Politics [Archive] - The Dancing Lawn - Official Forums of Narnia Fans

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-09-2005, 07:33 PM

We all think the Bush is an idiot in New Zealand. Anyone agree? I dont like the "religous right" because they oftern "neglect the the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy and faithfulness" (matt 23:23) I think that they put too much enthisis on morality, which maens that people feel that they are "not good enough" to became a christian, when all christians are sinners and all people need to have grace. Christian should be recahing out to people, not puting up barriers.

I don't quite get what your saying here, do you mind explaining it in layman's terms. A society is built on morals and without morals society falls apart...so it would seem natural too me to focus on those morals, maybe I'm missing your point...all in all I think Bush has done a pretty good job, because of him we were able to take down saddam hussein and open Iraq to foreign missions along with a lot of other stuff that I can't think of. I don't see what your saying about the "religous right" if you mean the conservatives, then you are talking to me. And I asure you that I do not think I am better than anyone else, and I make it a point to say that. And I do not enjoy war, I don't know of anyone who truly does. But sometimes you have to fight for peace, and sometimes you have to stand up and defend someone who can't do it for themselves. And as far as Christian "reaching out", you are absolutely right...and again I refer to bush, haven't you heard of all the christian outreaches he advocates?

Lord Eirek

11-09-2005, 07:58 PM

I don't quite get what your saying here, do you mind explaining it in layman's terms. A society is built on morals and without morals society falls apart...so it would seem natural too me to focus on those morals, maybe I'm missing your point...all in all I think Bush has done a pretty good job, because of him we were able to take down saddam hussein and open Iraq to foreign missions along with a lot of other stuff that I can't think of. I don't see what your saying about the "religous right" if you mean the conservatives, then you are talking to me. And I asure you that I do not think I am better than anyone else, and I make it a point to say that. And I do not enjoy war, I don't know of anyone who truly does. But sometimes you have to fight for peace, and sometimes you have to stand up and defend someone who can't do it for themselves. And as far as Christian "reaching out", you are absolutely right...and again I refer to bush, haven't you heard of all the christian outreaches he advocates?

I know I don't need to be quoting you, but I will for no other reason, save
I think it should be read once more. All i'm going to say to this, Eccentric
Bibliophile, is amen. :)

We all think the Bush is an idiot in New Zealand. Anyone agree? Narborg, no I don't agree, I am a conservative and a Bush supporter.

Aslan the Wise one

11-09-2005, 08:07 PM

There are thee things i do not care for and they are twhat this post is about and Math and Sienice....

And may i say CSL was not a big fan of thises topics as well.......

glamel

11-10-2005, 02:45 AM

Politics is dirty no matter what we or them or they tried to do,
basically its all about Lying and COrrupting, eh?! :D

Narborg

11-10-2005, 03:07 AM

Morals are important, but sometimes christians focus too much on "moral" issues and not enough on loveing the poor and disadvantaged. Somethings christians, when fighting the dragon, became the dragon themselfs. The Bible says that love is the most important thing, and that if you move montains but have no love, you are useless. This is what I see from some people sometimes.

glamel

11-10-2005, 03:31 AM

Elendil

11-10-2005, 05:54 AM

I think Bush & Howard are both great men, who make good choices...

Saruman

11-10-2005, 11:01 AM

If it comes to loving the poor and needy, then the conservatives are your number one choice! I think people have long been too deceived by the twisting and lying of liberals all over (be it in the US, UK, NZ, or AU). Give them the boot!

And, although conservative, I have my qualms with George W. He has done some good, but there are certain things that he has done that have been a little too awful (opening up US borders more freely to Mexico - I live in California, so this is an issue that concerns me very much - or telling Israel to move out of the Gaza Strip, which rightfully belongs to them and not to the group of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians - the Palestinians went extinct several centuries ago, back when they were known as the Philistines, a group of Greek-descended folk who were seafarers). Other issues include the wars (I think it's great that we got rid of Saddam Hussein, but how much longer must we continue to stay there? I have no doubt another Islamist regime will rise up in Hussein's stead).

If anything, bring back a Reagan or a Thatcher. Those were extremely wise and prudent politicians (and I'm sure they had their share of mistakes - as human beings, we all do). As far as Lady Thatcher is concerned, I think it is wrong that people have called her "Thatcher the Milk-snatcher" when she removed free milk out of UK schools as part of lessening government budget spending. If we come to rely on our governments too much, then we give way to socialistic societies, which are dangerous and strip individuals of freedoms.

There, my two cents on the subject. ;)

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 11:17 AM

One more thing why Politics is dirty, even if you are a good person at heart, when you enter politics, you'll gonna play their game, and that is to corrupt and lie, eh?

basically others want politics because they wanted to change something "good", but when they are there, with all the powers they vested on them, they just kept wanting more and more, they become eveil that they do not want the good of other anymore but themselves and their family,

I think we cannot do anymore with their"game" as i have observed, few only wanted the give and take anymore, more often than not its always take and take,
I wish the next generation wont follow what we are experiencing in the present

I halfway agree with you. We see it alot, a person with good intentions comes to a seat of power and it corrupts him. the old addage "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". But, I don't think it happens 100% of the time. Here's an example, think of King Solomon he was a good and lawful leader but in the end he played politics and worshiped idols to please the people. But on the other hand his father David also held the same position and he remained uncorrupted by that power. Yes he did sin, but it seems to me that it did not come from the corrupting power of politics but through the sinfulness of human nature. We cannot judge all politicians based on a singular steriotype

inkspot

11-10-2005, 01:01 PM

As far as whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable and have a better heart for the poor and needy, see this archive from just after the 2004 elections:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41409
It shows that:
"This year's findings reveal that 80 percent of the red (Bush) states rank higher in generosity than any of the blue states and that all the blue (Kerry) states are in the lower half of the list. Also, some of the red states with the lowest generosity ratings are those that voted for Bush most narrowly."

It appears that regarding personal donations to charity, conservatives are much more "liberal" in their giving! The liberals may indeed want the government to do more for the poor, but the conservatives are giving money out of their own pockets to do more for the poor.

This is just one indication of the difference in the liberal/conservative mindsets: the liberals would like to tax EVERYONE to provide more for the poor, which is admirable! The conservatives, rather than forcing everyone to give, would rather encourage voluntary generosity to help the poor, which they are not afraid to practice themselves. Seems even more admirable.

Lord Eirek

11-10-2005, 02:29 PM

Also, I agree... I dislike Bush, and you'll find that alot of young people in the UK are the same. He just comes across as a bit of an idiot, as well as a warmonger. Also he seems to have little respect for the environment... Mind you... Most young people I know dislike politicians full stop, which maybe accounts for the anti-Bushism floating around. :p

'Now watch this drive!'
I can't help but feel that this is the product of the media. Portraying Bush
with their own agendas, and not giving people a truthful story. The media
is for the most part liberal, and therefore portrays things with such bias.
I'm hearing the name Bush commonly accompanied by things like 'stupid' and
'idiot' which is exactly what the media wants you to think. All the way down
to the last sentence in your post 'Now watch this drive!' which was shown
far to much on TV. Now I have nothing against the BBC I watch alot of their
programs, but I think they are the source of much of the anti-Bush sentiment. :)

I think foreign media may not be giving an accurate representation of
American affairs. And also, I hope you are not being influenced by such
propaganda as Fahrenheit 911 :cool:

And inkspot, this is very interesting, and a good portrayl of the diffirence
of mind set between liberals and conservatives. I personaly think that people
should be giving out of their own want to help others, and to whom they
wish to help. I don't think the goverment should be deciding, when, where,
and how much you give. I think people should be encouraged to help
others but not forced to do so. If anything it is an encroachment on rights to
force generosity.

Morals are important, but sometimes christians focus too much on "moral" issues and not enough on loveing the poor and disadvantaged. Somethings christians, when fighting the dragon, became the dragon themselfs. The Bible says that love is the most important thing, and that if you move montains but have no love, you are useless. This is what I see from some people sometimes.
Yes, but moral issues are very important, no harm can come from morals
that coincide and do not contridict the ten commandments.

And as to the later part of your post, I think you are addressing motives,
and not morals. And yes motives are sometimes, and not uncommonly, false.
Therefore if ones morals are in the right, they should want to help the poor
and less fortunate, I would like to know what "moral issues" you are referring
to.

Please pardon my grammar and spelling, if you will.
Sincerily,
-Eirek :)

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 03:20 PM

Bravo! Bravo! :)

Narborg

11-10-2005, 04:18 PM

I stick with what I said before. Christians often give the wrong imporestion when the fight the moral crusade, and they put a lot of people of. Christians need to love first. Athoght I think that things such as abstinice are important, there is not point spreding a message of abstinice if you are not also spreeding the gospel as well. When someone dies, it dosent mater wether or not they had not sex outside of maragie, but wether or not they had a relationship with Jesus. If you you want to understan more abut what I am saying, read Pkillip Yanceys Whats So Amazing About Grace?

inkspot

11-10-2005, 04:39 PM

I love that book, What's So Amazing About Grace? It is so totally right on!

But I think you will notice in that wonderful book that when faced with a certain moral issue that causes concern to many family-oriented believers, the gay agenda, even Yancey drew a line. While professing his love and best wishes for his homosexual friend Mel, he at the same time refused to endorse him in an official way to become a bishop or elder in his church -- and told him, You do not fit the requirements the Bible gives for that office because of your lifestyle. Believers do have an obligation to defend morality as defined in the Bible.

If you read my many and varied posts on this site sometime, you will see that I am one of the biggest proponents of grace possible, and so totally agree with you that it is the state of the heart that determines salvation.

At the same time, where a moral stand will benefit our nation and especially the nation's children, everyone has a right and a duty to make that stand, especially as our system of government entitles us to do so. Just as other activists have a right to get the vote out to change laws, conservatives have that same right, in the USA. I am not sure how it works in other places of the world.

Anyway, it is disheartening when the Christians in the USA are told: you should stop talking about God in public , because that violates church and state ... but at the same time, you should devote yourselves to proclaiming the good news of Jesus rather than getting into politics. On the one hand, all we should do is witness and stay out of politics, and the other hand, we should stop witnessing because that is against the Constitution.

No wonder we're perplexed! :o

PrinceOfTheWest

11-10-2005, 04:57 PM

I think to contrast morals with grace is to create a false opposition. Grace is the gift of God's life within us; we keep that gift by walking in obedience. That walking in obedience is the moral life. Pardoxically, the grace also helps us to walk in obedience, and the obedient walk helps grace grow.

To put the same thing another way, the center of our life is to be love: love of God and love of neighbor. Jesus said that upon these two hang the law (i.e. the moral instructions) and the prophets (the encouragements to those instructions, and the assurances of God's love for us.) All the rest of the moral law is but an expansion of those two principles. It was necessary for God to do this because we get confused about just what "loving our neighbor" means. So He clarifies: it means not lying about them, which includes slander, court testimony, etc. Not committing adultery means not with another man's wife, not before you're married, not with your aunt, etc. Not stealing means not taking goods, or destroying them, or moving boundary stones, etc. So there's no contrast between grace and morals. Adhering to morals is how we express our love of God and neighbor.

Gryphon

11-10-2005, 05:06 PM

well, as for the Bush VS Clinton thing goes im gonna have to say Bush. Mostly because i think its a little stupid to have a woman run a country i mean, honestly c'mon. I think women are plenty strong but they shouldnt be a position of that much power im sorry. and for those of you dont know i am a woman and so i feel no regret saying thus so there :p

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 05:10 PM

wow, bold statement...I'm gonna stay out of this one, good luck ;)

Oh and awesome point Prince, what are you a minister! :D

Johan 72109

11-10-2005, 06:01 PM

I can't help but feel that this is the product of the media. Portraying Bush
with their own agendas, and not giving people a truthful story. The media
is for the most part liberal, and therefore portrays things with such bias.
I'm hearing the name Bush commonly accompanied by things like 'stupid' and
'idiot' which is exactly what the media wants you to think. All the way down
to the last sentence in your post 'Now watch this drive!' which was shown
far to much on TV. Now I have nothing against the BBC I watch alot of their
programs, but I think they are the source of much of the anti-Bush sentiment.

I think foreign media may not be giving an accurate representation of
American affairs. And also, I hope you are not being influenced by such
propaganda as Fahrenheit 911

Hehe... Nice reply... :) But, you will be pleased to know, I haven't actually watched Fahrenheit 911... to be honest, Michael Moore annoys me somewhat... :p
And also I agree, alot of the way Bush comes across as foolish is no doubt media misrepresentation... Hehe, my bad, I just love poking fun at politicians...
On the other hand, what about attitudes to the environment? And also, while Americans as people give huge amounts to charity, as a nation public spending sends a lower percentage in the direction of charities and aid than most other major players in world politics.

And here I'm opening a WHOLE can of worms, but I'm feeling daring... :p You'll find that one HECK of a lot of people over this side of the pond are annoyed about Iraq, mainly because we were lied to in that we were told of WMDs that were actually never found. And of course our news every day is filled by tales of death and instability in the country.

As to conservative or liberal... To be honest, I'd not be THAT fussed either way. In my opinion, God didn't intend man to have to have politics - it's simply a necessary evil.

