation is that you will stand before God for that immoral action regardless of what you think you book tells you God wants you to do.
Trasael Adnepos said:
I didn’t establish the absolute. I didn’t claim that now we are returning to morality.
You’re avoiding the question, once again.
How can you be anti-abortion and pro war?
Simple ethical question that doesn’t require your self righteous nonsense unsupported by reason. Can you answer the question or not?
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
It is very simple, Rob, but you will not believe if I tell you. You are the very poster boy of why this thread exists, and such a perfect straight man, that I will not allow you to irritate me.
Must I repeat that it is futile to dispute with you what you do not believe exists, or to define for you what you refuse definition of? You wish to divert, you attempt to disrupt, but you are not interested in the truth. I will not descend into madness with you, Rob, and I will not grant you your wish to negate any of the impact of this thread.
THIS is the Rob we are supposed to consider credible and anything else than duplicitous when he spouts off what "Christianity" is, or what "Christ taught" in your efforts to condemn Christians? I can link to where you stated this if need be:
"I’m waiting for your proof that the bible, with all its hate and killing, is not the work of Lucifer." Rob
I believe I have told you before that there are 11 Hebrew words for kill, Rob, and that the one in the Commandment, "Thou shalt do no murder" is only one. There is indeed a time for war, and a Christian may indeed kill in defense, in punishment, and in war, according to the teachings of Jesus The Christ, (the God of the Bible - the whole Bible, which you so errantly condemn in gross ignorance).
Now that is as far as I am going to take your deliberate attempt at diversion, as BB has also answered your question, for anyone with ears to hear.
The point of this thread is that Amercians, en masse, have spoken out against evil and moral depravity with their votes in this election, and that an incremental step has been taken thereby toward the return of fixed standards of right and wrong to our public life and society.
Putting this in perspective of your diversions, objections, and attempts to disrupt, then, we see once more ever so clearly that your only motivation in participation is your personal loathing of any fixed standard of right and wrong.
In Biblical terms, you are of those who "hate the light, because their deeds are evil". As such, beyond bringing this a bit abruptly to your attention once more, you have no place at this table. Hurling your imprecations is meaningless, because you and your ilk have indeed come out the LOSERS of this election, and must therefore modify your thinking and conduct in some meaningful way if you wish to be heard, or else continue to marginalize yourselves further. YOU are the ones who must "reach out" if you desire acceptance in any measure.
THAT is what this thread is about. We are attemting to turn the tide until the madness and evil you spout, with your deleterious influence, is no longer acceptable once more. The insane and the evil should keep silent when the righteous rule. We are certainly not there yet, but we are hopeful, and have voted based upon that hope.
That there are enough of US to put you in your place politically is a very good start. Please do make a note of it. Since you personally oppose all that we believe in, you might also wish to consider that we are not a bunch of mamby-pamby pacifists, either. We believe firmly in our right to defend our way of life from the likes of you, by force of arms as necessary. We had eight years of overtly evil rule in the Clintonista years, with a lingering bad taste of what it is like to be marginalized for righteousness' sake.
We are not so interested in controlling your right to be insane as we are in restoring the time-honored safeguards against your having the power to enforce your evil and insanity through the civil power, and in reminding you that insanity and evil do not entitle you to legally protected status or any right to be "tolerated" as to acceptance in our society. That is the subject of this thread.
Tras
Must I repeat that it is futile to dispute with you what you do not believe exists, or to define for you what you refuse definition of? You wish to divert, you attempt to disrupt, but you are not interested in the truth. I will not descend into madness with you, Rob, and I will not grant you your wish to negate any of the impact of this thread.
