True Christians Are Anti-War

[BillyTheMountain]

No controversy here.

It's just that there are a few non-Christians parading as Christians (like Bush), giving all the Christians a bad name.

Christianity is a religion of peace.

Jesus' words back this up.

[musketman]

Yes, but as Christians know, peace is only 2 fingers now. You have to go to war sometimes. We are living in hard times. War is coming!

[surfer1024]

Yes you are right:
Jesus said:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:43-44

39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:39-41

Jesus clearly states in these and other verses that Christians should not fight to advance Christianity and We should love our enemies but like Musketman said if the some one like the Muslims (their religion is not of peace) try to take over this country and the world we will have to defend our freedom to worship. Christians in Muslim and Communist countries are getting persecuted, d, beaten, imprisoned, and killed for their faith.

I challenge you non-Christians to Read the Bible for yourselves and to repent.
9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the , you will be saved. Romans 10:9
There is only one way to Heaven and that is through Jesus Christ (the only perfect man) who paid the Penalty for our sins by dying on the Cross.
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

The choice is yours, Heaven if you follow Jesus or hell for those who do not.

Surfer1024

[johnfoss]

Wonderful.

Billy says Christians are supposed to be pacifists, and is apparently implying that other religions aren't.

Musketman says war is coming. In Iran? North Korea?

Surfer1024 says Christianity is the only true religion and everyone else is going to hell, and that Islam is not a religion of peace (most Muslims will disagree). Also mentions how Christians get killed and persecuted in Muslim and Communist countries but doesn't mention other minorities, like Jews who probably get it worse. Our nation is not above persecution either, so if you want to throw stones, save the biggest ones for your local racists.

I will submit that true members of just about any religion are expected to live in peace. But if an invading army wants to take their homes or their land, we should not resent them from defending it.

[bailingmarne]

Yout don't have to be a christian to be anti-War. people who don't believe are anti-War.

[James_Potter]

http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/clipart/signpatriot2.jpg

[forrestunifreak]

Oh, so Jesus would rather us not stand up for what is good and right, and let inocent people be hurt? Read the bible yourself, remember when he stormed the tax collectors and money changers who were cheating the people?


And since when did you (billy) care what the bible said? Only when it says something to your advantage? Anything else you dissmiss as false?

[James_Potter]

Oh, so Jesus would rather us not stand up for what is good and right, and let inocent people be hurt? Read the bible yourself, remember when he stormed the tax collectors and money changers who were cheating the people?
Ever heard of Gandhi?
He stood up for what is good and right, he got more accomplished than George Bush ever has or probably ever will, and he never hurt a living being in his life.

[forrestunifreak]

Ever heard of Gandhi?
He stood up for what is good and right, he got more accomplished than George Bush ever has or probably ever will, and he never hurt a living being in his life.

Oh, so this is a bash Bush thread in disguise huh? I should have known.

[musketman]

Musketman says war is coming. In Iran? North Korea?




hahaha, I just thought Id ad that in :D

But yeah, probably to Iran. Iran is trying to make bombs to get rid of Isreal. So Isreal is going to defend itself. Then if Isreal starts fighting we will because they are our best ally.

And then did you hear about China? Making missiles to take out our satalites? War, War, War. We are living in the end times people. Be ready.

[James_Potter]

No it is not!!
If I bashed Bush in that last statement it's because I bash anyone who prefers violence over nonviolence. My last reply means that Gandhi's method of politics is far superior to what this country is doing.

[James_Potter]

hahaha, I just thought Id ad that in :D
But yeah, probably to Iran. Iran is trying to make bombs to get rid of Isreal. So Isreal is going to defend itself. Then if Isreal starts fighting we will because they are our best ally.
And then did you hear about China? Making missiles to take out our satalites? War, War, War. We are living in the end times people. Be ready.
Be ready for 21 December, 2012!

[Chris.James]

no offense to any of you, but, i find Christianity to be as bad as every other religon that has walked this earth. You speak of compassion and love, and yet you are hating on everyone different than you. You are just as bad as the muslim people that say that everyone else is going to hell.

There is only one way to Heaven and that is through Jesus Christ (the only perfect man) who paid the Penalty for our sins by dying on the Cross.

i am an atheist, simply cause for one, i dont believe in god (thats a pretty big one to being atheist) and that i find religon is a soul sucking endevour, where you just have to hate those different than you.

[forrestunifreak]

No it is not!!
If I bashed Bush in that last statement it's because I bash anyone who prefers violence over nonviolence. My last reply means that Gandhi's method of politics is far superior to what this country is doing.

Anyone who prefers violence over nonviolence. So, are you saying that we should ask terrorist reeeaal nicely if they would please be good and not do bad terrorist stuff? Maybe we can all just be freinds? It does not work that way, you should know that. You can't be friends with terrorists.

Okay I'll bite. What is this Gandhi method of poltics?

[musketman]

no offense to any of you, but, i find Christianity to be as bad as every other religon that has walked this earth. You speak of compassion and love, and yet you are hating on everyone different than you. You are just as bad as the muslim people that say that everyone else is going to hell.



i am an atheist, simply cause for one, i dont believe in god (thats a pretty big one to being atheist) and that i find religon is a soul sucking endevour, where you just have to hate those different than you.

Chris, you gotta believe. Read the Bible and go to church, and I bet you'd be changed forever. Seriously.

[Chris.James]

gandhi was awesome, he is one of my political idols along with martin luther king (used gandhi ideals)
gandhi stood for using nonviolence to change the world around us. ever heard of the salt march? it was a protest agaisnt the british (colonial rulers at the time) and even when the police beat the protesters, they did nothing, just kept on walking

[Chris.James]

Chris, you gotta believe. Read the Bible and go to church, and I bet you'd be changed forever. Seriously.

bro, i have read the bible

[James_Potter]

Anyone who prefers violence over nonviolence. So, are you saying that we should ask terrorist reeeaal nicely if they would please be good and not do bad terrorist stuff? Maybe we can all just be freinds? It does not work that way, you should know that. You can't be friends with terrorists.
Okay I'll bite. What is this Gandhi method of poltics?
Gandhi was beaten nearly to death several times by the British police, because he was trying to get justice for his people. He never NEVER never once fought back. Fighting back would cause more suffering to both of them. Instead he was dragged off bloody and beaten to prison where he would meditate until he got out and could continue to work for his cause. The terrorists (in this case the British) eventually listened to what the Indians wanted and gave in.
So, Gandhi did as reeeaal nicely if they would please be good and not do bad terrorist stuff, and you know what, IT WORKED!! It worked and very few people were killed in the process. Gandhi did indeed make friends with the terrorists and now the British and the Indians get along with each other.
So if you don't know by now, Gandhi's method of politics is peaceful protests, nonviolence NO MATTER WHAT! never ever ever hurt another living being for any reason, because there is never any reason to.

[James_Potter]

Chris, you gotta believe. Read the Bible and go to church, and I bet you'd be changed forever. Seriously.
You should read the Qur'an, it would change YOU forever!!

Quran 2:62 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Tell me another religion that certainly guarantees all other faiths into Paradise!

[musketman]

and even when the police beat the protesters, they did nothing, just kept on walking

yeah, I saw the movie.


Keep reading the Bible, and honestly ask god to show you a sign. Your thinking will change.