Anyway, here ends my two penneth... Looking forward to replies!

inkspot

11-10-2005, 06:26 PM

Mostly because i think its a little stupid to have a woman run a country i mean, honestly c'mon.
You c'mon, Gryph. What about the delightful Maggie Thatcher? The inimitable Golda Meier? The notable Indira Ghandi, the ... well ... I'm not sure I want to drag Benazir Bhutto into this, but just on chuztpah, she was the leader of a Muslim country, go girl! And what about Deborah in the Old Testament, Israel's army refused to go to war without her! Women are God's gift, the crown of His creation ... look how creation began with the simple things the fishand the slugs, built up in complexity to the animals and man ... then finally, that most complex and beautiful creation, the woman! She is made in God's image, too, but with a unique set of gifts that men don't have. And if a girl is smart and blessed with leadership skills, then she can be a great leader! :D

In what way is it stupid to have a woman run a country?
______________________________

And this for those who feel they were misled about Iraq, from Gary Bauer at the Campaign for Working Families:
Every western nation believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and for good reason -- he did! We know that because he had actually used them. The United Nations had weapons inspectors in Iraq for
years trying to account for these weapons. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq
because Saddam wasn't complying with the inspections, and President Bush
ordered the invasion because Hussein repeatedly refused to abide by the UN
resolutions.

We now know that our intelligence was faulty, but only in the fevered brows of the Left does relying on faulty intelligence make one guilty of lying.
But if that's the game the Left wants to play, it should be very careful.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas yesterday reminded his colleagues about this
statement from Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid, who must have been
"lying" too when he said, "Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far
reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has
long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."

I guess Hillary Clinton also "lied" about Saddam Hussein when she said, in
October of 2002, "He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members."

The intelligence was misleading, but W Bush was right in the idea that Saddam was a bad guy and a danger to the world. In my opinion ...

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 06:41 PM

I assume you were refering to evolution? C.S. Lewis would have something to say about that. I don't get what's so attractive about the theory anyway. there's way too many flaws in it! Check this out
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html

Evolutionary Hymn (a satire)

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

C S Lewis

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 06:49 PM

but the second half of your post was absolutely right :D . BTW sorry if the post was to big :o

Gryphon

11-10-2005, 07:18 PM

You c'mon, Gryph. What about the delightful Maggie Thatcher? The inimitable Golda Meier? The notable Indira Ghandi, the ... well ... I'm not sure I want to drag Benazir Bhutto into this, but just on chuztpah, she was the leader of a Muslim country, go girl! And what about Deborah in the Old Testament, Israel's army refused to go to war without her! Women are God's gift, the crown of His creation ... look how creation began with the simple things the fishand the slugs, built up in complexity to the animals and man ... then finally, that most complex and beautiful creation, the woman! She is made in God's image, too, but with a unique set of gifts that men don't have. And if a girl is smart and blessed with leadership skills, then she can be a great leader! :D

In what way is it stupid to have a woman run a country?
ok, i see your point, however, you have to remember that men were meant to lead, not women. if there was an annointed woman that would step up to the plate and lead our country then go for it girl, but she cant falter under pressure. she will be leading many men and i think that if there was a woman that was able to put up with men trying to overrun her then i have no problem letting them run for prez. however women with those qualities are few in number and our country has done fine under the leadership of men. God is above everything, if he wants a woman to lead America then by all means i wont try to stand in her way...

Smog

11-10-2005, 08:46 PM

Ok, I know I'm going to gte into trouble, and I know that people will get mad at me for saying this, and I apologize in advance for any hurt feelings however, I agree with Gryphon. I don't think that women are supposed to be leaders, whether in the family, the church or the government. I believe that God's law teaches that men are to be the heads, and that they are the ones who are to be leaders (however, I agree with you Inky, women are definatley God's greatest creation)

With that being said, if anyone would like to further this debate, I am willing, however, I see no reason why we should get into a big, long discussion about this, when it will only end with me looking like an idiot and then being tarred and feathered...;-)

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-10-2005, 08:49 PM

I can agree with that

Hope96

11-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Well pretty much everything I believe and feel about this subject has already been said. So I'll just say this.....I'm a devout conservative myself. So I completely, 100% stand behind everything that Eccentric Bibliophile has said!! So instead of restating everything he has already mentioned.....just know that I agree with him.

And just one more thing......Hillary Clinton is WAY to liberal for me, I would never vote for her.

Narborg

11-11-2005, 02:58 AM

I dont see any reason why woman cant rule country. Qureen Elizabeth I was one of the best raulers of England, Ester saved the Jewish people. But then again, I do live in a country which is ruled by women.

glamel

11-11-2005, 03:37 AM

Definitely, it is said in the bible that men were meant to lead, but that was before, when women had no right in everything but to follow and obey whatever it is that men said,
but think of this, maybe God , which created us like him, won't feel bad if we use our brains anyway, that we can stand on our own, its not like were not following his commandments, but, it is not also said that women can't rule,

Weve outgrown the fact that women are just a plain housewife, men accepted this fact too,
and women, given the chance, and her choice can lead a country, but that is also in God's willing.
ps
i don't like hilary clinton also, :)
I prefer, Senator Rice! :D

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-11-2005, 10:07 AM

So you're saying the bible's outdated? By this reasoning you could approve of homosexuality, witchcraft (I am a harry potter fan), or any other sin. I am still not completely convinced either way, I am merely pointing out the flaws of this argument.

And as for what narbog said. In my opinion (key word my) it is not whether or not a woman would make a good ruler but rather or not she should be a ruler. And as far as Esther goes, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she save isreal by subjecting herself to the king?

And I shall finish this off with a passage of scripture. " 22 Wives, submit to you own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to christ so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her. Ephesians 5:22-25

In other words (my words), the wife should subject herself to the husband in love. But at the same time the husband should be willing to even go as far as sacrificing his life for her.

Saruman

11-11-2005, 11:21 AM

Very well said, EB. The role of the woman has in some ways actually deteriorated in these days, all in the name of greater freedom and equality. While I do believe that women can play key roles, and greatly admire such figures as Queen Elizabeth I (and II), or Magaret, Lady Thatcher, I also believe that the rise in women getting jobs and being away from home has led to over 100% increase in divorce rates and broken homes (just tune in to Dr. Laura Schlessinger some time, and you can hear the myriad of callers who complain about their husband and wives [and how Dr. Laura rightly points out that so many times a spouse does not give their soul mate the appropriate attention and care they require in the marriage], why this and that happens, and especially when teenagers seek other venues as "harbors" to get away from their home life, etc.).

I particularly cannot stand the over-zealous charlatans, such as members of the N.O.W. group, who parade about vaunting their extreme feminism. An unseemly sight, and a very tragic one, too. I believe women have the right to participate in voting, and to participate in many other affairs, but let them not forsake their primary duties as mommies at home. This role is vital for children. If you are a single woman (like Queen Elizabeth I), then I think you will have a wonderful opportunity at leadership roles.

My dear ladies on this forum, I support you in more ways than you may guess. Your role is key to society, but more importantly to the familial structure, without which societies in general would collapse utterly. Women have more of a valuable role to play than anyone can possibly imagine (and no man can say that women aren't equal to them, since God didn't take anything above or below Adam's rib to create the woman...He took the rib, a symbol of equality). And the Scripture gives the wisest counsel of all: it is for wives to submit to their husbands, and for husbands to love their wives, even as Christ loves the Church. It is an equal role for the two who have become one flesh.

inkspot

11-11-2005, 12:02 PM

EB, no, I wasn't talking about evolution at all in my previous post, I was talking about order of creation, with woman last, created after Adam and made in many ways more complex than he is (women's emotional range and abilities to multi-task are two of those complexities on the plus side, our internal plumbing has some complexities on the minus side!)

As for the role of women: I totally agree that a wife and mother can make her biggest difference in the home, employed in shaping the next generation. And I wish that all women who wanted that lifestyle could afford to pursue it whole-heartedly. If I had little ones at home, I would cherish being able to devote myself to being a full-time mom. In the USA today, that is a luxury that many people just cannot afford.

But a strong woman can also make a great leader. I think of my dear friend Sylvia, a big, blond bi-lingual missionary widow, who for years has been Latin America director for a major missions organization. This is an American woman leading in a region that is almost entirely dominated by men! You know the Latin machismo, yet Sylvia has been a great leader and coordinated a wonderful, international missionary force in so many Latin nations, I can't name them all.

I think God is not displeased by her moving out of the home and into the mission field. I think he is tickled that she has taken her life experience and used it for his glory and to further his kingdom!

Any man or woman's first duty is to God and then their family. After they have done that duty, or as God gives them grace while they are doing that duty, they can also serve him in other ways. This is my opinion. :)

PrinceOfTheWest

11-11-2005, 12:22 PM

Something not to forget in all this: the crucial role of the man in the home. Search the Old Testament for instructions on bringing up children; you will find that without exception the instructions are to the fathers. Likewise the New Testament encourages fathers to be gentle with their children (Eph 3) and to govern them well (Titus).

I'll have to look up the references on this, but G.K. Chesterton maintained that by building and maintaining homes, women have the most important role in a civilization because it is in homes that civilization resides. All the other constructs - corporations and governments and armies and other things - simply exist to protect and promote stable and peaceful homes. If men (males) are wise as they busy themselves with these external things, they will remember that the home is the true center.

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-11-2005, 01:02 PM

waterhogboy

11-11-2005, 03:07 PM

First of all - Maggie Thatcher was an evil...... witch. She may have done some good things for the economy, but I know LOADS of peoples lives who were ruined because of her and her privitisation...

Secondly, I disagree bout women in power. There's no problem having a woman in a position of authority. I believe Paul is referring to spiritual authority rather than political etc...

Johan 72109

11-11-2005, 03:29 PM

Hehe... I wouldn't go quite as far as to call Maggie a witch... But she DID ruin alot of things, for alot of people. She thoroughly crocked up the NHS, for one thing... and I'm hoping that there's no coal miners around too... ;)

On the subject of Iraq (yes, I know... I shouldn't harp on about this... :o ) I do agree that Saddam was an evil dictator, but... Like I said, Iraq at the moment is in a right old state, and in addition America seems to be being dragged into the losing side of a guerilla war. Over here Iraq is being thought of as the next Vietnam or something. However, I obviously don't know so much about this...
In addition, there's the thoughts, why did we go into Iraq when we're so stalwartly refusing to go into Zimbabwe or the Sudan?
And call me a liberal, but acting on incomplete evidence doesn't quite seem right... :o

Hehe... as always, the Johan disclaimer comes here. These are either my opinions, or the opinions of those around me. Here I'm not usually debating, simply putting my point of view across, and asking for other people's (which actually, if you're lucky ;) may very well change mine).
I'd value people's thoughts!

Smog

11-11-2005, 03:53 PM

Personally (and please, my conservative brothers, don't hate me;)), I disagree with the war in Iraq. I think that going in there to remove the threat of Suddam was a good thing. He was an evil man who threaten to use WMDs (even though he didn't have any) against the US and therefore, had to be eliminated.
However, now we are in Iraq for, goodness knows, what reason, losing good men and women in a pointless war.

Narborg

11-12-2005, 05:12 AM

I also disagree with the war in Iraq, althoght I think Sudan needed to be goten ride off.
Women. When Paul was righting, he was writing in a time when women were uneducated, and therefore would not have made very good leaders. So it can be aregued that Paul is writing about uneducated people, and not women in gernral.
I have studed a lot of ideloglies that year, and it is my concution that they all have there flows. I would consider myself more of a libral than a consevative, but agree with consevatives in principle when it cames to some issue, maily morail issues. I think abortion is wrong unless the mothers life is in danger. I dont agree that homosexualty is good, however, I think it is our duty as christians to love "immorail" people as we are all siners. Also, I dont think that we need to respecit other peoples right to belive what they want to, even if we dont belive it ourselves. The other dificutly with "morail issues" is that some things are only wrong because they go against what God whants us to do. A person who dose not belive in God would not see tham as being wrong.

Elendil

11-12-2005, 06:09 AM

I agree with most of what you said, Nargog, most of it. If the countries didn't war against Iraq, how would they stop it???

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-12-2005, 09:01 AM

Women. When Paul was righting, he was writing in a time when women were uneducated, and therefore would not have made very good leaders. So it can be aregued that Paul is writing about uneducated people, and not women in gernral.

Again it seems that you're saying the Bible is outdated. If Paul was writing about uneducated people why didn't he just say it. I never heard him telling uneducated Peter to shut up. In fact there were many uneducated men around, and yet he didn't say anything about them.

Saruman

11-12-2005, 01:28 PM

I'm not certain how we got into that part, but I like what EB is saying, nonetheless. As the Word says, the LORD uses the foolish things of this world to confound the [so-called] wise. And Peter, as well as most of the other disciples, was no exception (nor Moses, nor Elijah, nor Amos, nor any of these whom the LORD used for His purposes...when He is for us, who can be against us?).

And as regards myself, personally, a wise man once told me: it is better for a foolish man not to speak than to speak and remove all doubt. ;)

I also agree with most of what Narborg has said (I am not sure where I would stand if I had a wife and her life were suddenly in danger at childbirth...men in the days of old never had such procedures, and life took its natural course in that way). I agree that, as born-again Christians, we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. And I think that we can "respect" others' choices in the sense of not trying to force them to convert (that will never do, and is not what our LORD would have us to minister). BUT I agree that it would be shameful to TOLERATE those whose decisions are unseemly and unnatural. I believe there is a fine difference between respecting their decision (it is, after all, their decision) and accepting it. An old addage I have come to love:

You have the freedom to make your own choices, but you are responsible for the choices you make.