THIS is the Rob we are supposed to consider credible and anything else than duplicitous when he spouts off what "Christianity" is, or what "Christ taught" in your efforts to condemn Christians? I can link to where you stated this if need be:
"I’m waiting for your proof that the bible, with all its hate and killing, is not the work of Lucifer." Rob
I believe I have told you before that there are 11 Hebrew words for kill, Rob, and that the one in the Commandment, "Thou shalt do no murder" is only one. There is indeed a time for war, and a Christian may indeed kill in defense, in punishment, and in war, according to the teachings of Jesus The Christ, (the God of the Bible - the whole Bible, which you so errantly condemn in gross ignorance).
Now that is as far as I am going to take your deliberate attempt at diversion, as BB has also answered your question, for anyone with ears to hear.
The point of this thread is that Amercians, en masse, have spoken out against evil and moral depravity with their votes in this election, and that an incremental step has been taken thereby toward the return of fixed standards of right and wrong to our public life and society.
Putting this in perspective of your diversions, objections, and attempts to disrupt, then, we see once more ever so clearly that your only motivation in participation is your personal loathing of any fixed standard of right and wrong.
In Biblical terms, you are of those who "hate the light, because their deeds are evil". As such, beyond bringing this a bit abruptly to your attention once more, you have no place at this table. Hurling your imprecations is meaningless, because you and your ilk have indeed come out the LOSERS of this election, and must therefore modify your thinking and conduct in some meaningful way if you wish to be heard, or else continue to marginalize yourselves further. YOU are the ones who must "reach out" if you desire acceptance in any measure.
THAT is what this thread is about. We are attemting to turn the tide until the madness and evil you spout, with your deleterious influence, is no longer acceptable once more. The insane and the evil should keep silent when the righteous rule. We are certainly not there yet, but we are hopeful, and have voted based upon that hope.
That there are enough of US to put you in your place politically is a very good start. Please do make a note of it. Since you personally oppose all that we believe in, you might also wish to consider that we are not a bunch of mamby-pamby pacifists, either. We believe firmly in our right to defend our way of life from the likes of you, by force of arms as necessary. We had eight years of overtly evil rule in the Clintonista years, with a lingering bad taste of what it is like to be marginalized for righteousness' sake.
We are not so interested in controlling your right to be insane as we are in restoring the time-honored safeguards against your having the power to enforce your evil and insanity through the civil power, and in reminding you that insanity and evil do not entitle you to legally protected status or any right to be "tolerated" as to acceptance in our society. That is the subject of this thread.
Tras
fruit loop
Inactive
TA, Lighten up on Rob
He is merely pointing out a question often argued by a lot of Christians.
Lots of Quakers and Amish ask this question too. They don't believe in any kind of violence. If the Amish are attacked they will not resist.
He's asking a reasonable question. I find it interesting that everyone chooses to attack him rather than give him an intelligent, well-thought-out answer.
I also find that curious, Rob. Some people picket abortion clinics but cheer when they hear of an execution. Jerry Falwell is one. He hates abortion but supports the war and believes in the death penalty.
Lots of people see a hole in this kind of thinking and would like it explained, Tradsael Adnepos.
I don't think Rob is trying to irritate you. I'm sure he has much better things to do
He is merely pointing out a question often argued by a lot of Christians.
Lots of Quakers and Amish ask this question too. They don't believe in any kind of violence. If the Amish are attacked they will not resist.
He's asking a reasonable question. I find it interesting that everyone chooses to attack him rather than give him an intelligent, well-thought-out answer.
I also find that curious, Rob. Some people picket abortion clinics but cheer when they hear of an execution. Jerry Falwell is one. He hates abortion but supports the war and believes in the death penalty.
Lots of people see a hole in this kind of thinking and would like it explained, Tradsael Adnepos.
I don't think Rob is trying to irritate you. I'm sure he has much better things to do
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
A reasonable question asked and answered, even though it was asked with obvious evil motive as a diversionary attack to the topic and a completely closed mind and heart.
The Amish and the Quakers do not hate Christ, do not profane His Word, do not promote evil, and do not hack at the roots of their own liberty. Their error is born of centuries of hopeless oppression, and will not prevent in any measure their acceptance in the Kingdom.