[forrestunifreak]

You should read the Qur'an, it would change YOU forever!!

Quran 2:62 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.


Do you just skip over the parts that tell you to kill all infidels?

[musketman]

Gandhi was beaten nearly to death several times by the British police, because he was trying to get justice for his people. He never NEVER never once fought back. Fighting back would cause more suffering to both of them. Instead he was dragged off bloody and beaten to prison where he would meditate until he got out and could continue to work for his cause. The terrorists (in this case the British) eventually listened to what the Indians wanted and gave in.
So, Gandhi did as reeeaal nicely if they would please be good and not do bad terrorist stuff, and you know what, IT WORKED!! It worked and very few people were killed in the process. Gandhi did indeed make friends with the terrorists and now the British and the Indians get along with each other.
So if you don't know by now, Gandhi's method of politics is peaceful protests, nonviolence NO MATTER WHAT! never ever ever hurt another living being for any reason, because there is never any reason to.

Yes, but in todays case, the terrorists want America gone. That is there goal.We are the most free country, and are christian. Ghandi's method wouldn't work today. It just wouldn't. The terrorists would keep killing us untill we are all dead and America is gone.

[monkeyman]

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9830/untitled7yr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[James_Potter]

Do you just skip over the parts that tell you to kill all infidels?
I could ask you the same about the Bible.

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath ... every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.

11:4-6 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

[Chris.James]

tell me why these insurgents fight us.

It is the exact same reason we fight them. Why does the US have right to go in and play god? How are these so called "insurgents" any differnet the colonial patriots we have loved for almost 230 years? We are like the colonial brithish, large, powerful and way too full of ourselves. We are oppressing these people whether we like to think of it that way or not.

[musketman]

How are we oppressing these people? They are the ones who started this war on 9/11. This country is simply to good for them, and they want us dead.

[James_Potter]

How are we oppressing these people? They are the ones who started this war on 9/11. This country is simply to good for them, and they want us dead.
WHOA, since when did the Iraqis start a war on 9/11?
News to me!

[musketman]

NOt really the Iraqi's but some are certainly contributing to the problem. There may be weapons over there still. We have confiscated lots of missiles, and guns and ammo from Iraq that the terrorists have used, or would have used on us.

[bungalistic]

No controversy here.

It's just that there are a few non-Christians parading as Christians (like Bush), giving all the Christians a bad name.

Christianity is a religion of peace.

Jesus' words back this up.

If thats true then what is your defence against what happened in the crusades and varying other times in history, there are plenty of times in the past where they have been anything but peaceful.
People are free to believe what they want but many wars were caused by religion and still continue to be so. Not saying thats how all religious followers practice but no one can say that one religion is better than any other and is more peaceful.

That being said its beginning to piss me off when we aren't even allowed to fly the st george cross or teach kids about our history in fear of offending others in the country.

[James_Potter]

If thats true then what is your defence against what happened in the crusades and varying other times in history, there are plenty of times in the past where they have been anything but peaceful.
People are free to believe what they want but many wars were caused by religion and still continue to be so. Not saying thats how all religious followers practice but no one can say that one religion is better than any other and is more peaceful.

That being said its beginning to piss me off when we aren't even allowed to fly the st george cross or teach kids about our history in fear of offending others in the country.
I imagine he would say the same about the Crusades as he is saying about right now...that those who call themselves Christians then use violence against others are just hypocrites.

You can teach your own kids about your own history, it's a parents job to teach their own children what they feel is true.

[bungalistic]

You can teach your own kids about your own history, it's a parents job to teach their own children what they feel is true.

Which i'm sure many parents will do, be they teaching them wrong or right all parents will pass their views onto their kids and the kids will eventually grow up and decide what they believe in.
What I was trying to get across is that our government seems to try and please too many people in the UK all at once and sometimes it is at the cost of what made the country what it is today.

[Chris.James]

NOt really the Iraqi's but some are certainly contributing to the problem. There may be weapons over there still. We have confiscated lots of missiles, and guns and ammo from Iraq that the terrorists have used, or would have used on us.
yes SOME, there are SOME of those people in the UK too, and here! Why not just go to war with the world? Because, Bush needed someone to blame, and unfortunately for them, it was the entire middle east. Yes, i agree with getting rid of a ruthless dictator, but why do we have the power to anoint ourselves god and decide how another country should rule itself? We should be focusing our resources on a country that actually wants our help (aka Pakistan). But, of course Bush wants to "avenge" his father and get rid of Saddam.

[Gilby]

I find it hard to believe that any religion would promote war. Religion, at it's core, is about teaching morals and how one should behave in society for the greatest good of the society. Killing people over slightly differing beliefs is not something a morally-driven institution would promote. If you're being taught in your church that we need to fight against others to further their cause, then you should be looking for a different church.

How are we oppressing these people? They are the ones who started this war on 9/11. This country is simply to good for them, and they want us dead.

The war started is not a religious war. Bush may like you to think that when he uses all his God rhetoric, as apparently the majority of our nation is heavily influenced by that. The Iraq war and 9/11 are not tied together. 9/11 only provided the Bush administration with psychological power against those he needed to influence to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 was an attack against the US because of the foreign policies we have in the rest of the world, and particularly in the Middle East. The US is the big bully and the attack was a failure of Bin Laden's efforts as we have only gotten worse with our foreign policy, though we might destroy our country in the process, in which case it will have been successful.

To stop terrorism, we need to stop creating the terrorists as the result of oppressing and controlling them.

One of the reasons of going to war in Iraq is probably because Iraq decided to only accept the Euro for oil transactions (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/). Before, the US dollar was the only currency accepted for oil, and this propped up the value of the dollar, because the demand was there for it. With oil being such a big commodity that the world currently needs and having the USD no longer attached to it means that we can't create as much money without significant inflation. This has a direct effect on the US economy.

[James_Potter]

I find it hard to believe that any religion would promote war. Religion, at it's core, is about teaching morals and how one should behave in society for the greatest good of the society. Killing people over slightly differing beliefs is not something a morally-driven institution would promote. If you're being taught in your church that we need to fight against others to further their cause, then you should be looking for a different church.
True, Gandhi once said "As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

[skianduniaddict]

if ur patriotic u cant be aganst war
r u aganst the revolutionary war

[koebwil]

if ur patriotic u cant be aganst war
r u aganst the revolutionary war
You can be against war, war is just a way for people to press their beliefs onto other people. I thought America was about freedom from oppression and equal rights for all, not forcing everyone to believe in what we believe. I think you can be patriotic and be against unjust wars, or war in general.

[skianduniaddict]

that is what our country is doing and if you dont support what our countrys doin u dont support our country

[monkeyman]

forcing everyone to believe in what we believe
that is what our country is doing
Why, yes, you're right.


and if you dont support what our countrys doin u dont support our country

Since when has the world been so black and white?

[skianduniaddict]

well suppose ur on a football team and u want to do one play and ur team decides to do another
u still support your team right?

[captainkrunk61]

I'm sorry, but I would apprectiate it if you didn't say christians are supposed to be anti-war before reading ANY of the old testament. Site down, have a look, and tell me you still believe that.

[Gilby]

that is what our country is doing and if you dont support what our countrys doin u dont support our country
Well, that's unamerican.