A lot of people hate that THEY are responsible for THEIR choices (this is where the theory of evolution came in - men grabbed hold of one man's delusion and capitalized on it, using it to wipe away any excuse for accountability to a Higher Authority).

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-12-2005, 01:58 PM

Amen
(By the way, you even write like Saruman :D )

Smog

11-12-2005, 03:05 PM

Just a side not here, since Narborg brought up the issue of loving sinners.
When Jesus commands us to love others, we most make sure that we undersand what the word love means, in a Biblical way.
Biblical love is the willingness to due what is right for someone, regardless of personal cost to ones self.

A good example of this: if you were walking down the street and saw a young child handling a loaded handgun, you would immediatley remove the dangerous weapon from the youth. If you did not, the child could badly hurt himself, or someone else.

In the same way, when we see others indulging in sin, we must not turn a blind eye, using, so called "love" to keep us from acting. Rather we must confront such people, and with love and kindness, keep them from sinning.
We must let them know of the dangers of their behaviour, and then of the saving grace of Christ, that their sins may be forgiven and they may be lead to salvation.

If we will not do this, we are showing hatred, and not love. Solomon says in the Proversb that the man who will not correct his son hates him. God commands us to love our neighbor, and sometimes, loving our neighbor may mean giving them a swift kick in pants in order to wake them up and show them the errors of their ways.

And lucky for me, God has sorrounded me with friends and family who take this all too literally ;)

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-12-2005, 03:26 PM

wow, another good point :) . Just don't go overboard with the "tough love" thing. Yes, you should tell them what they're doing is wrong, but at the same time you shouldn't just stick up your nose at them, afterall we were once in the same boat as they are.

Smog

11-12-2005, 07:26 PM

Hey man, I'd say that we're still in the same boat. I see this in my own life everyday in that I do things that I know are sinful, wicked and just plain foolish, yet because of my wicked, stuborn heart, I do it anyway and am then forced to fall on my knees before Almighty God and pray for His forgivness. If it were not for the Grace and Love of Jesus Christ, none of us could stand (which is both a wonderful and terrorfying thought).

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-12-2005, 08:15 PM

oh, sorry, I shouldn't have been so vague. what I meant when I said "in the same bout as them". I meant without the grace of God, am I saying it right? We're no better, we're just...better off. and I completely agree with you.

Narborg

11-12-2005, 10:51 PM

Again it seems that you're saying the Bible is outdated. If Paul was writing about uneducated people why didn't he just say it. I never heard him telling uneducated Peter to shut up. In fact there were many uneducated men around, and yet he didn't say anything about them.

No I am not saying that the Bible is outdated, just that it is importsant to look at the context.
This descation brings up an interrsting confict. One the one hand, we need to stand up against sin. On the other, it is important to make shore people have the freedom to chosie wether they want to live by Gods standerds or not. This is a freedon which cames from God himself. He dosent stop people from chosing to do wrong, if he did there would be no evil. How do we get this balance? I gess its up to us all indavidully to work out what do do in each situation and lissen to the holy spirts gidence.

Saruman

11-12-2005, 11:54 PM

You are right in pointing out that with choice comes the alternative. Nevertheless, ought we not to strive - fight the good fight?

As far as "making sure" people choose whether they want to to live by God's standards or not, that is something we do not even need to worry about. They do indeed make their own choices! As a result, the world we live in today is so vile and filthy, and it is very sorrowful to see that people would rather go to strip clubs or watch nasty programs on television than to learn from the Word of God. So it was with the children of Israel - every time they would turn back to God, it would be for a season, and then they would follow their froward lusts - back and forth, like pinballs.

What Smog said was absolutely correct. We need to be sure that we are the salt of the earth, and witness to those who (for example) choose to be homosexuals. We should point out that they are wrong in doing this (although we should do it in love, and not get in their faces - then we turn them off from even a chance of grabbing their attention). Blessed are we when we go through all sorts of persecutions, for His name's sake (Mt 5:11). If we go along with the world and "tolerate" every individual's decision to 1) rape, 2) murder, 3) molest, 4) assault, 5) love the same sex, etc., then we are not the salt of the earth, and we are good for nothing except to be trampled on the ground.

Some good points. May we pray and seek the Lord to use us in these latter days for the furtherance of His kingdom. For He wills that "none should perish, but that all come to everlasting life."

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-13-2005, 04:43 PM

How'd we get from politics to theology anyway? :confused:

Narborg

11-13-2005, 06:18 PM

Cos I said that I did not aprove of the so called " religous right."
So, back to politics, what do people think of Prince Chiles coments about the Chineese? A bit dumb, me thinks.
Wat o people think is the best electral system? I think our MMP system has a lot going for it as it is the most represnative of the people, as long as the parties can work togther. Fist past the post is not as good in my view. what do you think.

glamel

11-14-2005, 01:33 AM

22 Wives, submit to you own husbands, ..

In other words (my words), the wife should subject herself to the husband in love. But at the same time the husband should be willing to even go as far as sacrificing his life for her.

YOu've said it enough, wives should submit to their husbands, ONLY to their husbands!! :D
not to their country, Women cant just sit there, waiting for men to give orders and instructions when we, women can do what we think is much important than follow orders

Gryphon

11-14-2005, 11:47 AM

With that being said, if anyone would like to further this debate, I am willing, however, I see no reason why we should get into a big, long discussion about this, when it will only end with me looking like an idiot and then being tarred and feathered...;-)
i think if you go down im going with you :eek:

waterhogboy

11-14-2005, 02:35 PM

I agree with most of what you said, Nargog, most of it. If the countries didn't war against Iraq, how would they stop it???

Oh my!!!!!! Is this really what you think?? War is almost never the only diplomatic solution. American, British and other governments scared us with the threat of WMD's, that we NEEDED to get rid of Saddam Hussein right then, so war was the only option........

What people failed to realise, is he'd been sitting around for 10 years and our countries had done nothing about it, so why this rush all of a sudden, only to find there were NO WMD's. There are other ways to solve diplomatic problems that are not nearly so rash.

Anyway, Narborg, what does MMP mean, is it similar to British electral system. I think our system is fairer than the US, but it could be better. I mean, at least are prime minister doesn't get in just becuase they can afford the best promotional campaign!! But then. we are limited to voting for a party that is represented in our constituency. But saying that, I like it the way it is...

Gryphon

11-14-2005, 04:09 PM

inkspot

11-14-2005, 05:25 PM

It's odd that everyone agrees that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but now the troops being there in Iraq was a bad thing. The war was good, but since it didn't end right away, now it's bad ...

For me, I think that it's a shame men and women are losing their lives in Iraq, but I do not see how it was bad to depose Saddam. I cannot figure this out. You know, though, when the person in charge of a nation is a madman (like Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam), there is not always a diplomatic solution as WHB suggests.

However, I also think many other nations deserve a good shaking, as Narborg, I think, mentioned, Sudan is as bad a human rights offender as Iraq, and there they sit on the UN Security Council ... It's crazy.

Gryphon

11-14-2005, 07:54 PM

For me, I think that it's a shame men and women are losing their lives in Iraq, but I do not see how it was bad to depose Saddam. I cannot figure this out. You know, though, when the person in charge of a nation is a madman (like Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam), there is not always a diplomatic solution as WHB suggests.
hehe, you agreed with me and you said it so nice... :D

Saruman

11-14-2005, 10:05 PM

Indeed, sometimes having wars are the only sensible way of responding, especially if another side is either insane or irrational altogether. And in the case of Iraq, they have continued to increase as a world-wide threat, augmenting their arsenal of nuclear weapons (aka weapons of mass destruction), violating sanction after sanction and law after law as put forth by the United Nations and its various governing entities (and - as far as I know - the hypocritical UN did not so much as break wind when it came to the issues surrounding Iraq). The United States have done a great thing in deposing Saddam Hussein (in these days, however, where liberal ideologies overrule justice in th courts, it would not surprise me if Hussein was let free in a few years). And yet to continue to have our troops stationed there in Iraq is becoming increasingly hazardous. After we are gone, another insane Islamist terror group will arise to power. I am not sorry when I say that there is absolutely no governing stability in any Muslim country in this world. And the societies of the West, sadly, are also beginning to crumble. Verily, it's a sign of the times.

Eccentric Bibliophile

11-14-2005, 10:21 PM

Indeed, I sometimes forget how short our time might be. I mean I'm 18 I'm thinking about going to college and getting married and things like that, and I look so foward to a future that is so uncertain. As christians we should do as much as we can today.

But I'm getting off subject, I think I agree with you Curumo (but then that might be your deceptive voice ;) )

Saruman

11-14-2005, 10:23 PM

Your wisdom shows, my friend! Traditional Saruman response, I should think. But these discussions and affairs are ours to command! ;) ;)

At any rate, we should live as if the Christ were not to come for a thousand years, and live as if within five seconds His return were to be. My prayer always has been that I may be found about my Father's business when the day comes.

Smog

11-15-2005, 12:24 AM

Amen, Crumo.

Personally, I'm of two minds about the war in Iraq, while I think the cause of our brave troops is a just and noble one, I think that we need to stop the terroists before we start bringing democracy.

Saruman

11-15-2005, 12:27 AM

Indeed were it to be that we could bring true peace and thus enable democracy. But men are fallible creatures, my friend, and as long as there are men to govern this earth then such marvelous zeniths are a figment of our brains. It is so dreadful to see that the terrorists continue to increase in their numbers. What is worse, here in the US there are secret terror groups that are roaming freely in our country. Who knows where the next "9/11" may strike? Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

glamel

11-15-2005, 03:05 AM

inkspot

11-15-2005, 11:01 AM

actually we do not really need war, all of this happen because there was a lack of communication, between the 2 parties mainly involved,
the problem really is the give and take traits,
I wont explain furthermore coz its self explanatory,
if Saddam only listens, i really think war didnot happen, many lives will be saved
sometimes, its greater to fight not with swords, not with guns, but by merely talking
and explaining :D
in that case, there'd be a greater hope for all nationalities, :)
This is so true! If you could count on someone like Saddam to listen and do the right thing, then there would never be a need for war! But I don't know if Saddam ever had in mind to do the right thing ... and then what? Maybe we should have just ignored him, the way we are ignoring the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and not trying to make Saudi Arabia accountable ... it's kind of an experiment: wage war on one mad dictator in the name of fighting terror, and ignore one terrorist state that at least gives lip service to being our friend. Kind of big stakes riding on the experiment, though! :eek:

LadyEm

11-15-2005, 03:30 PM

Additionally its kind of hard to have talks between two parties when there are far two many unknown enemies involved...such as terrorism for example.

Johan 72109

11-15-2005, 03:50 PM

Argh... again I stick my neck on the chopping block... Hehe, don't hurt me Gryphon... :o

The first thing I have to say is that I have enormous amounts of respect for the men and women who fought and died in Iraq. It must take one heck of a lot of guts to go and fight far from home, in a strange place, with terrifying situations going on all around you.

But I still think that war is almost invariably wrong. WWII is the exception in my opinion, the only one that I can think of anyway - there's probably other exceptions, but none that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm going to flat out contradict myself now by saying that, if there is problems, it is the job of the strong countries to lean on the guilty parties - but not to destroy them. For example, the conflict in Kossovo was not solved by armoured columns and a huge land presence of UN troops - they were solved by sanctions, and when sanctions didn't work, by bombing (which I'm not saying is great either, it's just it finished the war that had already started with less casualties than a full-scale ground war would have). The other point is that almost all wars CAN be prevented by other means - it's just those other means may have needed to have been implemented years before. For example, had the crippling Treaty of Versailles not been enacted against Germany following the tragedy of WWI, there is a fair chance that Hitler would not have got into power to start WWII. Thus, even WWII could have been averted - it was just a question of treating countries in the right way not just in the short term, but in the long term too.

Firstly, they did not find WMDs in Iraq. No nuclear weapons. No nothing. Iraq had nuclear capabilities (possibly), but they had no actual missiles, they never used those capabilities. No weapons at all were found. Or at least, this was what was splashed all across every newspaper and TV news channel in Britain for months and months, resurfacing for the general election, and was admitted by Britain's government. I would also point out that most countries with atomic capabilities would not in fact be able to have the range to target any western countries.

Next, Iraq is not as much of a threat to western civilisation as many other places - North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia. And yet these are not invaded (which I'm very grateful for). The Sudan and Zimbabwe exhibit equal amounts of human rights abuses, and yet nothing happens to them. The general consensus in Britain (which I'm not sure if I subscribe to... it's a little too cynical even for me :eek: ) is that Iraq was invaded to gain control of its oil fields.

While I agree that it was important to oust Saddam from power, it was no more urgent than the need to oust any other third world dictator. In addition, we essentially involved a full scale war, with the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives, destabilisation of an entire country, enormous expense, and deprivations for civilians, to remove a regime, that will most likely be replaced by another Islamic state sooner or later.

