War and Christianity

exactly... with the addition that when you add God into the mix you have a much more plausable origin of life.

That's a healthy compromise view that I can respect

WOW!!! Note to self... I agreed with Juro AND Chip today... I am speachless

Not really, Billy. Once you have the basic building blocks, it is easy to create simple life forms. The trick, one which the science community is working on now, is the transition from simple life to more complex entities such as ourselves. Time is on the side of science, always has been, so they'll figure it out.

Oh, and FYI.. we're flying through space right now. As the universe expanded in the early days, all sorts of material was thrown outward, gradually clumping together under pressure from its own weight/gravity to form the universe we're familiar with today. That's a really simplistic explanation, but you get it.

That's a little debatable. There is certainly room for the possibility that they could've known it wasn't true, but kept silent. Again, it's nearly impossible to confirm since none of us were there.

hehehe

Erased post...I just get tired of hearing the same lies over and over when it comes to 9/11. If you are pro-war fine just leave 9/11 out of it unless you are willing to implicate all parties involved, including the Bush family.

As far as god, allah or any supreme being name you choose to worship, worship on your own terms and leave those of us who choose not to believe out of it. The preponderance of the evidence still leans in the favor of the aetheist. If your personal faith leads you elsewhere then that is your business and I will not think less of you for it. It is when your faith effects my life that I have a problem.

The article was made by him, of course, but the claims were'nt. If I seem jumpy I apologize; the airconditioner is broken and im started to feel like im surrounded by an aura of heat.

I guess we are even then. I get tired of the same ole crap about President Bush being a war monger who when to war with Iraq to take revenge for his father, for oil, to pit Christians against Muslims and a dozen other things that make him out to be a horrible person.


Where the heck did you get the thought in your head that I am not worshiping on my own terms and leaving those of you who choose not to believe out of it? Please show me where I did this Isis. You can believe whatever you want. It is a free country and I have no malice towards you or anyone else who does not believe in the Christian God. Furthermore, why are you claiming that MY personal faith is now effecting YOUR life?

Since I'm working from memory here, can't provide you with a source...

Touché

Billy that wasn't directed towards you but anyone of a religious inclination who goes out of their way to distort facts in order to try for some twisted world domination in the name of their god and at the expense of others. Tell me are some christians not trying to "save" the world by way of force? Is it not the religous right that sensors the television making one breast worse than a thousand gunshots? Is it not the religious right who stand in front of abortion clinics berating women who have made a choice for themselves? Is it not the religious right who have chosen to wage war against gay marriage? Is it not the religious right who believe that a plaque of the ten commandments is more important than a new set of history books for a middle school?

It was a christian that walked into my club with a bible in hand calling all of my employees whores. When I looked outside there was a line of christians standing there with signs in their hands demeaning everyone who tried to come to work. Nobody asked them to be there, they took it upon themselves. And who was the heathen for having the good and holy christians tresspassed off the property...me. I don't go to their churches demanding that they follow my way of thinking. And Saddam didn't come here demanding that we follow his way of government.

And no not all Christians are of a militiant bent, but all Muslims are not militant either. There are as many Christians willing to use force to forward their agenda as their are muslims. The religious right has proven that with the abortion clinic bombings alone. You will never convince me that a large portion of the religious right doesn't support this war because they believe that the Muslim nations need to be destroyed. I will never believe that the religious right has not a holy stake in this war on terror.

I have a long history with Christianity. I have read the bible so many times that looking at one makes me sick. Not because I don't think it is a wonderful philosophy but because it has been mangled and perverted by those who are trying to fulfill their own agenda whether it is a king or a president or a television evangelist or a man with a bible berating women at a strip club. The true messages from Christ have been lost on 2 minute miracles, book sales, abortion ralies and those mini-malls of God people call churches.

This thread isn't about you, Billy. This thread is about whether or not Christianity is a warring religion. I do not believe that it was Jesus' intent but I do believe that the agenda of his followers has muddied the translation giving them some feeling of dominion over mankind when they really should sweep their own front porch first. And I feel the same about the Muslim faith.