America was founded on the principles of freedom, which does include the freedom to not support actions the government is taking. In fact, we must depend on that freedom to keep our government in check.

[James_Potter]

I don't support our country any more than any other country...why should I? From what I have observed, people from all around the entire planet are my brothers and sisters, they are equal. Americans are no better than Iraqis, Iraqis are no better than Americans. I support Iraq, and I support America, but I don't like what they're doing (the killing and stuff).

[Borges]

"Lord, lead our struggle and let us defeat our enemies"
"I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE THE WRONG DEITY. TRY THE WARRIOR GOD"
"But I thought you where a jealous god who tolerated noone beside you"
"JEALOUS? OF HIM? DON'T GET ME STARTED. YOU SHOULD SEE THE RIDICULOUS HUMVEE HE DRIVES."

[BillyTheMountain]

James Potter gets me 100%. Gilby's got me too (surprise!!), with a little threadjack tossed in for good measure.

Bungalistic: I'm not defending violence by false Christians now or at any time throughout history.

ForrestUni and Musketman: Too bad you're being led astray by your church. Jesus' consistent answer is always NO VIOLENCE under any circumstances. You haven't accepted Jesus until you've accepted the hard quotes below. That's up to you.

ForrestUni: You even have me wrong with you're other suggestions about me.

I'm sorry, but I would apprectiate it if you didn't say christians are supposed to be anti-war before reading ANY of the old testament. Site down, have a look, and tell me you still believe that.

Jesus came to change a LOT of that. Otherwise you'd still be Jewish, like Jesus and his early followers, but probably Reform, cuz Jesus didn't respect His religion's purity laws. Jesus spoke only in the New Testament, and was against MUCH of the Jewish Bible.

Billy says Christians are supposed to be pacifists, and is apparently implying that other religions aren't.

I will submit that true members of just about any religion are expected to live in peace. But if an invading army wants to take their homes or their land, we should not resent them from defending it.

Mr. Foss: I'm saying no such thing about other religions. I am confident there are many religions of peace. Even the Dalai Lama said: My true religion is kindness. That's got to be a religion of peace.

Yes you are right:
Jesus said:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:43-44

39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:39-41

Jesus clearly states in these and other verses that Christians should not fight to advance Christianity and We should love our enemies

Surfer1024: Right you are, in these quotes!!!! Thanks!

This is Jesus. There's only one. These are His words. Hard to swallow, isn't it?

You might rather accept one of your own invention (like Bush and so many have done), who allows you to kill an invader. If you've accepted that one, you haven't accepted Jesus.

[koebwil]

well suppose ur on a football team and u want to do one play and ur team decides to do another
u still support your team right?
Well normally when your football team is ran by a dumb ass he gets canned. Also that is a gross oversimplification of the situation. The same logic would support the Nazis. It's not as simple as that, unless your football team is conquering other schools.

[thefish]

well suppose ur on a football team and u want to do one play and ur team decides to do another
u still support your team right?

Yes, of course you support the team, but not by sitting around letting some idiot coach (nobody specific) crash it into the ground. You do everything you can change the team for the better and make GOOD decisions. If we let our president do whatever wants with this country and with our full support, then why do we even have a say in anything? What's the point in voting?

Sorry, but I don't have any incredible insight into religion, but I guess I could say this: You shouldn't need religion to be good your neighbor (even if he is an ass). Sure, religion might inspire you to do good, but ultimately it has to come from you instead of from God or whoever threatening to send you to hell if you don't. If you only do something because your religion tells you to, then religion hasn't worked out how it should.

[JJtheunicycle]

oh if we support people in our country trying to help others were not "part of the club" B.S.

[Det-riot]

so this whole thread is based on theroy, the theroy of religion. I peronally think its a load of sh**. Using the same standards as christanity scientoligy will be a valid religion in 1000 years, using writings no one can varifiy the truth to. as for the whole christanity and peace thing, i have a feeling that overall in this world religion has caused more problems than its solved.

[mawesome]

Ok, on the subject of country/society and all that jazz. What make you part of a country? Even more to the point, what makes up a country? Is it the people in the country? No. Is it the land or borders of the country? No. Is it the ideas, the Government, the anything else? No. I was going to use a quote from Margaret(sp?) Thatcher, but I can't remember what it is exactly, so I'll paraphrase. "Blah blah blah, what makes society? What common factor puts us all into one group? None. there is no one common factor"

I hope that was understandable.

Religion:
Unless you class the KKK as a religion, I'm pretty sure there aren't any religions based on hate and killing people. Just because there are parts of the religion's book saying "blah blah kill kill blah infidel blah blah" doesn't mean the religion is about killing. By that logic, we could say that all a Government is about is war and money. Or that all this website is about is threads on religions. Or that all I'm about is a pair of white socks (I'm not, by the way).

Religion is made up of ideas, not the people that follow them, whoever right or wrong they get it.


Quran 2:62 Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who believes in GOD, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

Tell me another religion that certainly guarantees all other faiths into Paradise!

Ok. I'm not big on the whole "God" aspect, but I do believe that Jesus was a swell guy, and that you should be peaceful and kind and what not, does that mean I get to go heaven? Because that would be sweet.


All you need is love.

Keven out

Edit: As for the title of this thread "True Christians Are Anti-War". I agree, if we can say that Jesus was the a true Christian.

[orthman]

I am not sure where anyone would believe that God was completely about peace! Most of the old testament was much about war and God LEADING his people to victory through WAR!!! THis meant killing lots and lots of people! It is a reality in life. Sadam killed over 100,000 of his own people! As far as I am concerned, taking him out is worth the efforts made.
Just my thoughts!

[orthman]

I am not sure why I wasn't able to midify my last reply to this thread so i will do it this way after reading this entire thread again. It appears to me that people quickly forget the number of years that went by that Bush (JR) begged Husain to give up his efforts to build weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't until 911 REMEMBER THAT? that we invaded Iraq. What a short memory Americans have!
Sure we don't have Osama bin Laden (sp) but hey, Bill Clinton did and then he let him go! So much for Republican mistakes hagh?

[mawesome]

I am not sure where anyone would believe that God was completely about peace! Most of the old testament was much about war and God LEADING his people to victory through WAR!!!

Well, in any religious war aren't both sides "lead by God"?

Surely God isn't stupid enough to wage war against himself.

Edit: I'd just like to state that war isn't waged by religion, it's waged by people.

[mawesome]

No controversy here.


LIES! ALL LIES!

[Unitik908]

As I am pretty much neutral in this whole situation.
I think james, gildy, billy and the such are MUCH more convincing and have better arguments into their beliefs.

Just saying that, looking from the outside in.

Chase

[bungalistic]

This is all very stupid, its a unicycling forum not a religious and historical debating forum. Everyone needs to accept the fact that not everyone else believes in what they do, they are not wrong for this as we are all free to choose in what we believe in.

[50 Percent]

whats more absurd, people who believe in a god they cant see, or people who are offended by a god they dont believe in???

-Brad Stine

that may not be too fitting but true christians are against war for the ganing of territory. I believe that war can be used for the better of people who are suffering cruley under terrizem insurgents and all that.

[cathwood]

This is all very stupid, its a unicycling forum not a religious and historical debating forum. Everyone needs to accept the fact that not everyone else believes in what they do, they are not wrong for this as we are all free to choose in what we believe in.