The other point I've heard people make is that freedom and democracy has been brought to Iraq. But what is the cost? My sister works in Romania, an ex-communist state. The one thing my sister's noticed, is that many of the older people actually preferred life under the communist government, because it was a stronger government than the democratic one now in existance. Bear in mind that the situation in Romania is alot better than the one in Iraq. Hehe, I know I'm not going to get much support in this comment... Heck... I won't have had much support for the entire post, why change now, ;) but it seems that ordinary people, the ones who keep their heads down and go unnoticed, would prefer security under a dictatorship than instability with freedom and democracy. And I'm not sure that America can promise them security with their freedom and democracy when it comes to Iraq.

Anyway... Here endeth my rambling speil... As ever, I'd love to hear comments. :)

inkspot

11-15-2005, 05:46 PM

Thought everyone might like to hear what US Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, had to say on the subject, just today (11/15/05):

As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar
intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that
resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security
interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a brutal, murdering dictator,
an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater
of the United States of America. He was for us a ticking time bomb that if
we did not remove him I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically
speaking, in America's face. I am grateful to the American military for the
extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam
Hussein.
I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi
people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new
day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.

Would any of that had been possible with a diplomatic solution? Probably not as Saddam seemed unwilling to be part of a diplomatic solution. I am not a fan of war and wish our troops were home safe, but I do think sometimes it's the only solution, except, of course, appeasement and surrender.

waterhogboy

11-15-2005, 07:07 PM

WHB, i kinda get tired of you saying that this war was for nothing. to tell you the truth, we gave those people a hope for the future. this past friday was Veteran's Day. at church they played a video of pictures of brave men and women in our church that served bravely in the armed forces. those people risked their lives and saw men die and what i HATE MOST OF ALL is people who say they went to war for NOTHING. my brother is going into officer training for the Army and his friend served in Iraq and you know what? i right proud of them for what they're doing. and so should you, the next time you wanna say it was for nothing, you go to war and fight and come back and say it was for nothing, maybe THEN i'll believe you :mad:

Oh my - I totally agree. My beef is certainly not against the soldiers. They have done nothing wrong. Its the authorities I'm on about. You say you hate it that people say they went to war for nothing. That's the sad thing, it ends up they did!!! That's what makes the crime our governments did all the more worse!!! AND its still carrrying on now!

I might make a slight retraction from my previous statement. I think there are SOME times when war is necessary, but it is a necessary evil. What I was trying to get across is that war should only be, and only EVER be the final resort. War makes things worse not better. What happens now that Iraqs been overtaken. You really think they'll sit there and say - 'Oh well, fair play - you beat us!' I dont think so. There is ALWAYS retalliation after a war - thats why it can never be a solution...

Gryphon

11-15-2005, 07:16 PM

ok i dont think that they fought for nothing and clearly you arent going to change your mind so theres no reason in my trying to change your opinion. i think its sad though that you would tell those brave men and women that it was all for nothing... thats what makes me sad. putting that aside, there will always be war with the muslim radicals, its been prophesied, retaliation has nothing to do with it. that will always want to kill us...

Saruman

11-15-2005, 09:44 PM

...My beef is certainly not against the soldiers. They have done nothing wrong. Its the authorities I'm on about. You say you hate it that people say they went to war for nothing. That's the sad thing, it ends up they did!!!

...I think there are SOME times when war is necessary, but it is a necessary evil. What I was trying to get across is that war should only be, and only EVER be the final resort. War makes things worse not better.

The authorities that initiated the war effort in Iraq had, at the very least, two particular motives:

1) to remove the imposing threat of Saddam Hussein.
2) to prevent the Iraqis from continuing secret production of weapons of mass destruction (as well as sending them off to allies such as Syria and Russia).

I agree in part concerning why this war was somewhat in vain - I believe that, if this war against terror were really to come to full fruition, then it would begin with the necessary cleansing of the Muslim nations of the world. It is in them that such terror organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, et al, breed their homicide barbarians.

As far as wars making things worse - history is ripe with examples where wars solved problems, per being the final resort. If men do not listen (and often they do not, as history also demonstrates to us), then what other way is there? It is either to defend oneself or expunge a particular problem. I am with you, WHB. I truly wish there were other alternatives to war. But I'm afraid that sometimes there are none.

And as far as the soldiers who have gone to war in Iraq, going there for nothing, is absolutely untrue. As hereinabove stated, they have fought for extremely worthy and relevant causes, not to mention the protection of our freedoms here in the USA, UK, NZ, AU, etc.

There is ALWAYS retalliation after a war - thats why it can never be a solution...

As I've mentioned, men are fallible creatures. As long as man governs on this earth, democracy will never work (unless, of course, every man is of one accord). Sadly there are too many he said-she saids, dissensions, contentions and any other form of intrigue you can think of. Like I said, Come quickly, Lord Jesus! He is the Solution to the problems the world faces, but we know things are still going to get 100% worse before He returns.

Inklet

11-16-2005, 04:37 AM

I spend a lot of time on political blogs, and I have to say I've never read such thoughtful and respectful arguments.

Even if Saddam Hussein had no WMD (I think they were transfered to Syria in the weeks leading up to the war) his ouster was a good. No more rape rooms. No more mass graves of 100,000+ corpses. As bad as Abu Graib was, the difference is that people are being held responsible for it.

You may think Bush is mistaken. You may think he's stupid. I would debate you on either point. You can't honestly believe he's evil. You can't. He's working towards bringing hope to a part of the world that every other world leader has shrugged off. I'm proud of what the US is doing.

Oh, and I have no problem with a woman being the President of the US. I do have a problem with electing a woman just because she's a woman.

inkspot

11-16-2005, 01:35 PM

You say you hate it that people say they went to war for nothing. That's the sad thing, it ends up they did!!! That's what makes the crime our governments did all the more worse!!!
Lemme define this "nothing" they accomplished again, in the words of US Senator Joseph Liberman, a Democrat:
"I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was for us a ticking time bomb that if we did not remove him I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone."
These achievments are not "nothing." The problem is not that the fighting was for nothing, but really that if the path of fighting was going to be taken, it needed to be taken full-scale to other terrorist states in addition to Iraq. As long as Iraq has Muslim neighbors to foster terrorism, it can't be stable. This isn't the fault of the war effort, but the fault of radical Islam ala al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and any nation that supports or protects such.

As a Christian, I don't know what to do about this, because Jesus tells me that love is the only "weapon" I have against my enemies ... but I cannot see loving radical Islamists enough to let them murder my family as they did in 9/11 ... I am deeply troubled by this whole quandary, but I will not say the soldiers in Iraq who died, have died for nothing. :(

Johan 72109

11-16-2005, 03:16 PM

putting that aside, there will always be war with the muslim radicals, its been prophesied, retaliation has nothing to do with it. that will always want to kill us...

Erm... out of interest, where in the Bible does it prophecy about Islam specifically? Bear in mind that Islam wasn't around until centuries after the Bible was written.
The current problems in the middle east can be traced right back to the beginnings of Islam, over a millenia ago. The southern tribes of Saudi Arabia were oppressed by their northern christian and jewish neighbours. Then Muhammed came along, and ended this with Islam. Whether you believe that he really was given this by an angel sent by God, or whether you believe that he simply cobbled it together from jeudaism and christianity, the effects of it were to unite the southern tribes under one, unstoppable banner. This would most likely not have occured without the oppression from the north, bear in mind.
Then started the Islamic migrations, where the tribes spread out under the increasing burden of population, eventually taking land from their western neighbours, taking Turkey and most of the Balkans, before finally being stopped at Rome. Here started the retaliatory Crusades, where alot of so-called christians did some horrendous things to jews, muslims and each other, before the muslims did some very horrible things in retaliation.
In the aftermath of WWI, the Islamic empire finally gave up and died after years of teetering on the brink - but not before a good few nasty genocides and massacres. It split into many different states, all with over a thousand years worth of reasons to hate western society. This was further compounded in the aftermath of WWII, where land was taken from the arabs to give to the jews, and the middle east became a battleground for the west and the soviets.

Muslim radicals sprang up out of retaliation. There is over a millenia of history of retaliation behind the radicals - they wouldn't even exist without it. Islam quite probably wouldn't exist without it. This is all about retaliation for wrong-doings in both the west and the Middle East - the hatred on the side of the Middle East has been capitalised upon by unstable dictators, enabling them to take control. Retaliation has EVERYTHING to do with the war with Islamic radicals.

As far as wars making things worse - history is ripe with examples where wars solved problems, per being the final resort.

Here, I AM sure that you're right, but could you give some examples please? In my opinion, while most wars solve some problems, they usually cause them as well. Even the Second World War handed over Eastern Europe to communism, even as it got rid of one of the most evil regimes that has ever existed.
With the war in Iraq, I'm really not that sure that it didn't cause more problems than it avoided. Yes, it got rid of Saddam, and that's great. yes, if there were WMDs, they've been smuggled across the border and won't be around for a good long while... If there were. But it's destabilised an entire country, making things worse than under Saddam. Yes, there were massacres, and rape rooms, and all kinds of horrible things - but for ordinary people who kept their heads down, there was usually very little danger, less so than now, where suicide bombers and militants strike almost at random. And as has been pointed out by several people, if the US and co. pull out now, the country's going to dissolve into Islamic fundamentalism, or worse, anarchy, or even worse, both. And as long as the US and co. stay in, the death toll is just going to get higher and higher. We're between a rock and a hard place.
So, I don't actually think the war was entirely pointless... But I think it caused more problems than it averted.

Hehe, feels like watching Match of the Day doesn't it... Us all sitting around and calmly speculating from the comfort of our own chairs... :p

Saruman

11-16-2005, 04:33 PM

inkspot

11-16-2005, 05:12 PM

but for ordinary people who kept their heads down, there was usually very little danger, less so than now
I saw this pitiful family crying over the bones of their teenaged son who had been found in a mass grave, with his marbles, little toys that kids play with kind of marbles, still in his pockets. You think that boy somehow didn't keep his head down low enough? And think about an entire city of Kurds gassed to death on a Hussein whim. Reckon they didn't keep their heads down?

If a government that kills its own citizens for no other reason than the dictator is evil manages to keep relative stabiity, does that make it a good system, by and large? Of course not. Someone mentioned, maybe WHB, that lots of Russians would like a return to the communist system because they were better off. But do they want to balance their books on the backs of those pitiful prisoners starved and forgotten in the gulags? How terrible if our own comfort and stability is so dear to us that we will buy it on the credit of innocent people imprisoned and slaughtered.

Now as for Muslims and prophecy, I think some people think that the strife between Jews and Muslims dates back to the strife between the Old Testament brothers Joseph and Esau, and that because the Bible states there will always be enmity between them, that it means there will always be enmity between Jews and Muslims.

Gibby

11-16-2005, 05:28 PM

Now as for Muslims and prophecy, I think some people think that the strife between Jews and Muslims dates back to the strife between the Old Testament brothers Joseph and Esau, and that because the Bible states there will always be enmity between them, that it means there will always be enmity between Jews and Muslims.

I always thought it was Isaac-Jews and Ishmael where the arab muslims came from, but i could be wrong. Genesis 16:9-12 and Genesis 21:17-18

Johan 72109

11-16-2005, 05:41 PM

As you rightly call me out onto the carpet, so shall I answer by citing a few examples. You yourself have already mentioned the Second World War. Hitler's desire to exterminate every last Hebrew living on the earth was well on its way, and there was certainly no grounds for conference. The First World War was the same thing. The newly unified Germany had suddenly got a big head, and was waging war. Who would negotiate terms with them?

1967. Syria and other Muslim nations, desirous to push the nation of Israel out into the sea, struck with war. By God's divine intervention, however, Israel was successful in beating these terrorist armies, and the latter limped away soundly defeated. This is also an excellent example of non-negotiable means of defense. It would have been to no avail to have tried to come to some accord with those who already had convinced themselves of their agenda. Therefore, the only answer was - yes, you guessed it - war.

On the flipside, there are plenty of instances where wars began because one nation wanted to conquer others, such as Napoléon's conquest of Europe (fortunately enough he lost at the Battle of Waterloo to the skilled Arthur Wellesley, later Duke of Wellington). Yes, there are pros and cons.

My original thought on the matter was, how can any nation (especially the United Nations, created for the very purpose of instigating a "checks and balances" system in the world) sit idle while Hussein remained free to have his froward pleasures accomplished through rape rooms, massacres, human shredders and the like? Fortunately enough one man took a great step to accomplish this task, and now we have Hussein in custody. Even the liberal Tony Blair sided with President Bush (much to the dismay of his Labour comrades). Yet even he recognized that there was some good and hope to be had out of this endeavor.

Therefore, my point remains: wars are sometimes a very necessary means in this world governed by fallible man. I hate to say it, but it's absolutely true.