And I am still trying to figure out your "I want nothing more than peace but if nothing is done it will never come" line. So let me get this straight you want nothing more than peace but if we do not kill people we will not have peace. Murder=Peace... War=Peace sorry if I am a bit confused by the doublespeak but I am sure that would not pass Ghandi's pascifist test.

Billy,

First, your whole "which is more believable" argument is totally biased depending on how you phrase it.

What's wrong with God creating physics that scientists discover? Nothing.


If this indeed was not your intention, you really need to rethink how you speak about religion. You posted out of context quotes form the Koran all endorsing war, some misinterpreted even on face value. I'd say that's a pretty clear message that you believe the Muslim faith is for war, and that speaks pretty loudly about how you view Muslims.


Excuse me one second.

*goes into the other room, bursts out laughing... recovers, walking into the room*

So, you're saying that showing violence toward objects is morally wrong in itself? Are you putting "clearing off and overturning tables" as a moral equivalent to hurting people? Come on, now. Ain't nothing wrong with throwing scales and bags of money on the floor of a temple when it was being used as a bank.

By your logic, cutting down a tree is the same as killing a person. You're really deluding yourself here.

I repeat - there is NO EXAMPLE in the gospel of "Jesus endorsing violence..." oh, gee, forgot the most obvious and not-needed-to-be-stated "against people" at the end.

Saying otherwise is changing Jesus' words, and you should be ashamed of yourself for ever implying Christ endorsed or used violence against people.



Jesus specifically said that the only laws a person needed to follow were two:
- Love and keep God as your only god.
- Love your neighbor.

In this bold statement he effectively rendered all laws of the Old Testament obsolete.

But you're right in that perhaps it wasn't the time. However, I highly doubt the battle was/is to be against people. A more reasonable interpretation would be that the battles described in Old Testament prophecy refers to end-days type war against demons.

If you buy into that. Personally, I see it all as allegory. Like "The War On Hunger" isn't about hurting people, it's about defeating a problem.


Absolutely, Billy. What I have a problem with is two-fold:
1. That this justification has been under the guise of Christianity.
2. That the implementation of this defense of our country was so wildly botched by the Bush administration. But that's another issue.


We shall overcome.

Certainly. But when Bush says things about how God speaks to him about Iraq, and how conservative christians say Bush is "god's choice" and not to vote to kerry because he isn't strictly anti-abortion, I'd say that they are making it a "christian" issue.


Why is it that conservatives will scream bloody murder if you question their actions in Iraq, but apparently the bipartisan committee that interviewed thousands of people and poured over countless documents concluded, unequivocally, THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11, was incorrect?!?!!?!?!?!

This is moot, since the US is hardly isolationist. We participate in trade and business with every country in the world. We were in Sarejevo, Mogadishu, Israel, have bases all over Europe, east Asia, and the Middle East, have our navy patrol waters all over the world, and do humanitarian things all over the world as well.

Ironically, the terrorists most often cite America's meddling in the Middle East's affairs, including supporting Israel, as the primary reason to hate us. As in they would prefer we would be more isolationist.


Why you personally support the war has nothing to do with whether or not Christ's teachings support a war.



Let's make this clear - from all the numerous investigations by military, government, and private organizations - the extent which Saddam supported terrorism was to provide money to families of suicide bombers in Israel. This still has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!!

Good Zues, Hiro, thank you.

Sure, I do believe that there are some out there as you described but you could say the same about non-Christians. There are plenty of those who support this war too.


Of course there are. There are many Christian missionaries in many countries doing what they can.


I sure hope that you are not arguing for the sanctity of TV. Liberals in Hollywood have stretched the limits of what is acceptable to a point where there is very little suitable for my 8 year old daughter to watch but this is an entirely different subject.

As for a single breast being worse than a thousand gunshots I agree with you that should not be the case but I submit that it was indeed the liberal Hollywood left that has effectively changed the structure of television to where that is now acceptable. I don’t see any liberals out there lobbying to get rid of all of the violence but the exact opposite. You are on the wrong side of this argument Isis.