Bungalistic, the optimist.

Anyway, from my experience of the forum, we enjoy debating these things. Otherwise we wouldn't do it.

[monkeyman]

It wasn't until 911 REMEMBER THAT? that we invaded Iraq. What a short memory Americans have!

-scratch (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53584&highlight=ironic)es head-

[James_Potter]

I am not sure where anyone would believe that God was completely about peace! Most of the old testament was much about war and God LEADING his people to victory through WAR!!! THis meant killing lots and lots of people! It is a reality in life. Sadam killed over 100,000 of his own people! As far as I am concerned, taking him out is worth the efforts made.
Just my thoughts!
We're not talking about God, well, we are, but the original poster was talking about Jesus Christ. Christians are simply followers of the teachings of Christ Jesus. Jesus preached love and nonviolence no matter what...you should never ever harm anyone or anything, is what he said...it does seem to go against what the people before him did, but maybe that's why Jesus existed is to change the bad things that people did before him.

[koebwil]

It wasn't until 911 REMEMBER THAT? that we invaded Iraq. What a short memory Americans have!
Sure we don't have Osama bin Laden (sp) but hey, Bill Clinton did and then he let him go! So much for Republican mistakes hagh?
I must have a shorter memory than most. Cause I can't for the life of me remember when Hussein took responsibility for 911, when we found a link between him and Al Qaeda, or when we found those WMDs. Also who even mentioned Clinton?

[dunawan]

it says in the bible "god is a man of war" so are you going to follow your own understanding...or gods word?

[monkeyman]

Jesus was God in human form, and he said to never harm another human. So are you going to follow your own understanding, or God's word?

[James_Potter]

it says in the bible "god is a man of war" so are you going to follow your own understanding...or gods word?
What book and chapter does it say that in?
Nevermind I looked it up, Exodus 15:3 for anyone else who was wondering (:

[JusticeZero]

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

[BillyTheMountain]

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

JusticeZero, Defender of Violence, I bring you the Prince of Peace: That sword is the tongue. Jesus also said many including JusticeZero will be led on the wrong path. Read further:

This enigmatic statement by Jesus in Luke 22:38 has created some stir in the history of Christian thought. Some have even allegorized it to mean that Christians carry two swords—the word of God (Scripture) and the state weaponry (real swords).

To read the text that way is to miss the point as widely as the disciples themselves did, and we are at least in a better narratival position to understand it than they were. After all, in the next few hours when a disciple draws his dagger and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus rebukes the disciples by redemptively healing the servant. The narrative rejects the use of the sword. The story of Jesus in the Garden returns good for evil and rejects returning evil for evil, which—of course—is consonant with Jesus’ own message in his ministry (cf. Luke 6:27). Jesus practices what he preaches. Amazing stuff, huh?

[captainkrunk61]

Can we just end this thread? Honestly. It needs to be locked or something.

People have different beliefs/interpretations of the Bible, hence why there's so many denominations. If everyone believed the same thing, everyone would still be catholic. So, everyone just stop trying to convince someone that the way you see the Bible is THE way.

There is one truth to be agreed on. Jesus came, and died for our sins. And he's coming back to free us into heaven. So, lets just stop the theological war. (ironic, huh?)

[JJuggle]

There is one truth to be agreed on. Jesus came, and died for our sins.
G - L - O - R - I - A.

[James_Potter]

There is one truth to be agreed on. Jesus came, and died for our sins. And he's coming back to free us into heaven. So, lets just stop the theological war. (ironic, huh?)
So THAT is THE truth? Excellent, now that I know it I am able to stop thinking about different beliefs! Thank you for clearing that up.

[mark williamson]

that is what our country is doing and if you dont support what our countrys doin u dont support our country

What if what your country is doing is actually hurting it? If you really love America, and its leaders are damaging it, is it patriotic to follow them? Or is it more patriotic to stand against the action being taken in America's name and protect the country itself?

To take your football team example: what if the rest of your team decide to cheat to win the game? If they cheat and are found out, then it would destroy the team's reputation. Even if they're not found out, they would have compromised important principles. Wouldn't you stand against the cheating, even though in the short term it cause problems? Because in the long term that would serve the team's best interests.

[Chris.James]

Can we just end this thread? Honestly. It needs to be locked or something.

People have different beliefs/interpretations of the Bible, hence why there's so many denominations. If everyone believed the same thing, everyone would still be catholic. So, everyone just stop trying to convince someone that the way you see the Bible is THE way.

There is one truth to be agreed on. Jesus came, and died for our sins. And he's coming back to free us into heaven. So, lets just stop the theological war. (ironic, huh?)
you just did what you said we shouldnt do, in your post you say, "hence why theres so many denomonations", but later you say, there is one truth to be agree on, Jesus came... free us into heaven. I cant agree upon that, i dont believe in god, thus no heaven for me. Now my point, Jesus was a great man, but he is just that, a man.

[unipsychler]

Religion, at it's core, is about teaching morals and how one should behave in society for the greatest good of the society.

Gilby, while it is true that most religions teach morals and how one should behave in society, religion, at it's core, is man's attempt at getting right with God. PERIOD! Morality and good behavior are the works that 'religious leaders' THINK God requires of man to become 'righteous' in the eyes of God. Unfortunately what God requires of a man to be 'righteous' and what man THINKS God requires of a man to be 'righteous' are two different things.

[Borges]

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)
It's fun to take things out of context and see what you end up with.
It gets even better if you continue.
For I have come to turn
'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

If that sword had literally meant violence he's practically telling us to murder our next of kin.

[Jerrick]

Just have to say; This is one of the better religious threads I have seen on this site.

EDIT: To the very title of this thread, True-Christians are anti-war, and that is how it should be. But look at how many people will say they are Christian, and then go against everything of the Christian lifestyle. Pretty Christian huh?

As for me, I dont support wars. They still go on, and I cant control that, I can try, but they still go on.

[Gilby]

Gilby, while it is true that most religions teach morals and how one should behave in society, religion, at it's core, is man's attempt at getting right with God. PERIOD! Morality and good behavior are the works that 'religious leaders' THINK God requires of man to become 'righteous' in the eyes of God. Unfortunately what God requires of a man to be 'righteous' and what man THINKS God requires of a man to be 'righteous' are two different things. You're assuming that all religions have a God, but that's not the case. IMO, religions were like the laws of its time and were made to get people to behave in a way that is deamed morally correct within their society. The use of a God or supreme being that judges you is a way to instill fear so that the rules are followed.

[GILD]

Our governing party's previous chief whip just got out of prison after serving 4months of his 4 year sentence for taking a bribe in the arms deal.
(Google Tony Yengeni if you want the full story.)
He's released from prison and his family decides to hold a traditional cleansing ritual for him to cleanse him of prison 'stuff'.
This apparently involves slaughtering a head of cattle and drinking some of the blood.
Ok, to each his own.
As the family's first born son, apparently the slaughter becomes his responsibility but since he's a city-boy, his involvement becomes merely symbolic and he stabs the cow with a spear, allegedly to make it bellow before the slaughter takes place.

The SPCA are up in arms.