Thanks for the examples... I must admit, some of them are very very true, and I hadn't thought of them at all :o ... A prime example being the 1967 war, where the aggressors upon Israeli territory were kicked out. In that case, you are right, war achieved more than it cost. Ditto for the Napoleonic Wars (though it always digs at me that such a response never occurred when Europe moved into Africa, the Pacific Islands, and the New World... Rather depressing, all in all...) All in all, thanks for your responses! (insert smiley here... I've used too many in this post, apparently...) *scowls*

And this is where I get on my historical soap box and rant about one of my geeky peeves... :o WWI was an entirely unnecessary war. And the blame does not solely lie with Germany. For a start, Germany came into the war to support Austro-Hungary against the Russians, after Austro-Hungary (wrongly) declared war upon Serbia over the assassination of its Arch-Duke. WWI was NOT the allies against the Germans, it was the allies against the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Ottomans. Saying that WWI was all about Germany always feels like one is ignoring another five or six million corpses, and the shattered economies and governments of three empires.
The other point is, what was wrong with Germany unifying and becoming a new power in Europe? No one complained when Britain did it. In addition, bear in mind that not just Germany was spoiling for war at the onset of 1914. Countries on both sides wished to flex their military muscle, either to gain land, to gain influence, or to regain dignity. The French, for example, were desperate to get revenge upon Germany for the Franco-Prussian war. The Austro-Hungarians wanted more of the Balkans, and the Ottoman Empire wanted the Balkans back (preferably without needing to do any actual fighting - as it was, the Ottoman Empire had been ill-equipped for war for decades). Italy wanted land from Austro-Hungary. Russia wouldn't have minded the odd slice as well.
My point on WWI is that Germany is not solely to blame. Negotiation would have been possible. None of the rulers involved were unstable dictators, merely jingoistic arrogant imperialists. But no one wanted to negotiate. Britain, France, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Germany - all of them were quite happy to wage a war, so long as they thought they'd get something out of it, which they all did...
Basically, WWI was not necessary.

Hehe, getting off my soap box now... Yes, I know that had little to do with the argument... Hehe, my bad...

I will agree however Curumo - your arguments are extremely valid. Once again, Johan has been convinced! (kind of... :o ) In certain circumstances, war is permissable, I'll agree, though still important to both avoid at all costs, and make as quick and bloodless as possible. The one other thing I will point out about your examples however, is that they all either involve a defence against aggressors, or involve rival empires engaging in war (without involving other nations), with the result of keeping said empires in a rough balance. Both are arguably necessary, though empirical wars could be avoided altogether if countries stopped trying to build empires (fairly obviously...) and if they all were willing for negotiation.
In the case of Iraq, it's not empires clashing. Nor is it a direct act of defence, (yes, I know you might say it was pre-emptive defence, but I've got a whole load of issues with that too... Heck, you've probably figured out by now that I've got issues with everything... :p ) Even if we say that it WAS pre-emptive defence - do the gains outweigh the loss?
Of course, this is a matter of opinion at the moment, whether the gains have outweighed the loss. Only time will tell. On this, I think it unlikely that either side's opinion is going to be swayed.

Johan 72109

11-16-2005, 06:03 PM

I saw this pitiful family crying over the bones of their teenaged son who had been found in a mass grave, with his marbles, little toys that kids play with kind of marbles, still in his pockets. You think that boy somehow didn't keep his head down low enough? And think about an entire city of Kurds gassed to death on a Hussein whim. Reckon they didn't keep their heads down?

If a government that kills its own citizens for no other reason than the dictator is evil manages to keep relative stabiity, does that make it a good system, by and large? Of course not. Someone mentioned, maybe WHB, that lots of Russians would like a return to the communist system because they were better off. But do they want to balance their books on the backs of those pitiful prisoners starved and forgotten in the gulags? How terrible if our own comfort and stability is so dear to us that we will buy it on the credit of innocent people imprisoned and slaughtered.

Now as for Muslims and prophecy, I think some people think that the strife between Jews and Muslims dates back to the strife between the Old Testament brothers Joseph and Esau, and that because the Bible states there will always be enmity between them, that it means there will always be enmity between Jews and Muslims.

Hehe, the communist point was mine... Mr Popular today I see... :o

Again, I agree. Freedom should be more important than comfort. My point was that it isn't, to ordinary people. Of course, TRUE freedom brings with it comfort, usually. However, the type of freedom resulting is often actually worse than the oppression, even the psychotic dictatorships, that went before.

When I said 'keep their heads down', I was generalising, I agree - my apologies for that. And in some cases, even as a generalisation, it is incredibly wrong - Jews in Nazi Germany spring to mind. Campaigns of genocide are hideous things, because it is the main incidence where 'keeping your head down' will not work, at all. But even so, to the ordinary person, oppression is usually considered better than anarchy.
On the news over here, pictures were broadcast of children blown to pieces by a car bomb. The bombers had parked their car, and started handing out sweets. Children ran round, and then...
Or all the people who were crushed in the massed stampede on a religious march, when there was a threat - just a threat - of a terrorist bomber.
The violence isn't even structured. It's completely random. These aren't revenge attacks for an attempted assassination, these are random acts of violence, that are claiming thousands. note here, I'm not putting down what Saddam did in the slightest. Really... I wouldn't consider it. He did horrific things. But the alternative appears to be worse. And if the country then turns into an Islamic State, what then - will the random deaths have been worth it?

Several examples exist of where such a thing has occurred. Somalia was once a British colony, obviously, like all white colonies at the time, highly racist.
Then the British decided they should pack up and leave - there wasn't even a war to kill people, they just left.
Of course, now Somalia has split into three seperate states. One is Islamic, one (ironically the safest) is unrecognised by the west, and the last is in anarchy, where the life expectancy is the lowest in the world. Here, the last, was where the disaster of Mogadishu occurred, I point out, made famous by film and book.
The Balkans are another prime example. Here, the communist government left or was evicted almost overnight. People rejoiced, and rightly so.
I don't really need to say what happened - the Balkans has been battered and blown to bits by the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims for a decade now.

On the Esua / Jacob point, that refers to the Edomite / Hebrew relationship I believe. However, as Gibby pointed out, the prophecy refers to Isaac and Ishmael.
This does not, however, mean we can shrug and say 'well, it was prophecied to happen anyway...' Bear in mind that God's prophecies invariably don't just happen, but have a visible line of cause and effect - in our case, the history of Islam, that I've already mentioned. Just because it was a prophecy, doesn't mean that it isn't all about retaliation and counter-retaliation.

At this point, I'd just like to suck up slightly and say that this is the best mannered political thread I've ever been in... :)

inkspot

11-17-2005, 11:50 AM

I meant Jacob and Esau in my previous, sorry, the brothers were Jacob and Esau. But the rivalry in Scripture was Isaac/Ishmael -- I had all that wrong! Sorry. Anyway, I think that evangelicals who believe this rivalry will never end believe we should whole-heartedly support Israel and oppose Israel's enemies because when the smoke clears, Israel will be the state left standing, the Chosen People and all that. There is an interesting book called "The American Prophecies" by Mike Evans on this subject.

I didn't mean to pick on you, Johan, I just didn't believe you meant that if you keep your head down during an evil regime, you will be fine. But in fact, the Apostle Paul kind of said that when he advised people to honor their leaders because God had placed them in power for their protection -- and when he said that, he was pretty much on his way to Rome so the emperor could behead him! So my point is probably wrong, after all ...

Gryphon

11-17-2005, 01:54 PM

Erm... out of interest, where in the Bible does it prophecy about Islam specifically? Bear in mind that Islam wasn't around until centuries after the Bible was written.
The current problems in the middle east can be traced right back to the beginnings of Islam, over a millenia ago. The southern tribes of Saudi Arabia were oppressed by their northern christian and jewish neighbours.

umm, no, the current problems with Islam have been since Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac had a son named Jacob who was later named Israel and out of him came the nation of the Jews. Ishmael decendents settled East of Egypt (mentioned in Genisis 25:18) and out of him came the Muslim nations. God said that the two would always have strife, and you know what? they always have...

waterhogboy

11-17-2005, 02:24 PM

Aren't some of these arguments for war being the 'only' option situations where its more from a defensive position (the two World Wars, Napoleon and from the sounds of it that Israel one - but I dont know much about it). Fair enough, if a country is being attacked I don't think it should just lie down and be overtaken. What I mean about the Iraq war is that we went in there on the offensive... I believe that's where war is wrong.

Oh, and I think its interesting that in Lieberman's speech that the US soldiers are thanked. They were called coallition forces over here, recognising that it was actually soldiers from a number of different countries who were fighting there.

Johan 72109

11-17-2005, 02:47 PM

umm, no, the current problems with Islam have been since Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac had a son named Jacob who was later named Israel and out of him came the nation of the Jews. Ishmael decendents settled East of Egypt (mentioned in Genisis 25:18) and out of him came the Muslim nations. God said that the two would always have strife, and you know what? they always have...

...because of the way both sides have treated each other. As I said, just because it's a prophecy, doesn't mean God won't give a reason for it other than that. In general, you'll find that prophecies are fulfilled by humans, not by the prophecy itself. So the problems with Islam DO stretch back to its original founding, and the way the west treated Islam, and the way Islam treated the west. This is why they always have strife. It fulfils the prophecy, yes. But I think it wrong to suggest that war can simply be attributed to a prophecy, and all blame upon the nations involved be passed on.

inkspot

11-17-2005, 04:33 PM

US soldiers are thanked. They were called coallition forces over here, recognising that it was actually soldiers from a number of different countries who were fighting there.
Cuz we dragged you there kicking and screaming. :p
JK, WHB, you are right -- I don't think Lieberman meant to slight you, so I will say now a big THANK YOU to every nation that sacrificed to stand by us. We appreciate you. :D

Gryphon

11-17-2005, 06:35 PM

...because of the way both sides have treated each other. As I said, just because it's a prophecy, doesn't mean God won't give a reason for it other than that. In general, you'll find that prophecies are fulfilled by humans, not by the prophecy itself. So the problems with Islam DO stretch back to its original founding, and the way the west treated Islam, and the way Islam treated the west. This is why they always have strife. It fulfils the prophecy, yes. But I think it wrong to suggest that war can simply be attributed to a prophecy, and all blame upon the nations involved be passed on.
ok one thing that God cant do, he CANT lie, whatever he says is truth. if there will always be strife between the two then there will always be strife between the two. if this wasnt prophesied would the two be able to live in peace? well, i dont think so, they believe in a god named Allah who says we are blasphemers and that we should be killed. Christians that is, it only took a few men to distroy so many lives, and there are still so many out there. we will always fight them, war or no.

Bitter Milton

11-17-2005, 11:06 PM

I'd say I'm a liberal myself, unlike the majority of this forum. I'm also an agnostic, because I don't claim to know what happens after death, if there is a higher power, etc.

I can't stand George Bush, and I don't agree with many of his policies, but I still love the United States.

A couple of times it was mentioned that women were not intended to hold leadership positions. Why is this?

Bitter Milton

11-17-2005, 11:37 PM

As an anarchist, I don't believe in politics.
>_>
<_<

I don't mean to sound like an idiot troll, but anarchy is not good. We need a social contract to protect our rights. For example, in an anarchy, you have the right to life, however, your right to life is made null and void, because others have the right to kill you. This is why anarchy, or the state of nature, cannot work.

waterhogboy

11-18-2005, 02:49 PM

Cuz we dragged you there kicking and screaming. :p
JK, WHB, you are right -- I don't think Lieberman meant to slight you, so I will say now a big THANK YOU to every nation that sacrificed to stand by us. We appreciate you. :D

Heehee - meeza only kiddin Inky. I knew what he meant really. But it is SOOO fun to be provocative!! :D

Anyway. Little Gryphy. Gryphy wiffy darlin'!!! We really do not see eye to eye on many issues do we love!! As Johan said, just because the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael will always oppose one another, doesn't mean they will always be at WAR with one another. Thats sinful humans taking God's words to an undesired extreme!

Johan 72109

11-18-2005, 03:08 PM

In addition - even if it's prophecied that there'll be war, doesn't mean that there won't be proper reasons above and beyond this.

Jesus' death was prophecied, but that doesn't mean that the Pharisees just woke up one day and thought 'let's kill Jesus' - they had reasons, if warped ones, for doing so.
Ditto with the conflict with Islam, and the reasons are ones I've underlined already.

Also bear in mind that the prophecy refers to the hebrew people and the arab people - NOT the arab peoples and the west.

Saruman

11-18-2005, 04:35 PM

Anyway. Little Gryphy. Gryphy wiffy darlin'!!! We really do not see eye to eye on many issues do we love!! As Johan said, just because the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael will always oppose one another, doesn't mean they will always be at WAR with one another. Thats sinful humans taking God's words to an undesired extreme!

I believe you are wrong in this matter, WHB. The goal of Islam is quite simple in this day and age: as long as Israel exists as a nation, they must eliminate her from the face of the planet! This includes and implies the utter extermination of every last Hebrew living on this earth. Unless I am mistaken, I have also heard that Adolf Hitler received a great deal of support from Islamic nations during his Kampf campaign. So, I'm afraid that yes, Israel and her neighbors will continuously be at war with each other...that is, until the returning of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, after the imposter-messiah settles a false peace between Israel and her neighbors. Do not underestimate the power of prophecy.

And with regard to Johan's statement concerning prophecy, it is very obvious that God (being God) knows what was, what is, and what is yet to come; He knows "the end from the beginning." Perhaps the pharisees did indeed (as we read in the Scripture) harbor great hatred towards Jesus, but then the demonic realm has a great part to play in this. Do not forget what happened at the last supper: Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, and Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly." Even though Satan has a tendency to believe he will somehow be victorious, he is nevertheless working the will of God in different ways (not entirely, however).

Prophecy, at any rate, refers to the world at large, as well as to individuals and collective groups of people. If God knows it is going to happen, and gives man the foresight, then by gum, it will come to pass, no matter what or whom may try to stop it!