You I can lighten up on, respect, and even enjoy, Fruitloop. I appreciate your kind- heartedness as much as your quick wit, but I will have to decide for myself when I sense the approach of evil. Rob has proved himself many times over here to be incontrovertibly hostile to all that is good, holy, and true, and must therefore know the censure such conduct deserves. I do not think I have misread his intentions, and believe I recognize with a clarity very few may the spirit which rules him. It is not his insults which raise my hackles...
Tras
The Amish and the Quakers do not hate Christ, do not profane His Word, do not promote evil, and do not hack at the roots of their own liberty. Their error is born of centuries of hopeless oppression, and will not prevent in any measure their acceptance in the Kingdom.
You I can lighten up on, respect, and even enjoy, Fruitloop. I appreciate your kind- heartedness as much as your quick wit, but I will have to decide for myself when I sense the approach of evil. Rob has proved himself many times over here to be incontrovertibly hostile to all that is good, holy, and true, and must therefore know the censure such conduct deserves. I do not think I have misread his intentions, and believe I recognize with a clarity very few may the spirit which rules him. It is not his insults which raise my hackles...
Tras
Trasael Adnepos said:
What irritates you Tras is reason and when confronted by what you can’t logically debate intelligently and morally you diminish to petty insults in the hopes that the question will be obscured.
I have no quarrel with Christianity any more than any other religious system. I believe that Christ did in fact live and that he came to bring clarity and definition to the word of God. I also believe that he was a pacifist and carried that thinking with him to his death. If I am wrong in my perception and that Christ, did indeed, kill then please tell me who he killed.
He was not alone in his actions of pacifism. Lao Tse, Krishna and the Buddha also were pacifists.
So now you must once again denigrate the debate to your standard compassion less, Christian less and hateful insults that support and substantiate nothing. How is it that you think you can hurl insults at people in the name of God? What differentiates you from any other religious fanatic that has brought mankind to the doors of war throughout history?
You wish to call everything that you disagree or fail to understand, ‘evil’ and should society allow it you would be burning ‘witches’ at the stake before our eyes. Indeed, you are your own inquisition complete with trial, judge and jury. How terribly sad.
The question still stands before you unanswered:
How can you justify one form of killing and shout immorality at the other.
.
bigwavedave
Deceased
what's the big deal, Rob? never heard of brainwashing? why argue with people who suffer from delusions? it only irritates the pig.
bigwavedave said:
The problem is that we have a group of individuals who have decided our 'morality' based on their system. Whenever this has happened in history horrible things have come because of it.
Perhaps you are right Dave, I have other work to do so I won't be 'irritating' anyones morality for awhile!
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Oh, now THIS is original thinking, Rob:
"The problem is that we have a group of individuals who have decided our 'morality' based on their system. Whenever this has happened in history horrible things have come because of it."
Oh, YEA; like the birth of the United States of America, maybe? Like our whole historic and common law? Like the laws which make society possible? Like the Law of God those are based upon, right? Get it all out now...
That thing is making an even worse fool of you, the longer you let it froth.
Hey, beach ball. Your's agitated too? Why stop at infantile name calling? Take the mask off and show US what you're really made of. That all you got, LOSER?
Nice try for a thread kill, though. Not very well thought out, but nice try.
Tras
Trasael Adnepos said:
Oh, now THIS is original thinking, Rob:
"The problem is that we have a group of individuals who have decided our 'morality' based on their system. Whenever this has happened in history horrible things have come because of it."
Oh, YEA; like the birth of the United States of America, maybe? Like our whole historic and common law? Like the laws which make society possible? Like the Law of God those are based upon, right? Get it all out now...
That thing is making an even worse fool of you, the longer you let it froth.
Nice try for a thread kill, though. Not very well thought out, but nice try.
Tras
The thread pertains to morality.