So this is a hot topic on the morning show of our local talk radio show.
Until someone phones in and asks the host to stop the discussion because they don't want to be reminded that we're being governed by people who believe that you can communicate with your ancestors on the bellowing of a dying cow.
Why not? shot back the presenter, our previous government believed that a virgin gave birth to a boy who eventually rose from the dead.
It's no more or less preposterous.

I like that guy just a little bit more today.

[GILD]

There is one truth to be agreed on. Jesus came, and died for our sins. And he's coming back to free us into heaven. So, lets just stop the theological war. (ironic, huh?)
Yeah?
And the proof of your so-called truth is...?

And no, that isn't ironic.
Ironic are people who call themselves pro-life and then murder people.
That's ironic.

[johnfoss]

Unless you class the KKK as a religion, I'm pretty sure there aren't any religions based on hate and killing people.
I think the vast majority of KKK members, at least in the "good old days" would proudly count themselves as Christians. Chew on that for a while.

And, while I apologize for bringing up a quote from one of the guys long gone from this thread because it's over his head, I will anyway:
We are the most free country, and are christian.
Please explain, if you're still reading this thread, what makes us more free than all the other nations out there where people freely elect their leaders. Maybe we were the first (probably not), but there are lots of variations to our well-thought-out system of government out there, and surely lots of places on this Earth where people seem to have more freedoms than we Americans do, especially after 9/11.

Also please explain the "(We) are Christian." Do you mean the majority of the population, or something else?

For those who get fed up with these discussions and then complain how this is a unicycling forum, just another reminder that this it the "anything goes" area. Unicycling included, but not required. You don't have to read it! By debating this stuff out, we gain a better understanding of each other. By understanding each other, we are less likely to go to war with each other. :)

[cathwood]

You're assuming that all religions have a God, but that's not the case. IMO, religions were like the laws of its time and were made to get people to behave in a way that is deamed morally correct within their society. The use of a God or supreme being that judges you is a way to instill fear so that the rules are followed.

Or to put it in Cathy-speak - religions are a social construction to promote the power of the few over the masses. That's why they promote peace - so the masses didn't use the only power they had (themselves) to take the power from the few.

[BluntRM]

I like "these" threads. Well intentioned...


So, you <general plurality> don't support the war because of the Christ, peace, etc. It's plausible. Of course, praying and protesting are essentially worthless to this end, foregoing the explanation of a supernatural that has only yet to intervene because the faithful have not been heard, and likewise the illusion of democracy as functioning solely on massed opinion, regardless of how many effigies are burnt, it's still only in the abstract, we are at a standing point: What can you actually do to not support the war, or conversely, to support it?



...whine?

Ah ennui, if only one singular thought of any satisfaction became action...

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I love that the only people on here who are like "Yay, war let's get Saddam" are ignorant of the actual facts at stake. Anyone who mentions 9/11 in relaiton to the war in Iraq clearly does not understand the facts.

It's amazing how driven by ignorance the United States is.

Oh and the reason that Clinton gets brought up is because it's a nice scape goat for the right. Since they didn't get him even when he was enemy number one to the United States they like to remind everyone that Clinton didn't get him either, even though when Clinton was president Bin Laden was only a minor blip on the radar.

[steveyo]

What can you actually do to not support the war, or conversely, to support it?
You can write to your senators and congresspeople. Likely, one constituent's letter makes no difference to them, but if your one of thousands or millions who express a given opinion (i.e. withdraw troops, don't "surge" them), they'll listen because they'll fear for their jobs. Hopefully they'll then try to sway their particular congressional body toward their constituents' desires.

You can write letters to the editors of newspapers, trying to get even more people to care about your issue (i.e. stop this horrible Iraq debacle), and subsequently, hopefully, they'll write to the same congresspeople.

You can join forces by becoming active in an organization which tries to affect change in our govt. like MoveOn.org. Their phone chains had a noticable affect on the latest mid-terms.

Finally, you can run for office yourself and try to change this f---ed up govt. from within.

That's what we can do.

[GILD]

That's what we can do.
Top post Steveyo, top post.

[steveyo]

Top post Steveyo, top post.
Why, thank you, sir. You and me gotta party sometime, pal.

Although, I'm mortified because of this phrase:
...but if your one of thousands or millions ...This should be "you're" - arg! I hate when I do that.

[GILD]

Don't beat yourself up about it.
That's what we have Miss Aylery for.

[BluntRM]

You can write to your senators and congresspeople. Likely, one constituent's letter makes no difference to them, but if your one of thousands or millions who express a given opinion (i.e. withdraw troops, don't "surge" them), they'll listen because they'll fear for their jobs. Hopefully they'll then try to sway their particular congressional body toward their constituents' desires.

You can write letters to the editors of newspapers, trying to get even more people to care about your issue (i.e. stop this horrible Iraq debacle), and subsequently, hopefully, they'll write to the same congresspeople.

You can join forces by becoming active in an organization which tries to affect change in our govt. like MoveOn.org. Their phone chains had a noticable affect on the latest mid-terms.

Finally, you can run for office yourself and try to change this f---ed up govt. from within.

That's what we can do.

Right, communication seems necessary to a media saturated culture and, to some degree, popular opinion weighs heavy, but at the heart of war, for your support or not, cities burn and people die before the legacy of these acts meets fruition in Baghdad. It's not that they lack a good intention, but they lack any serious action towards that ends.
A serious pose to the war might be to jam recruitment efforts or communicate directly with military personnel, who are the most relevant points of action here, and likewise if you're familiar with Arabic...
But from any conclusion one draws in support or opposition there's a clear path in that regards, it's just rarely acted upon in real terms.

Are most Americans passive-aggressive or apathetic towards religion and state? Supporting the war with a bumper sticker and an opinion, but is that a cop out for lacking interest and involvement?
The appearence of deeper currents that run shallow when put to the test... the liberal/conservative/Christian fashion statement, diluted to taste, nothing more than the projection of a self-image. To war or not to war and what looks best in between, the fabrication of concern.

[monkeyman]

Miss Aylery

Heehee.

[unipsychler]

...even though when Clinton was president Bin Laden was only a minor blip on the radar.

I can't stand by idle anymore; I have to add my 2 pennies worth to this conversation. I don't care what you are; Republican, Democrat, Independent, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Black, White, Yellow, Male, Female, Homosexual, Heterosexual, NOBODY LIKES WAR! (This is not an absolute because there are always exceptions).

Unfortunately, because mankind is rarely content with whom they are or where they are or what they are there will always be conflict as people try to better their situation. The problem comes when the betterment of one people infringes upon the liberties and/or welfare of another people. This is when the gloves come off and the bombs start to fly and things get ugly.

In regards to the Iraq war and the struggle in the Middle East; I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer to this, however, as I see it, amongst the political struggles that have been going on there forever and will most likely continue forever, terrorism, which is a direct threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world, has it's nucleus in the Middle East and must be exterminated sooner rather than later. Give the choice to fight an enemy on their own land when their weak vs. fighting them on your own land when their mighty, any idiot would choose the former rather than the latter. This is exactly what the U.S. and its allies are trying to do, and is perfectly within their rights to do. This is what Clinton should have done when Bin Laden was only a ‘blip’ on the radar instead of Bush trying to do it now.

A country, government, dictator or whoever, who is doing their job to protect its citizens has an obligation to its citizens to assess an enemy or potential enemy and do what's necessary to fulfill it's obligation to protect them from present and future harm.