Absolutly NOT. Some nuts have done so but to lump the rest of us with them and say that we are all in favor of berating anyone is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, nobody I know would support this. Are we against abortion? Yes, but the vast majority of Christians are NOT in favor of these nuts who are frankly doing the work of the devil and driving people like yourself away from Christ.


I don’t know about “wage war” but I agree that the majority of the religious right is against gay marriage. Personally I do not support their efforts so I would appreciate it if you did not put that one on me personally.


um… I admit that if you are referring to a specific ocurrance I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not agree that the majority of Christians would agree with you.


I am beginning to see where your hostility comes from. Your problem is that you lump the actions of a few nuts together and proclaim that the “religious right”, which basically is every Christian or at best the majority, not only agrees with what these people are doing but believe that it is behavior that is taught in every church as what God calls us to do.

These people are an embarrassment for most Christians and should be ashamed of themselves. There is nothing in the bible that supports their behavior and I for one would appreciate a little respect and not be lumped with any of them. To do so would be like lumping all (fill in the blank) people with the actions of a few radicals. This type of stereotyping is shameful and has been the cause of bigotry and prejudice for many years.


You are not reading what I have written Isis. I have said already that 80% of the Muslims believe that the time has not yet arrived. I have also said that there are many Muslims that are “good” people.


I respectfully do not agree. Christians that have a thorough understanding of the Bible are not chomping at the bit to go to war which should be a last resort. I will agree with you in that I believe that there are a bunch of people out there who might say they are Christians but really have a very limited knowledge base from which to draw. I will agree that many of these people might be as you describe but using force to “forwarding” a Christian agenda is wrong.


It is shameful and disrespectful for you to lump the majority of Christians together with the waccos who do this. I do not know of a single Christian that I personally know that supports this behavior.


Gosh Isis. How cynical of you to think that Christians believe that Muslims should be whipped out by force.

I am sorry but I will not mince words here. You have a warped view of Christianity if you believe this. The Christian God is a God of love. To say that Christians as a whole support “destroying” the Muslim nation by force is just sick. You are wrong and are spreading lies and hate. Your words are hurtful and do nothing but encourage the kind of prejudice that our country needs to put behind itself.

It makes me very sad that this is your belief and I encourage you to educate yourself as to what the truth is. The truth is that Christians would love for Christ to reach all people and that they come to see His truth before it is too late. But using force to do this has no place in Christianity and is not supported by the God I know.


I agree with you here with the exception that it is the radical few that are as you describe, not the majority.


Never said it was.


The answer to that question is easy. It is not.


Do I wish everyone believed as I do? Yes, but everyone is free to make up their own mind and do as they wish. World domination is quite silly when the Bible clearly puts us all in the same boat. I am no better than you or anyone else. I still fall short and sin. My sin is no better or worse than yours. Do I want you to believe? Yes. Do I think I have some kind of domination over mankind? No.


Sometimes to attain a lasting peace there has to be war so in that sense peace is the end result of war. In this case we are in a war if we want to be or not. The terrorists will not stop unless we stop them. We disagree that war = murder by the way so I will not comment on your other equation.

I still say that primarily we are in this to defend ourselves and it is ok that you disagree with me. You will not change my mind and I am sure I will not change yours.

1st you must admit that the religious right believes that sex is far more heinous than war.
There are thousands of letters whenever a boob flops but not a one for the hundreds of slaying which occur nightly before 11pm.

2nd how are the missionaries helping when most of them end up in catholic countries? I suppose catholics are not christian.

3rd I am sorry if your vocal minority chooses to bomb abortion clinics and rally outside their gates to berate women...are we not fighting against a similar vocal minority of muslims who choose to bomb buildings in retaliation? I am sure that some of the families with mutilated babies in Iraq wonder the same thing...as in why are they being tortured for the acts of a few.

4th On the subject of books versus plaques...sorry I just don't see a bunch of religious minded folk standing outside the county seat rallying for up to date text books for their children, however, I do see a crap load of people screaming that a plaque is not allowed in a school.