Johan 72109

11-18-2005, 04:52 PM

inkspot

11-18-2005, 04:53 PM

Johan 72109

11-18-2005, 04:56 PM

Hehe... Just wanted to get that straight in my head...

Predestination's a wonderful thing... :p

inkspot

11-18-2005, 06:07 PM

Well, you know, I do wonder that ... like Judas, he had a role to play, and what if he didn't want to betray Jesus, what if He loved Jesus, but he was predestined to be the traitor ... bit of rough luck for him.

We like to think we always have choices, but sometimes our upbringing was so screwy that we don't even recognize the valid choice right before our eyes because we have been so inculcated against it. Oh, I don't even know what I am saying.

It just seems tragic, if Jews and Muslims are destined to kill each other, and nothing anybody can do can stop it ...

Gryphon

11-18-2005, 09:54 PM

Johan 72109

11-19-2005, 12:04 PM

Hehe... sure thing Gryph on predestination... But you started it talking about prophecy! :mad: (Hehe, only joking...)

On the subject, is war evil... I think it is. Yes, God has used it before - but that doesn't mean he condones it's use when he doesn't tell us to. For example, the Western governments were NOT told by God to go invade Iraq. They decided amongst themselves.
All war not sanctioned by God will, unfailingly, be evil. Sometimes it may be a necessary evil, but it remains an evil nonetheless. Why? Because evil things will happen in a war.
The Second World War, which obviously is being used in this thread as an example of a just war, involved some of the worst evils ever seen... And not all of it was from the Germans. All you need to do is look at the Russians track record. Or look at Dresden. Or look at the (understandable) things done to Japanese officers who were captured. Or look at the shootings of children who were spies. The list goes on, and on, and on, even considering just the allies.
More recent wars involving Western countries have seen human right abuses carried out on both sides - in addition to the death toll suffered by both sides, which in and of itself is a more than good enough reason to condemn war as evil.
Afghanistan and Iraq involved human rights abuses and friendly fire mistakes that cost unnecessary lives, in a way that cannot help but be called evil.

So while war may on occasion be necessary, that does not mean that God does not think it is evil - if he didn't, surely the wars would start because God wanted them to, not because people wanted them to? Would you say that WWI was not evil? WWII was not evil? Vietnam, the Balkans, Rwanda? Are none of these evil? War is a horrible, horrible thing... it changes people irrevocably, even those who survive, even those who win. In my opinion war that is not ordered by God is always - always - an evil thing, whether it has to be done or not.

Hehe, rant over... :o

I recently heard a theory on why American and European attitudes to war vary so wildly (I know, I'm generalising here, some Americans are extremely anti-war, and not all Europeans are anti-war...)
Basically, the idea is that America hasn't suffered as much because of war as European countries have. Yes, America has suffered terribly from war, as has every country. But it hasn't experienced the senseless destruction and hideous death toll that Europe has, partly by virtue of having less years of history behind it, partly by virtue of the fact that it hasn't had two world wars fought principly upon it's soil.
For example, France, about which I've heard huge numbers of cracks about cowardice and running away etc etc, have suffered absolutely terribly from war. WWI wiped out an entire generation of young men - the percentage of the population wiped out in France was actually worse than the percentage in Britain, which obviously also suffered hideous losses. France suffered more casualties in the forty-two day long Battle of France in 1940 than America lost in the entire Vietnam War.
Russia has suffered even worse - 13 million soldiers, not civilians mark, but soldiers, died in WWII alone. I'd be willing to bet that that dwarfs the number of deaths the US army has had in its entire existance.
And of course, in sheer monetary terms, the amount of money that has had to be spent repairing Europe after WWI and WWII is quite frankly jaw-dropping. Priceless buildings, priceless artwork, more importantly priceless people have all been destroyed.
This makes European countries far more cautious in their approach to war, having seen its effects up close, and seen what happens to the survivors up close as well, on a far greater scale than the US.

Anyway, that's how the theory goes... Any thoughts? :)

Gryphon

11-19-2005, 07:08 PM

Hehe... sure thing Gryph on predestination... But you started it talking about prophecy! :mad: (Hehe, only joking...)

what the heck does prophesy have to do with predestination? hmm, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING!! :rolleyes:

Narborg

11-19-2005, 08:16 PM

Ive been away for a week and you gays are still talking teoglogy insted of polictics

Johan 72109

11-20-2005, 11:36 AM

Hehe, sorry Narborg... What can I say, it's the Circle Law - all arguments, however good natured, will always come round, full circle, back to where they started, until someone breaks the loop by being unable to argue anymore... :p

On the subject of prophesy and predestination - they actually have an awful lot to do with each other. Both refer to events that are predicted before they happen, both refer to events that cannot be changed, no matter what you do. They have a lot in common, actually... it's just predestination is a specific form of prophesy, i.e the calling of believers.

Bitter Milton

11-20-2005, 01:35 PM

Just for the purpose of clarification, can someone explain how you justify that we can have free will and predestination at the same time?

Saruman

11-20-2005, 01:45 PM

Does this mean that human beings can be exempt from the blame that their actions deserve? Does this mean that we should avoid blaming the countries and powers that turned the Middle East into such a roiling mess, shrug our shoulders, and say 'It was all God'?

I don't know where you got the idea that men are not responsible for their actions. I never implicated this in the least. What I have said is that God sees and knows what will happen, who is His and who is not His, but this in no way means that men are not responsible for what they do. Yet God knows what will happen, and how it will turn out. This is the power of prophecy. And, yes, have you never read the Scripture wherein the Lord (for example, in the Gospel of Luke) put it upon Caeser's heart to tax all the peoples of the world (Lk 2:1)? The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Secondly, as far as predestination goes, I do not believe we should be shoving this concept in the faces of unbelievers. While we know that God knows who belongs to Him and who does not, it is not our task to figure this out, but to seek to share the Gospel with a Christ-rejecting, sinful world. Therefore I do not believe we ought to dote on this concept too much.

PrinceOfTheWest

11-20-2005, 01:53 PM

Hinges on the Mystery of Free Will, O Bitter One. We're told two things for sure: 1) God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and sees all times at once. He has created all things, even beings with free will, but in doing so has not surrendered one shred of His sovereignty. But also, 2) we have been given free will, for use of which we will be justly held responsible, both for our good choices and our bad ones.

Timebound creatures that we are, we can only perceive these things in opposition. If I were to write a computer program that by its nature did nasty things like erase my hard drive, I could not justly fault it for fulfilling its nature. It would only do what it had been "predestined" to do. But if I were able to create a program that could choose what it would do to my hard drive, then by defintion I would be surrendering some of my authority to the program. A program could be one or the other, but not both. But that is a limitation of my condition as a finite creature. God has no such limitations, so we can speak of Him creating creatures for a certain end yet also being able to judge them justly for their own choices.

The Scriptures speak of the Chosen being destined for salvation, but nowhere do they speak of anyone being destined for damnation (though some could possibly interpret Jesus' words to Judas at the Last Supper that way.) As Peter Kreeft puts it well (drawing on Lewis): "The saved are saved by grace alone, but the damned **** themselves."

Still confused? Welcome to the world of theological mysteries. Remind me to tell you the story of Augustine and the seashell sometime.

Saruman

11-20-2005, 02:10 PM

John 3:16-19:

For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.

Your choice. If you do not believe, then there is no one to blame but yourself for your destiny. You choose it.

Johan 72109

11-20-2005, 06:15 PM

I don't know where you got the idea that men are not responsible for their actions. I never implicated this in the least. What I have said is that God sees and knows what will happen, who is His and who is not His, but this in no way means that men are not responsible for what they do. Yet God knows what will happen, and how it will turn out. This is the power of prophecy. And, yes, have you never read the Scripture wherein the Lord (for example, in the Gospel of Luke) put it upon Caeser's heart to tax all the peoples of the world (Lk 2:1)? The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Secondly, as far as predestination goes, I do not believe we should be shoving this concept in the faces of unbelievers. While we know that God knows who belongs to Him and who does not, it is not our task to figure this out, but to seek to share the Gospel with a Christ-rejecting, sinful world. Therefore I do not believe we ought to dote on this concept too much.

Hehe, sorry Curumo... :( I think I must have just got the wrong end of the stick with your comments... Sorry there. But it was just coming across from some people's comments (I know, I'm hanging on to this... :o ) that they thought that there was no logic (however twisted) behind the current problems in the Middle East, Islamic militants just woke up one morning and decided to act as evil as they possibly could... And were trying to exempt human beings from responsibility, which just seems a little dangerous to me. Anyway, sorry I misinterpreted, if my reply seemed a little aggressive you have my deepest apoligies... Hehe, I don't mean to be offensive, I just come across that way... :o

On the subject of predestination, you are right... I wasn't starting a conversation about it though, just joking to Inkspot... But still, it won't be mentioned again... :o

Basically, this is a big apology post... sorry Curumo. I've not used this many embarassed smileys in a post in ages...

Dernhelm

11-20-2005, 07:59 PM

Re the predestination and free will...we (this is what I believe, and I'm probably still to shaky on it to be arguing for it...so don't be surprised if I botch it :o) do not have free will. Now, many people seem to have a problem with God holding us accountable for something that we were "forced" to do. Well, for one thing, we arn't made to do something we don't want to do; what we want to do is also forordained (sp?). And for the other problem, God holding us accountable when we wern't able to do anything else...as Paul says somewhere, who are you to question God? (I don't think I got that quote quite right, but that's the meaning of it.) In other words, God made the world, God made the laws, and what God does is right; if it seems different from the laws he made for us, well, don't try to judge God according to the laws he made for men!

Anyway, I hope that clarifys my view, at least. I know many people don't believe that, but I think that's what the Bible teaches. I hope I didn't say anything in an offensive way; I certainly didn't mean to, but I know it's easy enough to do, so I wouldn't be surprised if I did. So please forgive me beforhand. :p
But don't let that stop you from debating!!! :D

Bitter Milton

11-20-2005, 09:49 PM

I don't really believe in God or predestination or anything. This is because these things don't really have any factual basis/support. Thanks for the insight though!

glamel

11-20-2005, 10:03 PM

its not impossible, Bitter Milton,
you can also prove it for yourself
how on earth did you came out of your mother's womb anyways?
Humans alone is a wonder of Creatures of God,
unless you believe in the theory of Charles Darwin that humans came from the Apes.
with that theory, where did the Apes came from?
Why there is sun during the day and moons and star at night?
Why does the birds flies and the fishes swim?
why there are trees? seas, lakes, volcanoes?
why there is humans?
we certainlyproven our skills and knowledge, we can create robots but not humans,
maybe I can't let you see what I was trying to tell you, if you really do not believe in God,
but let me ask you, are your answers got questions?if it does, is it really the good answer?
good answer must be the last answer, no questions beyond it,
coz if it is, then go on,
its your life, its your will, its your choice. :)

Bitter Milton

11-20-2005, 10:22 PM

See, that's where I see the flaw in the existence of god. Saying that he is the last, good answer to questions is simply untrue. There is no support for god's existance whatsoever. Plus, all of the questions you asked can pretty much be answered using logic and science.

Dernhelm

11-20-2005, 10:31 PM

Just to clarify; what do you believe? Where do you think the universe came from? And, as CS Lewis said, if intelligence is just the result of random motions of atoms, how do you know that anything you reason is correct? (that's highly condensed! :p)

glamel

11-20-2005, 10:34 PM

logic?
whats with the logic anyways, its only the principle of REASONING,
Science?
science are merely the observation, identification and THEORETICAL explanation of phenomena.
simple logic and science, can you answer it anyways?
i am pretty sure, all of your answer to my questions would result to another question also,
I do not say that science is bad, that science is not good.
but God is greater.

Bitter Milton

11-20-2005, 10:36 PM

Well, I acknowledge the theories of the big bang and evolution and the like, so I suppose that's how I think the universe as we know it today, and thus man, came to be. I don't believe in god, because there is no reasonable evidence of his existence.

glamel

11-20-2005, 10:44 PM

you acknowledge the Big Bang theory which was not yet been proven TRUE, until now.
it is odd, but theories like this won't be proven true even in a million years from now on

Bitter Milton

11-20-2005, 10:54 PM

Well obviously all the components of the theory are not correct, but the beauty of theories is that they change over time with new discoveries, and that they are backed with scientific support. They are not just "guesses".

glamel

11-20-2005, 10:59 PM

LadyEm

11-21-2005, 12:48 AM

Canada is on the verge of another election - the opposition parties are collaberating together to bring down the Liberal minority government, and it will be interesting to see when and how this will happen.
Previously, PM Martin has completely rejected votes of parliament to go into election, despite the feelings of the majority of the house.
He also promised, last year to call an election a month after the release of the Gomery Report - (Gomery was the Justice appointed to investigate the Sponsorship Scandal - funds that were given to Quebecois ad firms during the Quebec Referendum to separate ten years ago - and accusations that Liberal ministers and party members took money from taxpayers illegally, didn't record it properly, in the excess of 250 million dollars).
PM Martin has now changed his mind and won't call an election till April.
The Separatist feeling in Quebec has surged again and the Parti Quebecois, the provincial separatist party, just elected a new leader who has vowed that he plans to bring about another referendum.