In addition to the problem of terrorism, there was the man, Saddam Hussein, who was treating his citizens and neighbors very badly. He was a bully who needed to be removed because as he grew in military might, while not a direct threat to the U.S., he was a huge threat to some of our friends in the Middle East. The U.S., out of the goodness of her heart, spared no expense to do the job that others knew had to be done but wouldn’t do it. We should have been out of Iraq long ago; however, we will never be able to leave as long as we continue to fight this war in a 'politically correct' fashion. The U.S. and the allies need to stop 'dinking' around and get the job done so our boys and girls can come home.

What troubles me most is the message we as a nation are sending to our family, friends and neighbors who are serving in Iraq in the military. They are doing a dirty job that they didn’t sign-up for but knew was possible. The lack of support for the military by politicians, the media and many U.S. citizens is a disgrace. The same disgusting behavior was displayed during the Vietnam War. It took us as a nation many years to recognize the psychological damage experienced by many who fought in the Vietnam War as a result of the anti-war movement and to start recognizing the selfless sacrifice made while serving their country. This nation vowed NEVER to repeat that mistake. How soon we forget. Here we are all over again disrespecting our men and women in uniform simply because we don’t agree with the war or some aspect of it. For all the armchair generals out there; war sucks but as long as people walk God’s green earth there will be disagreement, there will be violence, there will be war. Mankind is incapable of living together in a peaceful manner. World peace, while a nice thought, is a pipe dream.

That’s my 2 pennies worth. Say what you will, there will be no rebuttals. I have better things to do than argue. After all I’m a lover not a fighter.

[steveyo]

I can't stand by idle anymore; I have to add my 2 pennies worth to this conversation. ...I have better things to do than argue. After all I’m a lover not a fighter.Greg: your opinions surprise me. We're the same age, nearly identical demographically, and yet I disagree with almost everything you just wrote.

The only point I'll argue here and now: IMO sending troops to die is NOT supporting them. Stopping the war IS supporting them.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

What troubles me most is the message we as a nation are sending to our family, friends and neighbors who are serving in Iraq in the military. They are doing a dirty job that they didn’t sign-up for but knew was possible. The lack of support for the military by politicians, the media and many U.S. citizens is a disgrace. The same disgusting behavior was displayed during the Vietnam War. It took us as a nation many years to recognize the psychological damage experienced by many who fought in the Vietnam War as a result of the anti-war movement and to start recognizing the selfless sacrifice made while serving their country.


Yeah it's terrible how our president sends all these young men over there to fight under false pretenses and then when they return cut off vetrans benefits and all those things that used to be in place to support our troops.

If we truely supported them we wouldn't be using them in such a stupid sensless way. We would listen to generals who have been there instead of this blind "Let's Get 'Em" strategy that our president has put forth.

Let's not manipulate ideas and fears to justify a war that was completely unrelated to terrorism. Let's not manipulate the memories of 9/11 to support an unrelated war.

Let's not invade a country and then acted confused by the fact that their people are fighting back.

The most Troop supportive thing that we can possible do is define an exit strategy and figure out how and when we are going to get our troops home. Throwing thousands of more men and women at the problem isn't solving anything. How does putting troops in harms way to flex our imperialist muscles "Support Our Troops"?

We are the bully here.

[johnfoss]

...terrorism, which is a direct threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world, has it's nucleus in the Middle East and must be exterminated sooner rather than later.
The problem is you can't exterminate an idea. New "terrorists" are born every day. The terrorist "method," is not going to go away as long as it is able to terrorize. Terrorism is one of the few viable methods of accomplishing change when you are small and your opponent is much, much larger.

And if I remember correctly, we did not enter Iraq to start a war on terror, did we? That's what it's turned into, and I can't argue with the concept of us fighting our wars as far away from our own shores as possible, but isn't that a little rude for the locals in the places we *do* fight?

This is what Clinton should have done when Bin Laden was only a ‘blip’ on the radar instead of Bush trying to do it now.
It's hard to get your country to go to war over what looks like "little stuff." I doubt they could have gotten backing for it before 9/11. I think what the Clinton administration did was, for the most part, appropriate at the time. The stuff in Somalia could have turned out better, of course.

The U.S. and the allies need to stop 'dinking' around and get the job done so our boys and girls can come home.
What do you propose? Whatever it is, will something like it work to end the "war on drugs" also? :)

The lack of support for the military by politicians, the media and many U.S. citizens is a disgrace. The same disgusting behavior was displayed during the Vietnam War.
The lack of support starts where the buck stops, with reduced benefits for veterans and reduced armor for the troops in the field. If there's anywhere we need to stop dinking around, it's in those areas. But we are *not* doing to the soldiers what we did in the Vietnam era. I can't think of a single instance of people blaming soldiers or other military personnel for this fight. I haven't heard the words "baby killer" used at all. Everyone seems to have learned the difference between military people following orders and bad decision-making that led to those orders. We are complaining about the decision-makers, not the soldiers.

When I'm on an airplane, or other place where our armed forces members are returning from, or heading off to the areas of combat, the general public seems to spontaneously stand up and cheer for them, and I'm right there doing it with them. Shame on anyone who still thinks soldiers are to blame for bad military decisions.

Mankind is incapable of living together in a peaceful manner. World peace, while a nice thought, is a pipe dream.
On that, I'm afraid I have to agree with you 100%. We can cherish the times of peace, but there's always somebody out there that wants more than they should have. I just hope we can find a working definition to winning the "war on terror" rather than continuing to pour money down our own national pipe dream.

[Gilby]

terrorism, which is a direct threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world, has it's nucleus in the Middle East and must be exterminated sooner rather than later. The nucleus is not there. Why do the terrorists hate the US? Or maybe a better question, why do you dislike someone else? Is it because you've been harmed by them? Or that they exist with no effect on you at all? I would guess your answer would be that they harmed you in some way. Therefore, why would someone turn in to a terrorist in the first place? Because we have harmed them and they hate us for that. Unfortunately, we have a dependence on something that they have an abundance of in the middle, so we tend to use our might to control that. They do not like that, and neither would we if we were in that situation. Our problem is that we want to intervene in other people's problems, and by doing so, we only make the problem bigger.
A country, government, dictator or whoever, who is doing their job to protect its citizens has an obligation to its citizens to assess an enemy or potential enemy and do what's necessary to fulfill it's obligation to protect them from present and future harm. Exactly what the terrorists are doing.
What troubles me most is the message we as a nation are sending to our family, friends and neighbors who are serving in Iraq in the military. They are doing a dirty job that they didn’t sign-up for but knew was possible. The lack of support for the military by politicians, the media and many U.S. citizens is a disgrace. Supporting a war and supporting the troops are entirely different things. Everyone supports the troops. The question is, what policy for the war is best going forward?

[unipsychler]

Greg: your opinions surprise me. We're the same age, nearly identical demographically, and yet I disagree with almost everything you just wrote.

Steve it gets worse. I'm a conservative (not necessarily Republican), born-again Christian, Creationist, anti-global warming, baby boomer, unicyclist with long hair. I'm sort of a walking enigma. But I'm still willing to be your friend if you'll have me.