5th Yes I am hostile towards those who wish to make America into some christian state. Closing down establishments which pay taxes while they sit tax free. This is the thorn in my side. Watching the disgustingly ornate churches being erected in the name of God while people are starving...yeah I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with someone lobbying to take away my rights as a citizen and doing so under the name of God.

6th Christianity has warped the view of a great philosopher. Your Christ would have never stood for this war in Iraq and if you follow him neither should you. Babies are being mutilated and killed for what? Because the man in charge was a suspect in a tawdry game of who done it.

You will keep your God next to your heart and I will respect that. But when your God steps on my toes I will not stand for it. And when innocent people are killed in his name I will scream to the top of my lungs of the wrong doings of those who follow the word they created. This was not the word of Jesus. You are right in saying that he was peace loving and much like Ghandi he would have starved to death before killing the innocent. You cannot say the same for your president.

Peace never equals war and war always equals murder. Sugar coat it anyway you like it is still murder. The Iraqi's never attacked us...this was not a war of retaliation. If you were to show me slides of Bin Laden dead I would not have the same reaction but seeing photos of innocent Iraqi children with half of their bodies blown off for no reason makes me ill. If it does not make you ill then there is nothing that I or Jesus can do for you.

I have not heard this specifically referring to Iraq. Can you please provide a link?


To make a blanket statement that “conservative Christians” say that God chose Bush is reckless Hiro. Sure, maybe a few did but I think that God lets us choose our President ourselves. Just look at Clinton and tell me you do not agree.


Iraq simply is not a religious issue as I have been saying. You cannot deny that Saddam supported terrorism and that if he had a button that he could push to kill every American that he would not do so. He was the most dangerous man on the planet but thanks to President Bush he is finished and the Iraq people have a real chance for freedom.


You do not get what I was saying. My statement was in reply Isis who I believe would rather we become isolationists ignoring the threats that surround us.


I believe that if we do nothing that our freedom is in jeopardy and I do not believe that God does not support war in any circumstance.


It continues to amaze me how many liberals traditionally support freedom from oppression in many places yet are willing to turn their backs on the Iraqi people. Are they not worthy of our help? Do they not deserve a chance to be free? Should Saddam be left alone to continue killing their sons and daughters? No.

I will get to your other post sometime tomorrow. Bedtime here for me.

Clinton was a far better man than Bush could ever dream of being.



He did not but we did. I will deny that accusation. Saddam did not "get along" with the mujahadeed and to say that we gave them any more freedom after viewing the pics from Abu Graib is beyond reproach. We have harmed far more than helped.




I never said that. I do believe that I stated that I wanted Bin Ladens head on a friggin platter...you know Osama right, the guy who had the planes flown into the towers...you know the one who keeps sending us tapes...whatever get a paper.



You do not believe that god does not support war....yet in the bible he says vengence is mine...and all that good stuff. You believe what you want your god to say. You believe that if Bush and Roberts say that this war is Okie Dokie then go for it kill all those damned Arabs...pfft.


We are killing the sons and daughters. We are the ones frying genitals, sodomizing with light bulbs and forcing muslim men to get nakie and form a pyramid. How friggin more disgusting can you get than that. Ohh maybe you can brutalize someone to the point where they pull out the hair from their head and lay naked on a concrete floor praying to die...wait we did that. Sorry but those of a religious bent don't want true freedom here or anywhere else for that matter and they will go to any means and twist facts any way to get their agenda pushed through. Read a bit love find out exactly what your Govco is doing before you mouth off at the freedom loving libertarians such as myself....if you want facts IM me I have about 4000 pages for you to peruse.


Good night sleep tight don't let the Muz bite

*sigh* we're going in circles, and yet I'm compelled to rebutt again.

Sec... googling... yes.

Google the words: Bush speaks God.


Conservative political pundits tout this over and over and over again. Bush himself has boasted how much grass roots conservative christian support he's gotten.

By your words, they are reckless? I'm just repeating their own claims of who won Bush the election.


Hey, Clinton was a crappy President, but this whole statement's out of left field.