LadyEm

11-21-2005, 01:08 AM

For those of you who don't know the Canadian Parliamentary System, here's a quick overview. You Brits already know it. It's the British system, minus the House of Lords, due to the fact of course that Canada doesn't have Lords. :D

Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is still the "head" of government, at least in name though all her duties are carried out by Governor General Michaelle Jean, the Queen's Own representative in Canada. She is more of a figurehead of course as she does not interfere in the comings and goings of our parliament. The Gov-Gen is appointed by the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Martin, leader of the Liberal Party. We vote in Parties in Canada, not leaders. Members of the party vote for the leaders of the party who in turn have the opportunity to become Prime Minister. To dissolve Parliament, or call for an election the PM goes to the Gov-Gen to ask permission, much the same as PM Tony Blair of England goes to the Queen to ask for permission to dissolve parliament to go into election.
Only the Prime Minister has the authority according to the consitution to call elections, no matter what the House of Parliament (the entire government including all the representatives) says.
Additionally, if the Gov-General thinks an election is a bad idea she can say no - but I cannot think of a single instance where this has happened.
The governing party, which is currently the Liberal party, rules by the majority of seats in the house. However, though the current ruling party, the Liberals, has more seats than everyone else, it still does not have enough to have a Majority government, and so it makes up a Minority government.

We also have Senators, but they are appointed by the Prime Minister (usually the PM's friends, of course)

The Official Opposition party has the next amount of seats. The current opposition party is the Conservative Party and the leader is Steven Harper.

There are other opposition parties as well, as we have a multi-party system.

The next party with the next greatest amount of seats is the Bloc Quebecois party. It is a party that only has "seats" or "elected members" in Quebec because it is the Federal Quebec Separatist party.

Then there is the New Democratic Party (or NDP) very much like the Labour Party in Britain, though I like the Labour party a LOT better.

Then, we additionally have Independent members of parliament who are elected, but belong to no party - they have been elected in their regions instead of a member of a party. :)

glamel

11-21-2005, 01:33 AM

hmm, what can I say?, even with electing parties, there's still graft and corruption,
why would they paid the liberal-advertising firms anyways with (i think $75 US dollars)
I think, the liberal party will watch their work from now on, and also the public.
People now have a lot more understanding of whats happening inside the government,
so basically, I think many are not satisfied with PM Martin
besides you said that he announced for an election month after the Gomery investigation that should be on February, right?, but you said also that he announce again for an election on April? where's his word?

LadyEm

11-21-2005, 01:41 AM

Well, exactly. But this is PM Martin we're talking about. There's a whole lot of people who aren't exactly surprised - he's a lot of hot air and no action.

There are those who still like the Liberals of course, they are still the (very small) majority in the polls.

I, for one, would like to see the Liberals ousted from power - they've been in power for way over a decade now.

glamel

11-21-2005, 01:41 AM

oh, and tell me, why would the Quebecers wants separation?

waterhogboy

11-21-2005, 02:19 PM

Hey Lady Em?!?!? Does that mean Queen Liz has to give her blessing to all the laws your government puts forward???

LadyEm

11-21-2005, 02:35 PM

Oh no! LOL. She's just there to look pretty ;) Well, when she visits, she's called the "Queen of Canada", though it's all just ceremony and she does a lot of walkabouts and says a lot of speeches.

She really virtually has no say in what goes on - I think it's more that she chooses not to be involved as well. Our Governor-General, her representative, is Canadian and though I am sure talks to the Queen, is the only one who has any influence, though the Gov-Gen doesn't approve laws.
The Gov-General also can only hold that position for a certain amount of time before their term is up and another person is appointed Gov-Gen.

Additionally, if there's anything big happening in parliament, such as an election, or anything like that, any member of the royal family won't tour in Canada for the sake of being seen as interfering in politics.

For example, Prince Charles and Camilla cancelled their recent official tour, and went to the states instead on advice of our Prime Minister, due to all that's been happening in our parliament.

They immediately agreed and went to the US instead.

PrinceOfTheWest

11-21-2005, 02:51 PM

So that's what happened! Gee, thanks a lot! :)

Bitter Milton

11-22-2005, 10:23 PM

scientific support which is changing, not a constant one, unlike the theory that
God created the universe, it is a constant.
I believe that God created the universe, coz I am Christian.
and im proud to be one,
i understood the beauty of science,
i respect others opinions,
and I respect yours,
nice sharing of views to you. :)

I don't mean to smash on your beliefs, but your belief that god created the universe is not a theory, because it has no scientific backing.

glamel

11-23-2005, 12:01 AM

I dont have to prove it scientifically coz, God is not about Science, you know.

Gryphon

11-23-2005, 12:14 AM

I don't mean to smash on your beliefs, but your belief that god created the universe is not a theory, because it has no scientific backing.

hey you know what? it isnt a theory, ITS TRUE! you want scientific proof? chew on this...

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

LadyEm

11-23-2005, 12:17 AM

I dont have to prove it scientifically coz, God is not about Science, you know.

Actually, I think God is very much about Science. If he made the universe, and he made man, then he actually wants mankind to go about and figure out how everything works. That's Science.
The world is intricately made up, and the study of our nature world is Science.
And I think God can be backed up be science, just as God can back Science up because he created Science.
Therefore, God is all about Science, and one shouldn't be afraid to seek out Scientific means to support Creationism. Just because it is not always approached on this level, does not mean that it is not a Science.
There are many Creation Scientists who are not theologians, but Scientists in professional background, many of whom studied the evolutionary theory for years.
I also think it is a mistake for people to think that Science and God and the Bible are at odds. Instead of approaching Creationism vs Evolution point of view, to build up a scientific creationism theory, Scientists ought to focus just on creationism, not just pointing out flaws in the Evolutionary theory.
We are called to worship God with our hearts, souls and MINDS. We forget the minds, sometimes, much to our detriment.
Approaching things Scientifically, doesn't mean a lack of faith, I think it takes more faith to work it out that way.

LOL and things are once again off topic.

Inklet

11-23-2005, 01:42 AM

Hey, Inkspot! Thanks for highlighting Joe Lieberman's remarks. I'm a Connecicut resident (Lieberman's one of two senators for the state of Connecticut). I sent him this letter the day after his speech:

Dear Senator Lieberman:

I am a registered Republican who has only once voted for a Democrat. I voted for you. (More honestly, I voted against Senator Weicker. [Weicker was a very liberal Republican])

I just read your comments on the Levin amendment.

I am very much afraid that if you remain a sober, mature, and responsible man, I may vote for a Democrat again next year [Lieberman is running for Senator again next year]. If I do, I won't feel the need to hold my nose this time. I thank you for that.

Regards,

[Inklet]

inkspot

11-23-2005, 09:34 AM

Excellent, Inklet! Lieberman is a good guy.

---------

Elsewhere: I agree with Lady Em and Gryphon that God is about science -- He created science. And He wants us to use our brains to pursue it. Whether science will lead to the exact sequence of creation remains to be seen ...

PrinceOfTheWest

11-23-2005, 10:58 AM

I don't mean to smash on your beliefs, but your belief that god created the universe is not a theory, because it has no scientific backing.

Interestingly, the ancient Greeks (hardly fundamentalists) viewed the intricacy of the created order itself as prima facie proof that God existed. They also considered anyone who did not recognize that as the departure point for all rational understanding of things to be a dense boor who was not worthy to admit to discussions of truth, since he clearly could not recognize the plainest and simplest truths when they stared him in the face.

Of course, that was just the ancient Greeks.

The statement that the idea that God created the universe "has no scientific backing" is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. One man can see in the intricacy of a dandelion flower a clear demonstration of the hand of a Creator (as the Greeks did). Another man looks at the same flower and sees a lengthy series of fortuitous accidents. The issue is not the flower, but the assumptions that the man brings to the flower.

btw, I join Lady Em in her strong dissent from the idea that God is "not about science". Modern science was created by the Christian Church (St. Albert the Great, tutor of St. Thomas Aquinas, is considered the first true scientist) because only the Christian Church taught that God established the universe to run under regular laws.

Dernhelm

11-23-2005, 02:26 PM

Here are a few other things worth looking at:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Darwin himself relized that there were many problems with his theory; but he hoped that "intermediate links" would be found that would support it. But they havn't been found. There are a few fossils that have been considered "intermediate links", but, though some of them are still used as evidence! they have been disproved. For instance, this is a quote from Dr. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be disgarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." (Field Museum Bulletin January, 1979)

Now, the "evolution" of the horse...well. It looks like a nice, tidy sequence...but; these fossils were found on different continents! On no continent can you find all of these fossils. Also, one would expect the smaller ones would come first; right? Well, the "Eohippus" (that's the smallest one) has been found in the same rock strata as "Equus" (the biggest)!
Quote; "geologists admit that all of these creatures lived at the same time." (Exploring Creation with Biology, 1998).
AND, though the legs and skulls look as though they might have "evolved", the rest of the the fossils' don't go so smoothly.

The reason evolution can seem so reasonable is mostly because people tell lies. Quote from Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History: "I admit that an awful lot of the has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs his museum]is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable..." (As quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books 1988, p.78)

waterhogboy

11-23-2005, 03:37 PM

Yeh - science is brilliant. You can really see God revealing himself through it. I study chemistry at A Level, and some of the stuff is so amazing I literally sit back and think how wonderful God is to have put so much thought and love into the world he's created for us.

Hey Bitter Milton - another good book is called Case for a Creator. I've mentioned it before. It gives evidence to support a created universe - thats 'scientific' evidence by the way. People think theres no scientific evidence, cos schools prefer not to teach you any other theory than what they want you to believe...

Anyway politics. I love watching Question Time. Its a programme on Thrusday nights where theres a few politicians and thye debate while an audience made of members of the public can pose questions. Its so funny - cos politicians are so funny!! I want a pet one when I grow up...... :rolleyes:

Narborg

11-23-2005, 04:29 PM

Now we are on to cration vs evolution. We should have put this hread under the Christianity and Narnia forum.
Should intaligent design be tought in schools? ( I know what poeple will say)

LadyEm

11-23-2005, 04:31 PM

LOL! Politicians are funny, I agree WHB.
If you ever get a pet one, be sure to show him off.
I want to read that book, Case for the Creator. I'm not a Science person by any means and I haven't been able to find much written on the net about the Scientific proof for Creation - I've had this discussion before with Evolutionists of course. Who is this book by?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, an election is looming closer here in Canada.
Check this out everyone:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051123/ca_pr_on_na/elxn_fever

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_col

Things have been tense in Parliament for a long time now, so it's nothing new, hardly anything's gotten done there in the last year - mostly it's been a yelling match with a few "hear hear's" thrown in.
It's been downright nasty.
Granted, the Liberals are now suddenly trying to push through some bills they've been petitioned for for a very long time, but it seems to me as though they are trying to use them as an election prop, because they haven't been in a hurry to do anything before.

inkspot

11-23-2005, 05:27 PM

Now we are on to cration vs evolution. We should have put this hread under the Christianity and Narnia forum.
Should intaligent design be tought in schools? ( I know what poeple will say)
I think the truth should be taught in the schools, but as Dernhelm cited examples, the folks who believe in evolution think it's "lamentable" that ies have been put into textbooks as truth, but they don't bother trying to get the truth into the books ... it's freaky for people who say they are devoted to science.

Bitter Milton

11-23-2005, 05:37 PM

Dernhelm

11-23-2005, 05:56 PM

Then let's start with the theory of evolution; have you read the links I posted? (as well as the post :p)

If so...what is your evidence for evolution?

:)

unleavened

11-23-2005, 05:58 PM

Actually BM, lots of scientists are coming to the conclusion that intellligent design is more scientificly plausable than evolution and I don't mean Christian scientists. I don't think there's much base for evolution in science at all. I've studied up on it. Darwin didn't understand alot of elements crutial to his theory. I could rant about this, but I won't.

Just so you know, I don't mean that I have anything against you personally. You can believe as you choose. But be sure you are not being blind to the evidence of God (that I know is there) just b/c you don't want to believe it's there. I ask you to at least consider what I've said. I'm wiling to talk about it more if you like.

glamel

11-23-2005, 10:13 PM

those who doesn't believe that there is no God, they just simply deny him or ignore him. we are the sole evident that God exist,

Narborg is right,and enough of this topic, this thread is for politics only.
start one on the Christianity and Narnia.

LadyEm

11-24-2005, 01:01 AM

Not that this isn't an interesting topic, it just should have it's own thread so we can discuss both evolution/creationism as well as politics.
Actually I am not so sure it fits under Christianity and Narnia. We are discussing Science, not theology and how it relates to Narnia.
We are discussing Science.

Did anybody check out the links I posted above?

LadyEm

11-24-2005, 01:45 AM

oh, and tell me, why would the Quebecers wants separation?

First of all I can't help but comment with a rhetorical question: Britain and France beat the tar out of each other for centuries before Canada ever came about. Who's big idea was it to force an English colony and a French colony to be the same country? When they hated each other? Good lord, it's just a breeding ground for future problems.

Actually I think it was Queen Vic, and I like her, so I won't say anything else!