John & Gilby, thanks for your intelligent response to my post. I was expecting to get slammed pretty hard. Hopefully your response will set the tone for upcoming posts. The angry and belittling posts in this thread are getting old and boring. Regards.

[captainkrunk61]

I'm a conservative (not necessarily Republican), born-again Christian, Creationist, anti-global warming, baby boomer, unicyclist with long hair
you just described me, although without the baby boomer part.

[BillyTheMountain]

The problem comes when the betterment of one people infringes upon the liberties and/or welfare of another people. This is when the gloves come off and the bombs start to fly and things get ugly.

Ping!

The Christian's gloves don't come off and there are no Christian's bombs.


Jesus said:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:43-44

39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:39-41

Jesus clearly states in these and other verses that Christians should not fight to advance Christianity and We should love our enemies

Surfer1024

[steveyo]

Steve it gets worse. I'm a conservative (not necessarily Republican), born-again Christian, Creationist, anti-global warming, baby boomer, unicyclist with long hair. I'm sort of a walking enigma. But I'm still willing to be your friend if you'll have me.OK, I was wrong. We're not anything close to the same demographically. I'll gladly still ride with you, but I'm not sure I could share a small space with you for very long.

[BillyTheMountain]

I'll gladly still ride with you, but I'm not sure I could share a small space with you for very long.

Is it the long hair? or the smell of enigma?

[steveyo]

Is it the long hair? or the smell of enigma?I think I would be undiplomatically argumentative.

[BillyTheMountain]

I think I would be undiplomatically argumentative.

And what's the problem with that? You think a guy like that is looking for DIPLOMACY??!

[tomblackwood]

If thats true then what is your defence against what happened in the crusades and varying other times in history, there are plenty of times in the past where they have been anything but peaceful.
That's what I was thinking. I get Billy's point about accepting no violence if you really followed Christ's teachings, but is that what defines a true Christian? I'm sure many who participated in the crusades considered themselves true Christians. Has the definition of a Christian become diluted over the centuries as more and more Christian sects and offshoots emerge? One could argue that there have been no true Christians since the apostles. Or since the first generation of followers actually alive when Christ was.

True Christians are not necessarily anti-war. Anti-lion maybe...

[ThisGuyIKnow]

That's what I was thinking. I get Billy's point about accepting no violence if you really followed Christ's teachings, but is that what defines a true Christian? I'm sure many who participated in the crusades considered themselves true Christians. Has the definition of a Christian become diluted over the centuries as more and more Christian sects and offshoots emerge? One could argue that there have been no true Christians since the apostles. Or since the first generation of followers actually alive when Christ was.

True Christians are not necessarily anti-war. Anti-lion maybe...

I think his point is that a War goes against the teachings of Christ. But so does bombing abortion clinics and throwing rocks at homosexuals, but those things happen as well by people who claim to be Christian.

[andrew_carter]

You can write to your senators and congresspeople. Likely, one constituent's letter makes no difference to them, but if your one of thousands or millions who express a given opinion (i.e. withdraw troops, don't "surge" them), they'll listen because they'll fear for their jobs. Hopefully they'll then try to sway their particular congressional body toward their constituents' desires.

You can write letters to the editors of newspapers, trying to get even more people to care about your issue (i.e. stop this horrible Iraq debacle), and subsequently, hopefully, they'll write to the same congresspeople.

You can join forces by becoming active in an organization which tries to affect change in our govt. like MoveOn.org. Their phone chains had a noticable affect on the latest mid-terms.

Finally, you can run for office yourself and try to change this f---ed up govt. from within.

That's what we can do.Exactly. There's something else I wanted to add to that. You hear the 'one letter can't make a difference' argument pop up a lot. I'd like to suggest that one soldier also makes very little difference in the grand scale (at least very little difference towards a positive outcome...clearly killing just one person has a terrible impact on the lives of many). Let's face it, people like Rambo only exist in the movies. ;)

When you compare the two, going to war seems like a much greater effort to me. Seems to me the only real difference is in the amount of support for each method of action. Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of soldiers willing to kill, and unfortunately there are far less people willing to take non violent action.

By the way, there's a very similar thread I started a year or two ago that has some very interesting discussion in it - http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39439&highlight=soldiers

Andrew

Edit - By the way John (Foss), I really enjoyed this post (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=707681&postcount=77), thanks. I'm glad somebody pointed those things out.

[James_Potter]

I think his point is that a War goes against the teachings of Christ. But so does bombing abortion clinics and throwing rocks at homosexuals, but those things happen as well by people who claim to be Christian.
Exactly!!
I think that the purpose of this thread is to say that most Christians are hypocrites to some extent.

[monkeyman]

Exactly!!
I think that the purpose of JC is to say that most people are hypocrites to some extent.

Mikael, I'd have to agree with you.

[James_Potter]

I think that...my original post and your new and improved one are both very true (:

[bungalistic]

That's what I was thinking. I get Billy's point about accepting no violence if you really followed Christ's teachings, but is that what defines a true Christian? I'm sure many who participated in the crusades considered themselves true Christians. Has the definition of a Christian become diluted over the centuries as more and more Christian sects and offshoots emerge? One could argue that there have been no true Christians since the apostles. Or since the first generation of followers actually alive when Christ was.

True Christians are not necessarily anti-war. Anti-lion maybe...

Thats what I was trying to get at, the UK is mostly still a christian country a lot of our history is based upon their teachings and guide lines but you cannot and should not forget about the things that they have done in the past, it was a holy war after all. From what I have seen most christians (especially in the UK) are easy going, do not push their beliefs or religion and are fine to get along with.
I think what got me a little bit annoyed was that the statement was made so general that somebody is bound to say "thats bollocks" because it is, sorry but you should accept that. Believe what you will, I'm not saying your wrong or that are right but perhaps you should except wrong doings that have been done and say that you have learned from those.
It also seemed, although I maybe wrong, that the message was a little preachy, I don't belive in anything but will accept that people do, fine by me, but these sorts of statements do tend to push another belief unto others which I think is wrong.
If you want to have people follow what you believe lead by action not by word, if your actions are true and of good intent, then the good and honest people will see that and respect you for it and perhaps be willing to understand where you are coming from.
I don't think you should have to follow any religion to be good and honest, I judge people as I see and speak with them regardess of race, gender or creed and in such a small community as unicycling we should agree there are differences in opinion but we are joined by one love one hobby that we all enjoy and belive in.

[BillyTheMountain]

True Christians follow the teachings of Jesus.

People who support war are going against the teachings of Jesus.

Those people are not true Christians.

Funny how difficult this is to grasp.

Accept for a moment that truly "good people" don't kill innocents. Hopefully, if a person is going around killing innocents and parading as a good person, you won't be fooled.

Hopefully you won't say: Of course good peopel kill innocents. Good people killed innocents in the 16th century, and they're doing it now.

Hopefully you'll see through the charade.

[cathwood]

T
Believe what you will, I'm not saying your wrong or that are right but perhaps you should except wrong doings that have been done and say that you have learned from those.


I would be lovely if people learned from wrong doings in the past. But they don't. Didn't we once fight 'the war to end all wars'?

[cathwood]

Accept for a moment that truly "good people" don't kill innocents. Hopefully, if a person is going around killing innocents and parading as a good person, you won't be fooled.


What's an 'innocent'?