Bush claims to get his morals from Christianity.
Bush says the war in Iraq is "the right thing to do" and the enemy insurgents are "evil". Whether or not these are true, this is a moral judgement.
Ergo, Bush has made the war in Iraq a moral issue. All this in addition to all the conservative christian leaders who praise the war in Iraq.


I can. I just did. So did the 9/11 commission.

You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.

Well, considering such a button is impossible, I'd say this statement is irrelevent. Even still, it's clear to me that all Saddam wanted was to abuse his own people and embezzle as much money from the world community as he could. Honestly, I don't think Saddam cared about America as long as we weren't invading, and as long as we were buying their oil. (multiple billions of dollars of Iraq oil was purchased by the US each year via the oil for food program)


Most dangerous? That's laughable!

How about Kim Jong Ill, fanatical dictator of North Korea, a country we don't even have a peace treaty with. He has nukes, brainwashes his citizens, and the largest standing army in the world.

How about Osama bin Laden, who coordinated the 9/11 attack that actually did kill American citizens, unlike Saddam, who never killed any American non-military?

How about China's leader, Hu, who has nuclear weapons, the largest population of people in the world, a burning desire to acquire natural resources, and leads a country with the broadest abuse of human rights violations in the world?

How about Iran's Ayatollah, who has an active uranium enrichment program, is currently aiding insurgency in Iraq, has given asylum to terrorists, and leads a country that has been on the US's list of terrorist states for years? A country that has taken hostages of American citizens?

Your misguided mentality about how dangerous Saddam was is the very reason we rushed into Iraq on faulty information.


No. Thanks to our brave men and women who bleed over in Iraq, Saddam is caught. DESPITE Bush's huge blunders - including going in on faulty intelligence, relying on Chalabi's bad info and advice, disbanding the Iraqi militia, banning Bath party members from government jobs - including teachers and public workers who had to be in the party to get a job, not having a plan to win the peace, not protecting arms depots, and critical locations following the fall of Baghdad, not dealing with Syria and Iran's borders, underestimating the time and troop casualties, not getting crucial allies onboard including the UN, and not even getting domestic unilateral support. These were all executive level blunders that have made Iraq a mess.


No, I understood. She's not suggesting isolationism, she's suggesting intelligent warring. That means not jumping into war on faulty intelligence without global support.


I'm waiting for you to provide a single quote from the Bible where Jesus endorses use of force against another human being. Since Christians believe Jesus is God, and since Jesus has said quite the opposite from your quote, you are ... um ... wrong.


First of all, I'm a moderate Republican, for the record.

Second of all, I was all rooting for Bush when he was pressing the UN and taking a hard line against Iraq. That was not "turning the back on the Iraqi people". Had that been followed through with a military action supported by good intelligence, supported by our allies, and not called "a crusade", I would be rooting for Bush today.

Third of all, you sure have balls saying that liberals want to ignore the Iraqi people. Consider the epidemic of AIDS in Africa affecting tens of millions of people being virtually ignored by the US government.
Consider the widespread human rights violations in China, and the wrongful occupation of Tibet, the absurd claim that Taiwan is part of China, and the clamping down on civil rights on Hong Kong after promising to keep them following the transition from Great Britain.
Consider how many people could be fed, educated, and medicated with the 200 billion we've wasted in Iraq, that could have been a helluva lot less money had the war been done in a way that wasn't rushed and based on bad intell.
Such hypocricy when Bush and conservatives talk about how we can't ignore these people, when we ignore hundreds of millions of others in need.

So... this is what it is like to be tag-teamed and not have your partner show up... hehe.

I will reply when I can folks.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Glad you are conceding my point though.


I will be open minded and agree that I may have been able to get across my point better but I am of the opinion that no matter “how” I said that the Koran supports killing Christians, Jews and for that matter everyone that is not a Muslim either now or at some time in the future would be met with deaf ears no matter how you want to sugar coat it. Please explain how these passages should be taken then if as you claim they are out of context. How about either giving me the proper context or agreeing that the words in the Koran support exactly what I have said.


Do NOT put words in my mouth. You are unbelievably poor at restating my opinion at almost every instance. What I said was that Jesus did use violence, which he did, when you claim he NEVER did. You even admit it here. I am right, you were wrong… is it that hard to admit?