I don’t believe morality can be legislated. It is an aspect of the individual and his relationship to God.
I don’t believe war and the killing of innocent individuals through ‘collateral damage’ is moral.
I don’t believe we can march against abortion and march into war simultaneously because in the end the result is the same.
I believe it is the providence of God to confront and judge ‘evil’ and it is for man to not participate in it.
And I believe the ‘tool’ God has given man to defend himself is prayer and not subjective judgement or violence.
We are done Mr. Adnepos.
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Well, I am certainly relieved that you are finished, however many of you are in there. The moral high ground is occupied and defended.
IF you had been paying attention on these threads, though, you would have noticed that the brain-dead Marxist mantra, "You can't legislate morality", has already been debunked.
It remains a matter of current and historic legal record, throughout our books, that all Law which makes society possible IS "moral law", that all criminal law and common law IS firmly rooted in the "moral law", and that said Law is the "Law of nature and of nature's God" (see Cooley's and Blackstone's). Pull up your state law site and search for the terms and phrases "..for the protection of the health, education, welfare and morals of the people."
You can parrot that crap until you turn blue, and it won't become Truth any more than your chants to your hindoo demon gods.
Tras
IF you had been paying attention on these threads, though, you would have noticed that the brain-dead Marxist mantra, "You can't legislate morality", has already been debunked.
It remains a matter of current and historic legal record, throughout our books, that all Law which makes society possible IS "moral law", that all criminal law and common law IS firmly rooted in the "moral law", and that said Law is the "Law of nature and of nature's God" (see Cooley's and Blackstone's). Pull up your state law site and search for the terms and phrases "..for the protection of the health, education, welfare and morals of the people."
You can parrot that crap until you turn blue, and it won't become Truth any more than your chants to your hindoo demon gods.
Tras
nanna
Devil's Advocate
In the first century AD, the Roman Emperor Vitellius decreed that by the
first of October, all magicians had to leave Italy. The Magicians responded
with placards saying that by October 1, Vitellius would no longer be living
anywhere. By that date, Vitellius had been overthrown, dragged naked through
the streets of Rome, killed and thrown off a cliff.
Nope, you can't legislate morality.
nanna
first of October, all magicians had to leave Italy. The Magicians responded
with placards saying that by October 1, Vitellius would no longer be living
anywhere. By that date, Vitellius had been overthrown, dragged naked through
the streets of Rome, killed and thrown off a cliff.
Nope, you can't legislate morality.
nanna
I did FL. Rob is close-minded and dogmatic about his pacifism. I did not attack him and gave him the "key" of knowledge regarding violence. Jesus taught personal non-violence but believed in the state using the sword as Paul so clearly wrote in the passage I posted in Romans 13.
Rob: You misunderstand the Scriptures AND Christ and that is the source of your confusion and wrong-thinking. Christians believe that the God of the OT was Christ in His preincarnate state. As Paul wrote, "He was that Rock in the wilderness." For those with ears to hear, 'Yeshua was YHVH!
It was Christ on the mountain who gave Moses the Law. It was Christ who sent angels to kill the Egyptians' first born sons. It was Christ who commanded the Red Sea waters to collapse to Pharoah and his army. It was Christ who commanded Israel to slay whole peoples including women and children. It was Christ who rained down fire and sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ who sent the rains that destroyed the whole world except one righteous family. It was Christ who sent Babylon to destroy Jerusalem and it was He who sent the Romans to destroy it again in AD70. And it will be Him who appears again to destroy His enemies with flaming fire.
Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever it says in Hebrews 13.
If the Amish didn't have Christians who believed in the state's right to use power, they wouldn't be around to defend their doctrine. It is only in the safety of police protection and military might that they are safe. I respect the position and those who hold to it but I don't agree with it since it is not in harmony with the Bible.
So I leave you with this question. Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?
Thanks Tras for your input.