There has always been contention between the French and English in Canada. Though of course now, Canada isn't split up with just French and British but people from countries all around the world.
But the Quebecois have retained their culture and their language for over a hundred years, and are *Very* proud and *Very* much interested in looking out for the good of all Quebecois.
At times, in the rest of Canada, we feel almost as though they could hardly care less about the rest of *us* because they are so focused on the interests of themselves.
Don't get me wrong there are Canadian Quebecois and Separatist Quebecois. Separatist Quebecois feel that they'd be better off without the interference of the Anglophones, and the interference of the Federal government.
They absolutely insist on being referred to as a "distinct society within Canada." They definitely do have many things that are perfectly distinct about them, but so does virtually every province in some Canada on some level.
We are an absolutely *huge* country.
Separatist Quebecois feel as though Quebecois is held back and burdened by the Federalists and they would be much better off taking care of their own things.
Separatist sentiment goes back a long way, probably even to the roots of the beginnings of Quebec, due to the fact that Canada was originally a French colony - the British and the French were warring for forever as I mentioned earlier, and the British fought the french here in Canada and won the French colony. It was upper and lower Canada, back then.
Enter Queen Vic and the creation of Canada.
In the 60's there was something called the FLQ crisis, and because it was so before my time, there were riots by separatists in Quebec and Prime Minister Trudeau at the time called martial law and called in the army to Quebec (he was Quebecois himself).
This is very much heightened by the fact that ten years ago, when the Separatist parties in quebec...the Parti Quebecois pronvincially in Quebec won the provincial election, and the Bloc Quebecois, the Federalist Separatist party became the official opposition party.
A dangerous combination. This resulted a Referendum, positing the question of whether or not Quebec should separate. The "No" vote won by a narrow margin.
Enter the Sponsorship Scandal, as I mentioned above. The Liberal party basically bought off Quebec ad agencies to try to keep Quebec in Canada. Of course ten years later when it comes out it *really* ticks the Quebecois off.
So ironically, the Separatist sentiment has grown *sharply* again in Quebec due to something that was done, albeit underhandedly to try and keep Quebec in Canada.
So that is the brief history of Quebec in Canada. Being from BC (British Columbia) that is the best I can do and if anyone knows more than I do please feel free to fill in the blanks.

Narborg

11-24-2005, 04:36 PM

Pet poltictans? fantasitic, do you guys have politicatians in your pet shops. :D

Gryphon

11-26-2005, 09:00 PM

My argument is not so much whether or not God exists, but that the theory of evolution has firm, scientific merit, while the events of the bible, along with intelligent design, do not. While things like the complexity of life are good points, these do not in any way show that a higher power exists.
how could they not? and why is it you refuse to see the evidence? you cant have a effect without a cause. you cant get something from nothing. it just cant happen, so while the big bang caused the effect of the world being what it is today, then what caused the big bang? evolution is a theory, it will never be a law but the law of God will always live.

Saruman

11-27-2005, 02:15 PM

You know...it's funny that you should mention this, Gryphon. I remember hearing the story of Voltaire's life, summed up in a nutshell. He was so vehement against God and Jesus Christ, and against the Bible, and was known as having said (concerning Jesus): "Curse the wretch!" On his dying day, he screamed, "more light! more light!" and the nurse that attended to him swore she would never attend the death of an atheist ever again.

Today, Voltaire's house is a leading Bible publishing house.

The point remains that God will never die, nor become just another mythology. The theory of evolution, however, fell apart as soon as it was conceived by a man who forsook God (for whatever reason). The only reason why people glommed onto the theory? It denies the existence of God and, if there is no God, then there is no need to worry about what sorts of things we can do. I can do unseemly things with animals, or even with the same sex, and it will not amount to anything, since, having evolved, I should behave beastly and irrational and forsake the natural order of creation altogether (why does "create" exist in our vocabulary, anyway?)

Where, if I may ask, did our abilities to think and use clear logic come from? I can tell you for a fact that it did not come from a random chance, nor from rain falling on rocks for millions of years, which suddenly turned into a slimy cesspool, which then developed the first being. Codswallop! In my estimation, the so-called professional scientists who adhere to this theory are the world's funniest and most random lunatics.

Darwin is dead. Nietzsche is dead. Voltaire is dead. Jesus Christ is risen; He is risen indeed.

QueenLucy07

11-27-2005, 03:36 PM

I somehow doubt that Bitter Milton has read enough of the bible to know whether or not the bible is scientifically sound. So, i think we are wasting our time trying to prove that it is, cause even if we proved it sound he probibly will still not listen, and anyways my God is not bound by the laws of science.

PrinceOfTheWest

11-27-2005, 03:45 PM

My argument is not so much whether or not God exists, but that the theory of evolution has firm, scientific merit
Correction: it has some supporting evidence. It also has tremendous holes in it, like most scientific theories, and newer scientific discoveries have widened those holes tremendously. If you are the scientific thinker you claim to be, you will go out and get the book of science called Darwin's Black Box. Written by Doctor of Microbiology Michael Behe, it examines evolutionary theory through the lens of what has been learned in that field over the past couple decades. Dr. Behe - a rigorous scientist in his own right - points out that many of the assumptions made by Darwin & followers have been proved utterly impossible by advances in microbiology - and nothing has come forward to replace them. In fact, he issues a general challenge for anyone to come forth and explain, in light of what is now known about microbiology, how an intricate biochemical process such as blood clotting could have incrementally evolved as the Darwinists claim.

So, here's my challenge to you, Bitter Milton: you have appealed to science; to science you should go. Get that book, read it, and then come back with answers to Dr. Behe's questions. If you are unwilling to do that, then I shall have to assume you are not basing your claims on science, but on faith - and furthermore, on faith with no substantial grounding.

Gryphon

11-27-2005, 03:57 PM

Where, if I may ask, did our abilities to think and use clear logic come from? I can tell you for a fact that it did not come from a random chance, nor from rain falling on rocks for millions of years, which suddenly turned into a slimy cesspool, which then developed the first being. Codswallop! In my estimation, the so-called professional scientists who adhere to this theory are the world's funniest and most random lunatics.

Darwin is dead. Nietzsche is dead. Voltaire is dead. Jesus Christ is risen; He is risen indeed.
Amen to that! animals think "Does this hurt me or not?" humans think "Is this right or wrong?" why are we that way if we came from animals? Evolution says survival of the fittest so why do we die for each other?

LadyEm

11-27-2005, 05:01 PM

QueenLucy07

11-27-2005, 07:49 PM

Actually God CREATED the laws of Science, and the natural order of things.
Therefore, those laws of Science should support God.
Ya, which is another reason why he is not bound by the laws of science... :D

Saruman

11-27-2005, 08:09 PM

Bitter Milton:

Forgive me. In posting, I have not meant to slam you personally. I think, however, that there is an opportunity for you that you are missing in your life. Why would you want to choose not to believe in a God who loves you, who died for you, and rose from the dead, just so that you could dwell with Him in His eternal kingdom? What should compel you to believe that we merely evolved and (as the theory therefore implies) we come to a sudden state of non-existence after death? What purpose do you have for living in this life? I know the answer, but the real question is do you want to know?

The point in all of these messages is not to bash you, or to bash other human beings. It is to share with you a certain inevitable truth that all must face in the end. One question will be asked, and it is: "What did you do with My Son?" Did you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, to forgive you of sin and come into your life? Or did you deny Him, because you chose to believe in the philosophies and ideologies of other men?

My prayer is that you may come to understand the Truth. Seek (or, keep on seeking), and you shall find. Your choice.

There, I'm done now. :)

QueenLucy07

11-27-2005, 08:11 PM

Ya, im not trying to slam u either...sometimes i can sound arrogant...i dont mean too though.

LadyEm

11-29-2005, 01:12 AM

Ya, which is another reason why he is not bound by the laws of science... :D

But if He created the laws of Science, wouldn't that mean that the laws of Science compliment the laws of God? And you are right he is not bound by the laws of Science, as he can use natural disasters as punishments, etc. (such as floods and fires and days standing still and such).
However, that does not mean that he is not apart of the laws of Science, if he created him.
All I am saying is that the logical conclusion would be that God would be supported by Scientific law, because he made it!
Just like "All creation speaks of the glory of God."

I know you don't mean it this way, but it sounded like you were saying that God has nothing to do with Science. For someone who doesn't have any idea of the Christian faith, they might think that you are saying that Science is not of God, which is entirely not true.
Was just clarifying.

LadyEm

11-29-2005, 01:14 AM

I've just created a new evolution vs. Creationism topic:
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=57108#post57108
Politics is getting lost in the shuffle.

I want to talk about the fact that the Canadian Government collapsed today due to a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal Party.
We are heading into a winter election, should happen in January.
Get ready for the mudslinging.

Saruman

11-29-2005, 02:09 AM

Now that the libdems have failed, I hope things will begin to improve a bit for you over there, LadyEm. :)

PrinceOfTheWest

11-29-2005, 07:16 AM

I did notice that the Canadian government has collapsed - I hope you see some improvement as well. I know our brothers and sisters across the river here have been praying for change for some time.

Narborg

12-01-2005, 04:26 PM

What hapened to the Canadian government?

PrinceOfTheWest

12-01-2005, 04:42 PM

Suffered a vote of no confidence. There's more posts about that in other threads, I think.

LadyEm

12-01-2005, 06:42 PM

Yes, I've talked about it in other threads.
Yes, this is a huge thing them failing. We've been praying for change in our country for awhile, and there's worry that nothing will change at all - that it will be another Liberal minority gov- even more minor with seats lost to the Bloc in Quebec.

If any of you are of a heart to pray for Canada...please pray! Battles have been raging, and the outcome is not in sight yet.

Narborg

12-15-2005, 04:24 PM

Would the change nessaserly came throght a change in government? We are called to change hearts. Changing the laws of the land doesnt change peopes hearts, only an incunter with Christ can.

Elendil

08-31-2007, 01:44 AM

*picks up thread and blows the dust off it*
WoW how old are you!?!

W. Cleopia

09-03-2007, 03:21 AM

*looks at the thick layer of dust* REAL old!!! :eek:

But I don't really have anything to say about Politics...except that I don't like them much!!! :p

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-03-2007, 03:33 AM

Ooh, this looks like a fun thread...how come I didn't see it before?

Narborg

09-03-2007, 06:36 AM

I thoght we went alowed to talk politics here......

Twilightdryadhobbit

09-03-2007, 12:30 PM

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-03-2007, 02:42 PM

Yeah, I'm kind of with Narborg... And why is this thread in the duffers? Shouldn't it be elsewhere? If it's in duffers we should like be talking Narnianpolitics? Like: "Should we oppose the White Witch and go ahead with the war?" Or if we were real duffers, "How about that wizard? Who told us he could rule us?, or how about the Narnian king?"

Sounds like fun to me. :D I like talking politics in real life, but I dislike it on the forums. People misunderstand people a lot, and I'd sometimes rather not know where people stand on some issues, causes too much controversy.

Yes. Discussing politics online only works if everyone respects everyone elses views...and yeah, that doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

So, our bunchy has escaped and wreaked havoc all over Dufferland...what shall we do to it? It is our wonderfully Duffer mascot, but it's caused hundereds of dollars of damage. Shall we :
A) Keep it under high supervision in it's cage
B) Get it a new, super duty escape proof cage
C) Other?

Lila

09-03-2007, 02:44 PM

I hate politics.

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-03-2007, 02:44 PM

I hate politics.

Yeah, thay are what brought Troy to it's demise...

Narborg

09-03-2007, 09:19 PM

I like politics, they are fun. But we need to be carful. i agree, we should make it duffer poltics. Like here http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228516734

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-03-2007, 09:31 PM

I can't see it, I'm not a member of face book.:(

We should make like...a united Nations of Dufferland sort of thing. :D

Narborg

09-03-2007, 09:38 PM

I can't see it, I'm not a member of face book.:(

We should make like...a united Nations of Dufferland sort of thing. :D

Yu can always join.........

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-03-2007, 09:47 PM

I suppose I could...I've already got myspace and stuff. *goes to check out face book*

Aravis Kenobi

09-03-2007, 11:23 PM

*IOWW the Iasc*

09-04-2007, 01:01 AM

I'm a staunch Bush supporter, and I really think democrats could be the undoing of this country; but that's my opinion, and I won't say anything more on it. I'm just kind of disappointed in the Republican party right now though because there aren't any good candidates. :( However, if Hillary Clinton is elected, I may just ask to become a citizen of Ireland.

Ah, and you see, I'm an independant. :D I agree with some republican views, and some democratic views...but not all of both.
I'm not very proud of Bush right now, but I figure better him than Kerry. Mainly because by re-electing George W, America knew what trouble we were getting ourselves into...With Kerry we had no idea what it would bring.
I personally want Rudi Guilianni as president next election.

inkspot

09-04-2007, 11:56 AM

I am not very political myself, but I am excited about the former senator and actor Fred Dalton Thompson announcing his intention to run for the Republican nomination for President. He has played District Attorney Larthur Branch on Law & Order for several years, and that is about the only show I watch on TV.

Positives on Fred's Presidential Bid
* He has political experience as a senator.
* He seems proud to be an American and is not one of those who blame America for all the world's problems.
* He has said to secure our future we need to address Terrorism and the problems of Government Spending and Governmental Intervention in our lives, which makes sense.
* Country singer Lori Morgan dated him before he married his current wife and said he was a gentleman and every woman's dream man!

Cons of Fred's Presidential bid
* Law & Order re-runs with Fred Dalton Thompson will not be shown on TV until after the Republican Convention and/or national election because they say it would be an unfair advantage for Fred's fine acting performances to be on TV!

I think that's silly, since they cannot guarantee every candidate equal media exposure, so why penalize Fred for being on TV?