Your words, not mine. That is an asinine conclusion.


Ok, you admit that He used violence in the temple and now claim once again that there is “no example”. Which is is Hiro? Please make up your mind.

As you also point out, Jesus is anything but non-violent in the book of revelations now… isn’t He? I suppose that shouldn’t count… for some reason.

There are many passages in the Old Testament that support war at times and yes, there are even some in the New Testament. One verse supporting war is Romans 13:4. The Apostle Paul writes that it is God who ordains the secular state to reward good and to punish evil. God established the state to “bear the sword,” that is, to use lethal force to keep the peace and maintain justice. This limits the use of force. Peace, not vengeance, is always the object of war.

Romans 13:4 For 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.

This is all besides the point anyway as I still reject your claim that this is a “Christians vs Muslims” was. We are NOT at was with Muslims, we are at war with terrorists that in this case happen to be Muslims. We are NOT even at war with Iraq. Many Iraqis not only support us but are fighting beside us. To view this as anything but a war on terrorists is simply not true no matter how many times you say it.


I love those passages and totally agree with them. I am not here to say that I love war and that it is always the best solution but to say that there is NO just cause in which a Christian can support war would not be accurate. Jesus said this in Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


I can somewhat agree with that.


We can respectfully disagree. Christianity has nothing and should have nothing to do with this war except for the fact that many Christians support it. That fact alone does not mean that this is a “holy” war.


That may be so but hind sight is 20/20. I believe that President Bush is a good man and doing the best he can under an extremely difficult set of circumstances. It is easy to fire off criticism in hindsight.


I hope and pray that you are right

I mean no disrespect here, but this is something I simply don't understand about Christianity... you make a point of the "kill the infidels" type stuff in the Koran as a way (it seems) of claiming that Christianity is superior, yet what difference does it make if it's god's followers or god himself that kills all the infidels? In Christian belief, everyone who has not accepted Jesus as lord is not only going to be killed but tortured for eternity in a lake of fire. This includes infants who die at birth and people who never even knew that Jesus existed (like all the millions who lived and died before Jesus)... it even includes God's "chosen people." This is a deity you find worthy of your worship and adoration? That completely boggles my mind. Even if there was undeniable proof that every lick of Christianity was true, I would not worship God. I'd sooner spit in his cruel and sadistic face. The teachings of Jesus are great as philosophy and I agree with most of it, but nothing Jesus taught was revolutionary. Does anyone honestly believe that everyone was evil before Jesus came and enlightened everyone? No one had thought of kindness and generosity before? Being kind to people is simply common sense. A truly good person is kind and generous to those around him because he believes it's the right way to be, not because he's trying to avoid being punished. If you have to enforce kindness through threat of violence it's not actually kindness. It's extortion.

Your honesty and transparency are very refreshing, Chip. For me, belief in God has never been the issue; it's these man-made religions that attempt to compartmentalize God that I find contemptible. In my case, I believed in God before I really knew there was a religion to go with it. Personally speaking, if God is greater than the universe, then all I really know about God is a few kilobytes of a trillion-trillion terabyte data set.

Allow me to address a couple of your points, below:


Back in college, I remember discussing this topic in a number of courses (including Old Testament and Psych classes). Many theologians believe that there is an inferred "age of accountability" construct. Essentially, it says that you can't be accountable for that which you are not capable of knowing. So, in the case of infants, theologians would speculate that infants are immune to the "accept Jesus or go to hell" model. As for those who have never directly heard of Jesus, theologians might speak about the "layers of God's revelation," creation being one of them. In a manner of speaking, they infer that you can know God through his creation. In addition, they infer that we all have an imprint of God on our heart/soul/mind/whateveryouwannacallit. It's what each person does with his/her level of revelation that, I think, ultimately matters to God.