BB said:
And I responded to that statement. You have not answered the question. The question is about duality of thinking and the morality of marching of to war and marching against abortion which both kill and through collateral damage kill innocent children and pregnant women. So, again, how do you justify your war and still march against abortion when they both kill pregnant women.
Close minded? I’m still waiting for you to answer this question.
<B>Rob: You misunderstand the Scriptures AND Christ and that is the source of your confusion and wrong-thinking. Christians believe that the God of the OT was Christ in His preincarnate state. As Paul wrote, "He was that Rock in the wilderness." For those with ears to hear, 'Yeshua was YHVH! </B>
Again, I think Christ came to clarify and you still have not shown where he killed anyone and as much as you would like to draw a correlation between Christ and God you have not shown where he gave you the right to judge in his name and kill anyone. What we know is that he preached non-violence.
<B>It was Christ on the mountain who gave Moses the Law. It was Christ who sent angels to kill the Egyptians' first born sons. It was Christ who commanded the Red Sea waters to collapse to Pharoah and his army. It was Christ who commanded Israel to slay whole peoples including women and children. It was Christ who rained down fire and sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ who sent the rains that destroyed the whole world except one righteous family. It was Christ who sent Babylon to destroy Jerusalem and it was He who sent the Romans to destroy it again in AD70. And it will be Him who appears again to destroy His enemies with flaming fire.</B>
You can believe that it was Christ if you like but you still haven’t shown where you have been handed the right to judge and kill in God’s name. Again and again, it is for God to judge what is ‘evil’ and act upon it not for you to assume that God has given you that right. It was man’s assumption that he had that right that created the Inquisition. So who was ‘evil’ the ‘christians’ or the innocent people burned at the stake?
<B>If the Amish didn't have Christians who believed in the state's right to use power, they wouldn't be around to defend their doctrine. It is only in the safety of police protection and military might that they are safe. I respect the position and those who hold to it but I don't agree with it since it is not in harmony with the Bible.</B>
We are never free when that freedom is contingent on the control or destruction of another individual or a society of individuals as history has proven time and time again. Freedom comes from within the individual not the society. Societies are amoral and if you wish to cling to the power of the political system then you must accept the genocide of the Native American through ‘Manifest Destiny’ where this country thought it was their God given right to the land and the destruction they created to obtain it. You can’t look at the horror of WW2 Germany and dismiss US horrors. Genocide is genocide, horror is horror and dropping a bomb on 100 thousand innocent people is horror. Again, do you want to justify this through your Biblical interpretation? Because if you do then we must examine the morality of your thinking, your system and your book.
<B>So I leave you with this question. Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?</B>
Again, I think the Bible is filled with incongruities and distortions by men who have used it throughout history for their own power. Christ came to reestablish the truth and his actions were decidedly different.
In either case God did not give you the authority to judge or kill in his name.
I must go now but perhaps I will be able to continue when I return.
How do you justify your war and still march against abortion when they both kill pregnant women.
Huh? This question makes no sense to me. I march against abortion because it CAN kill pregnant women and always kills the unborn. I would march against any war that didn't fight a "just war", which means doing everything to avoid killing innocent people and non-military targets.
I think Christ came to clarify and you still have not shown where he killed anyone and as much as you would like to draw a correlation between Christ and God you have not shown where he gave you the right to judge in his name and kill anyone. What we know is that he preached non-violence.
Yes, He did come to clarify the difference between personal non-violence and a nation's right to fight a just war.
If you don't think Christ did not kill anyone than you do not have a correct doctrine of Christ who Christians believe was the God of the OT.
You are right that he didn't give me the right to kill anyone but he has given the right to America to go to war to protect its citizens.
Now, please explain what Jesus meant in this verse He spoke to disciples before His death and resurrection. ....
Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."... So why did He tell them to buy a sword if it wasn't for self-defense?
We are never free when that freedom is contingent on the control or destruction of another individual or a society of individuals as history has proven time and time again. Freedom comes from within the individual not the society. Societies are amoral and if you wish to cling to the power of the political system then you must accept the genocide of the Native American through ‘Manifest Destiny’ where this country thought it was their God given right to the land and the destruction they created to obtain it. You can’t look at the horror of WW2 Germany and dismiss US horrors. Genocide is genocide, horror is horror and dropping a bomb on 100 thousand innocent people is horror. Again, do you want to justify this through your Biblical interpretation? Because if you do then we must examine the morality of your thinking, your system and your book.
I don't accept what our nation did to the Indians. I don't believe that every war that America enters is necessarily correct and I respect those who oppose our war in Viet Nam and Iraq. A nation's leaders need to be held accountable for their decisions to go to war.
Concerning WW2, I believe it was proper for America to go to war as long as it went to war according to the Geneva Convention. I believe war crimes should be punished. I don't have a problem with dropping the Atom bomb. It ended the war and prevented more deaths than those bombs caused.
Since you call the Bible "your book" I assume that it is not your book and that you are not a Christian. That means you do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot understand spiritual things including the Bible. I doubt we will ever come to an understanding of "just war" if you are not a born-again believer. I don't say this to be mean or unkind. I'm just stating the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Requirement to understanding God, Christ and the Bible.
Again, I think the Bible is filled with incongruities and distortions by men who have used it throughout history for their own power. Christ came to reestablish the truth and his actions were decidedly different.
In either case God did not give you the authority to judge or kill in his name.
Men may have used the Bible for their own purposes but I find no incongruities or distortions in it like you do. You obviously don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible which explains why you don't have a balanced view of non-violence.
Exactly what truth did Christ come to reestablish? He did model personal holiness and non-violence BUT that didn't apply to the state's right to wield the sword against evildoers.
Huh? This question makes no sense to me. I march against abortion because it CAN kill pregnant women and always kills the unborn. I would march against any war that didn't fight a "just war", which means doing everything to avoid killing innocent people and non-military targets.
I think Christ came to clarify and you still have not shown where he killed anyone and as much as you would like to draw a correlation between Christ and God you have not shown where he gave you the right to judge in his name and kill anyone. What we know is that he preached non-violence.
Yes, He did come to clarify the difference between personal non-violence and a nation's right to fight a just war.
If you don't think Christ did not kill anyone than you do not have a correct doctrine of Christ who Christians believe was the God of the OT.
You are right that he didn't give me the right to kill anyone but he has given the right to America to go to war to protect its citizens.
Now, please explain what Jesus meant in this verse He spoke to disciples before His death and resurrection. ....
Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."... So why did He tell them to buy a sword if it wasn't for self-defense?
We are never free when that freedom is contingent on the control or destruction of another individual or a society of individuals as history has proven time and time again. Freedom comes from within the individual not the society. Societies are amoral and if you wish to cling to the power of the political system then you must accept the genocide of the Native American through ‘Manifest Destiny’ where this country thought it was their God given right to the land and the destruction they created to obtain it. You can’t look at the horror of WW2 Germany and dismiss US horrors. Genocide is genocide, horror is horror and dropping a bomb on 100 thousand innocent people is horror. Again, do you want to justify this through your Biblical interpretation? Because if you do then we must examine the morality of your thinking, your system and your book.
I don't accept what our nation did to the Indians. I don't believe that every war that America enters is necessarily correct and I respect those who oppose our war in Viet Nam and Iraq. A nation's leaders need to be held accountable for their decisions to go to war.
Concerning WW2, I believe it was proper for America to go to war as long as it went to war according to the Geneva Convention. I believe war crimes should be punished. I don't have a problem with dropping the Atom bomb. It ended the war and prevented more deaths than those bombs caused.
Since you call the Bible "your book" I assume that it is not your book and that you are not a Christian. That means you do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot understand spiritual things including the Bible. I doubt we will ever come to an understanding of "just war" if you are not a born-again believer. I don't say this to be mean or unkind. I'm just stating the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Requirement to understanding God, Christ and the Bible.