This begs the fundamental question: Is man(humanity) basically good or evil? Many theoligians would argue the latter. To elaborate, it's not that humans do evil all the time by way of some animal instinct. It's that humans are predisposed to acting outside of boundaries of the "original design manual." Using my oft-cited Nuremberg trial example, one of the lessons learned was/is that pretty much any of us is capable of atrocities. Not that most of us would ever act upon those baser instincts, but the possibility nevertheless exists. From the Christian vantage point, it is that condition that "stains" the human soul with "sin." Kind of like a genetic soul virus passed down throughout the generations.

All that said, I very much respect your instrospection and honesty. I know of no Christian person who doesn't struggle with similar questions. Having endured numerous major trials of life, I've often lashed out at God for his apparent lack of fidelity. Somehow, and in retrospect, it always turns out that it was my skewed and limited perspective of the grand scheme of the universe that was responsible for my former distress. No, I don't have many answers, and the adage that evil and war and pain are the product of sin rings somewhat empty within me. I guess, for now, I am willing to "stay in the questions."

Thanks Paolo The respect is very mutual! The same goes for all the religious people who are willing to discuss these things with me. Religion fascinates me and I am always thankful and appreciative when people will discuss it with me and allow me to be honest about my views without condemning me for them. It's really a wonderful thing, and in my experience it's relatively rare.

My thoughts on the question of wether mankind is inherantly good or evil is that ultimately it's not a valid question (in my opinion). Good and evil are human constructs... simply labels to allow categorization. They're an oversimplification for the range of human thought and action akin to reducing the rainbow to black and white. I equate the concept of good and evil to the physics of space and time. They are relativistic terms that depend on the relationship and proximity of the viewer to the events being viewed. They are also ways of describing the human instincts to survive and prosper through various means. If I were forced to choose an answer to the question I would say that mankind is inherantly good but I would not attribute it to some moral code imparted from on high... it's simply what works best for achieving our instinctual goals, and as such ultimately boils down to common sense. Some people might view the golden rule as an esoteric religious maxim. I see it as a simple and elegant math equation.

Wow! Very elegant statements. I actually tend to agree, but maybe on more of a philosophical vs mathematical level. It relates to a previous statement I made to the effect of, "most things aren't right or wrong; they just are." Furthermore, I don't think that this statement runs counter to the core tenets of the Christian faith.

One interesting personal observation I made, after attending a pseudo-est-like leadership training program, is as follows. For the moment, assume that the Adam and Eve story is true in the literal sense. Prior to the apple incident, neither Adam nor Eve were aware of any distinction between good and evil. They experienced the universe at face value.

Post consumption, voila: Their "eyes were opened," and by virtue of inheritance, each of us can now pass judgment on a whim based on any or no objective/subjective criteria (e.g., we become like gods). In a manner of speaking, the problem of sin is one of knowing too much; humanity is now aware of an attribution of moral value upon every conceivable person, place or thing. So, in a way, Adam and Eve lost innocence for all of us. Imagine what the world would be like if we could experience it at face value...

Highly debatable and the facts are not on your side. I couldn’t disagree more.


Did not ”GET ALONG”??? That HAS to be the understatement of the century. Here is what a cronological picture of Saddam’d life and a view of what he does with people he does not “GET ALONG” with.

1. April 28, 1937 -- Born in village near desert town of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.
2. 1957 -- Joins underground Baath Socialist Party.
3. 1958 -- Arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, spends six months in prison.
4. Oct. 7, 1959 -- On Baath assassination team that ambushes Iraqi strongman Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in Baghdad, wounding him. Saddam, wounded in leg, flees to Syria then Egypt.
5. Feb. 8, 1963 -- Returns from Egypt after Baath takes part in coup that overthrows and kills Kassem. Baath ousted by military in November. "According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. The Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures."
6. July 17, 1968 -- Baathists and army officers overthrow regime.
7. July 30, 1968 -- Takes charge of internal security after Baath ousts erstwhile allies and authority passes to Revolutionary Command Council under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's cousin.
8. In 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Iraq massacred the rebels.
9. July 16, 1979 -- Takes over as president from al-Bakr, launches massive purge of Baath. [In the late 1970s, Saddam also purged the Iraqi Communist Party and other oppositionists.
10. Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years. Iraq was the aggressor in this war and Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war.
11. March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.
12. 1987-1989 – In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds, at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered.
13. Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.
14. Jan. 17, 1991 -- Attacked by U.S.-led coalition; Kuwait liberated in a month.
15. March, 1991 -- Crushes Shiite revolt in south and Kurd revolt in north. After urging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein,, Saddam Hussein to used his helicopters to slaughter the insurgents
16. April 17, 1991 -- Complying with U.N. Resolution 687, starts providing information on weapons of mass destruction, but accused of cheating.
17. Feb. 20, 1996 -- Orders killing of two sons-in-law who in 1995 defected to Jordan and had just returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of safety.
18. Dec. 16, 1998 -- Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later, four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin as punishment for lack of cooperation.
19. Nov. 8, 2002 -- Threatened with "serious consequences" if he does not disarm in U.N. Security Council resolution.
20. Nov. 27, 2002 -- Allows U.N. experts to begin work in Iraq for first time since 1998.
21. Dec. 7, 2002 -- Delivers to United Nations declaration denying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; later, United States says declaration is untruthful and United Nations says it is incomplete.
22. March 1, 2003 -- United Arab Emirates, at an Arab League summit, becomes first Arab nation to propose publicly that Saddam step down.
23. March 7 -- United States, Britain and Spain propose ordering Saddam to give up banned weapons by March 17 or face war; other nations led by France on polarized U.N. Security Council oppose any new resolution that would authorize military action.
24. March 17 -- United States, Britain and Spain declare time for diplomacy over, withdraw proposed resolution. President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq.
25. March 18 -- Iraq's leadership rejects Bush's ultimatum.
26. March 20 -- U.S. forces open war with military strike on Dora Farms, a target south of Baghdad where Saddam and his sons are said to be.
27. Dec. 13 -- Saddam is captured at 8:30 p.m. in the town of Adwar, 10 miles south of Tikrit. He is hiding in a specially prepared "spider hole."

Here is an article I found that gives you some idea about how Iraqi prisoners of war were treated when they invaded Kuait:


Nice guy there. Are you sure you want to be in his side? I don’t and am glad that his reign of terror is over.

As for the Abu Ghraib atrocities, I think we all agree that was a horrible thing. It in no way reflects the history of how US treats prisoners of war. I know that you would like to hang that on President Bush but at worst this is a case of the idiots in charge if Abu Ghraib losing control and allowing crap that none of us support. Just read that article above and tell me again who the bad guy is? You say President Bush, I say Saddam.


I am not sure why you seem to think we are not going after osama too. I think that the Russians proved that an all out attack on Afghanistan is a REALLY bad idea and so far our efforts have proved to work as proof of successful elections recently. We will eventually get osama too, it is only a matter of time.


Nice generalization. Once again, you have proved ill equipped to put accurate words in my mouth. God has nothing to do with this war once again, no matter how many times you say He does. This is NOT a war against all Muslims and as I have already said not even all Iraqis.


Get over it. President Bush does not support what happened at Abu Ghraib, the American People do not support what happened at Abu Ghraib and neither does the “religious right”. What happened is being dealt with but does not reflect what we are doing over there. Yes, it happened and was horrible but to even come close to insinuating that it is acceptable behavior and a reason we should not be there is not an intelligent argument.


*shakes head*
What a cynical view of the world around you. This statement, “those of a religious bent don't want true freedom here or anywhere else for that matter” is a complete ignorance about what Christianity stands for and you should be ashamed of yourself. You yourself state it is a religion based on love, which I totally agree.

The last thing I will show here is Clinton’s assessment of the situation in 2003. Maybe you should blast him too as it appears he would have approved President Bush’s actions.


I agree that at this point we are just going in circles. How about we just simply agree to respect each other’s opinions and agree to disagree. I am not sure there is much more to be said. I really don’t think my mind is going to change and think the same thing about you and Isis.

I do respect you both. You pose case for your side and it is always interesting to have a healthy debate, which this has been for the most part. Maybe we both gave each other a little information we can all think about as there is always another side to every story.