Again, I think the Bible is filled with incongruities and distortions by men who have used it throughout history for their own power. Christ came to reestablish the truth and his actions were decidedly different.
In either case God did not give you the authority to judge or kill in his name.
Men may have used the Bible for their own purposes but I find no incongruities or distortions in it like you do. You obviously don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible which explains why you don't have a balanced view of non-violence.
Exactly what truth did Christ come to reestablish? He did model personal holiness and non-violence BUT that didn't apply to the state's right to wield the sword against evildoers.
BB said:
<I>How do you justify your war and still march against abortion when they both kill pregnant women.</I>
<B>Huh? This question makes no sense to me. I march against abortion because it CAN kill pregnant women and always kills the unborn.</B>
Makes no sense? We have already established that war kills innocent people. Do you think that the fire bomb of Tokyo that killed 100 thousand people in one night missed pregnant women? Did you think the B52 bombing of the first Iraq war missed innocent people? EVERY war kills innocent people. Read some history. Also go back and read my posts that you didn’t answer the questions I posed to you. That you avoided.
<B>I would march against any war that didn't fight a "just war", which means doing everything to avoid killing innocent people and non-military targets.</B>
“Just war”? Just by your subjective perceptions. The people who burned innocent women at the stake in the Inquisition thought they were fighting a ‘just war’ against ‘evil’. The genocide that destroyed the Native American race was fought by individuals who thought it was their “‘christian’ right” to kill those people. That it was a ‘just war’. Again be careful what you call ‘evil’ and ‘just’.
<I>I think Christ came to clarify and you still have not shown where he killed anyone and as much as you would like to draw a correlation between Christ and God you have not shown where he gave you the right to judge in his name and kill anyone. What we know is that he preached non-violence.</I>
<B>Yes, He did come to clarify the difference between personal non-violence and a nation's right to fight a just war.</B>
Christ never said anything about killing anyone. Now you want to twist what Christ said to fit your subjective evaluations of right and wrong. Again, maybe you should let Christ confront ‘evil’. You’re not equipped to do deal with it.
<B>If you don't think Christ did not kill anyone than you do not have a correct doctrine of Christ who Christians believe was the God of the OT.</B>
Where are you going now? You can’t justify your killing through Christ so now you want to draw a correlation between the killing of the old testament with Christ. Why are you calling yourself a ‘christian’? You either follow Christ or you don’t. Make up your mind.
<B>You are right that he didn't give me the right to kill anyone but he has given the right to America to go to war to protect its citizens.</B>
Talk about not making sense.
OK. If he didn’t give you the right to kill anyone then how do you go to war which kills masses of people including masses of innocent people. What do you think B52 bombs are selective?
<B>Now, please explain what Jesus meant in this verse He spoke to disciples before His death and resurrection. ....
Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."... So why did He tell them to buy a sword if it wasn't for self-defense?</B>
OK, how many of his apostles sold their cloaks, bought swords and killed people?
<I> We are never free when that freedom is contingent on the control or destruction of another individual or a society of individuals as history has proven time and time again. Freedom comes from within the individual not the society. Societies are amoral and if you wish to cling to the power of the political system then you must accept the genocide of the Native American through ‘Manifest Destiny’ where this country thought it was their God given right to the land and the destruction they created to obtain it. You can’t look at the horror of WW2 Germany and dismiss US horrors. Genocide is genocide, horror is horror and dropping a bomb on 100 thousand innocent people is horror. Again, do you want to justify this through your Biblical interpretation? Because if you do then we must examine the morality of your thinking, your system and your book.</I>
<B>I don't accept what our nation did to the Indians. I don't believe that every war that America enters is necessarily correct and I respect those who oppose our war in Viet Nam and Iraq. A nation's leaders need to be held accountable for their decisions to go to war.</B>
Ok ,now you want to select your wars. Now we’re back to your subjective justification. Now we’re back to your subjective ‘evil’. Now you have to accept the Inquisition because you believe in killing and we have no way of knowing when you would have made the same mistake that caused those atrocities. We don’t know how you would have acted if you had been alive then or if you had lived in WW2 Germany because those people were acting on the same nationalism you act on and let’s face it they weren’t Zoroastrians they were ‘christians’ just like you.
<B>Concerning WW2, I believe it was proper for America to go to war as long as it went to war according to the Geneva Convention. I believe war crimes should be punished. I don't have a problem with dropping the Atom bomb. It ended the war and prevented more deaths than those bombs caused.</B>
Have you studied any history? Maybe you should go back and read the reasons for WW1 and WW2. The depressions and labor strikes. No one gave a fiddle about the Jews certainly not FDR. His ‘New Deal’ wasn’t bringing the country out of the depression fast enough but the war did.
We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Why were we attacked?
Bob Mc Namara, JFK’s and LBJ’s sec. of defense said,” If we had lost the war we would have been tried for war crimes.” Winners don’t get tried only losers.
You don’t have a problem with the A bomb? We killed 100 thousand innocent people instantly. Men, women, pregnant women and children. What about those innocent pregnant women that were killed. You don’t have a problem with that? Then you must be for abortion. At this point I think you’re very confused about your morality.
So when is it moral and not moral to kill pregnant women? When your opinion dictates it is?
<B>Since you call the Bible "your book" I assume that it is not your book and that you are not a Christian. That means you do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot understand spiritual things including the Bible. I doubt we will ever come to an understanding of "just war" if you are not a born-again believer. I don't say this to be mean or unkind. I'm just stating the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Requirement to understanding God, Christ and the Bible.</B>
Rubbish.
First, you say no one can get to heaven unless they are a born again christian and accept your system. This thinking is not new. Pope Boniface the VIII declared in 1302 his Bull “Unam Sanctam” which said “every human creature was subject to the Roman Pontiff” and there was no salvation outside the Roman Church. Sound familiar? This “closed minded” thinking brought about the ‘Great Schism’.
I don’t have the Holy Spirit? Am I the one supporting killing? Am I the one calling people who disagree with me ‘evil’.
I can’t “understand spiritual things” because I don’t accept your premise of morality and the system you use to defend it. Which brings us to ‘new age’. My thinking is a product of many religions and philosophers. I would never tell anyone that they can’t reach heaven unless they adapt my beliefs but this is what you are saying . As far as the ‘new age’, again maybe you should do some reading. The Buddha and Lao Tse were 500 years before Christ, Plato 400 years. Christianity is the ‘new age’ boy on the block and if we look at 1520 when Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther. The Christians are the baby on the block.
There is no such thing as a “just war”. War is a failure of man to understand what Christ, the Buddha, Krishna and Lao Tse taught. War is a failure of morality and a failure of compassion. Christ didn’t do it and nothing you have shown proves he did.
<I>Again, I think the Bible is filled with incongruities and distortions by men who have used it throughout history for their own power. Christ came to reestablish the truth and his actions were decidedly different.
In either case God did not give you the authority to judge or kill in his name.</I>
<B>Men may have used the Bible for their own purposes but I find no incongruities or distortions in it like you do. You obviously don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible which explains why you don't have a balanced view of non-violence.</B>
You’re right my view is that killing is wrong and it’s based on years of research and introspection. It’s morally wrong no matter who does it or how they wish to justify it.
<B>Exactly what truth did Christ come to reestablish? He did model personal holiness and non-violence BUT that didn't apply to the state's right to wield the sword against evildoers.</B>
What?
Now you’re agreeing that Christ came as a model of holiness and non-violence which I establish several posts ago. So are you a Christian or not? Maybe you want to rethink what you are.