[GILD]

I believe we also underestimate most peoples' abillity to rationalise anything.

[BillyTheMountain]

What's an 'innocent'?

You can start with infants, then toddlers and children. Then people like you, then the union of unicyclists with children, then all unicyclists, then ....

It's on a continuum, and it starts to get unclear somewhere about "politician."

___!________!_______!_____________!_______________!________>
infants ...... child .... you ........... politician ...........drug kingpin

[BillyTheMountain]

___!______!________!_____!________!_____>
infants .. child .... you ..politician .....drug kingpin

Do you know how hard it is to make this come out like you intended?

[GILD]

It's a pretty good piece of work tho.

[BillyTheMountain]

It's a pretty good piece of work tho.

:)

[johnfoss]

True Christians follow the teachings of Jesus.

People who support war are going against the teachings of Jesus.
But this war is not about Christians. If all the Christians were to drop their arms and walk away, what would happen then? More of the same, minus the (true) Christians.

I think the problem stems from having armies. Armies are expensive, and there's a tendency to not let them just sit around all the time. They're there, so why not use them? Also for soldiers. A Christian person might sign up for military service for any number of reasons, even if they are anti-war. They need a job, they want to learn skills, they need college money. This works in peacetime, at least. When there's a war going on, prospective inductees have to weigh the teachings of Jesus against the realities of doing nothing about all the bad stuff that's going on.

In other words, if your enemy likes to use car bombs, no amount of peaceful opposition is going to be much protection if you're in the area. There's a big difference between people who use car bombs and people who use clubs.

[BillyTheMountain]

But this war is not about Christians. If all the Christians were to drop their arms and walk away, what would happen then? More of the same, minus the (true) Christians.

True. Jesus had no problem with that, and true Christains won't either.

I think the problem stems from having armies. Armies are expensive, and there's a tendency to not let them just sit around all the time.

armies are no where near as expensive as feeding the military industrial complex, a system Gen Eisenhower railed against as President. That's part of the system for making the rich richer.

They're there, so why not use them? Also for soldiers. A Christian person might sign up for military service for any number of reasons, even if they are anti-war.

Not true

if your enemy likes to use car bombs, no amount of peaceful opposition is going to be much protection if you're in the area. There's a big difference between people who use car bombs and people who use clubs.

All of which is irrelevant to true Christians,as it was to Jesus.

[johnfoss]

All of which is irrelevant to true Christians,as it was to Jesus.
So basically what you're saying is your group of "true" true Christians is pretty tiny, not enough to effect the outcome of votes, public opinion, etc.

As for why other Christians sign up for military service, I'll believe their reasons first, then your "not true." Uh, unless you meant "Not true Christians," which fits your definition.

[GILD]

You're likely to find that as long as your Commander in Chief claims he heard the voice of god telling him to invade Iraq, the entire basis for the war will appear slightly wonky to those of us who didn't hear the original instruction.

[BluntRM]

Heads up Johannesburg or the voices might GWOT* you too.


*Global War On Terror

[BillyTheMountain]

So basically what you're saying is your group of "true" true Christians is pretty tiny, not enough to effect the outcome of votes, public opinion, etc.

As for why other Christians sign up for military service, I'll believe their reasons first, then your "not true." Uh, unless you meant "Not true Christians," which fits your definition.

Oh wait. Despite being anti-war, Jesus and his Apostles are running low on cash. They need a job, they want to learn skills, they need college money. They enlist, and figure if a war starts, they can always renig on their promise and oath they took upon enlistment. I never read about that one.

People were constantly trying to pull Jesus into politics, and I'm sure you know what His answer always was.

Jesus never encouraged anyone to get involved in the political situation or effect the outcome of votes, public opinion, etc. Can you imagine? "Hey King. It's the wealthy lobbyist sent by Jesus Of Nazareth. He's trying to influence your vote on some upcoming issues."

:D

So-called Christians get involved in politics. So what?

The number of true Christians doesn't matter. And of course, Jesus would have preferred the whole thing disappear than encourage any of His followers to raise a hand. "How you treat the least of humanity is how you treat me." Certainly the violent are counted among the lowest of humanity.

[BluntRM]

Billy, have you seen "Jesus Camp"? You'd get a kick out of it...

[Mikefule]

As I've made clear before, I regard religion as no more than organised superstition. However, it often has at its heart a useful, if flawed, philosophy to live by.

True Christianity, as described in the books about Jesus (he never wrote a word, so we only have later reports to go on) is very rare indeed.

Jesus never said anything about bishops, cathedrals, nuns, monks, an established church, confirmation, communion, or wearing a crucifix, for example. What he did say is that people should love each other, not judge each other, and should forgive their enemies.

This is a very brave philosophy, and incredibly difficult to follow. It is a philosophy that makes you vulnerable to attack and to exploitation. "If I hit him, he will turn the other cheek and not hit me back, so I'll hit him..."

It can only work if you sincerely believe that what you believe in is more important than what you possess - not just your clothes, your house, your car, and your money, but also your spouse, your family, your health, and even your life. It takes either an obsessive fool or a genuinely courageous person to refuse to strike back at an attacker, and to forgive his enemy, knowing that his attacker and enemy do not consider themselves bound by the same rules.

A true Christian would not be fighting the Muslims because of 9/11. A true Christian would say, "So you've destroyed our towers, you've killed our people, you've damaged our economy, but we forgive you. If you hate us enough to do that, tell us why. We will try to understand what drove you to such extremes, and love you and help to make a world in which you don't want to do it again."

That's brave; it might be considered naive. An enemy might interpret it as cowardice dressed up as righteousness.

But only the tiniest number of people who call themselves Christians would act like that, and those few deserve respect.

The Stoicism of Seneca, and the philosophy of Socrates were not entirely different from Christianity.

Seneca taught that the wise man should accept that everything he has (goods, family, health, life itself) could be taken away at any moment. He should therefore enjoy them while he had them, but not rely on them, and not grieve when they were taken away. Seneca was forced to commit suicide by a deranged emperor, and did so bravely.

Socrates taught that you should question everything, accept nothing at face value, and you should think for yourself . Nothing is as simple as it seems, and most of what we are taught by society is mixed up and wrong. He was falsely imprisoned and condemned to death. he had an opportunity to escape, but refused, on a point of honour, saying that he could not act in a way that would weaken the laws of the city that had protected him all his life, simply because he now disagreed with them. Like Seneca, he was executed by compulsory suicide.

Jesus has no monopoly on the philosophy that happiness should come from a firm commitment to a peaceful philosophy, rather than relying on possessions, power and position, and he had no monopoly on dying for it.

Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Taoists and Buddhists could all give examples of great leaders who had broadly similar ideas and met broadly similar fates.

What it boils down to is any fool can be willing to kill for what he believes in; many are willing to die for what they beleive in; but it takes someone special (or crazy) to prove that they believe it is always better to die than to kill.

If the God of the Jews thought war was a good idea, why did he help the Jews flee from Egypt? Why not help them rise up, overthrow their oppressors, seize ownership of the fertile crescent, and get those pyramids on eBay as quickly as possible?

[johnfoss]

What Mikefule said. "True" Christians will remain poor. Whatever possessions they collect will be hard to hold onto if someone else is determined to have them. True Christians, for the same reason, probably won't build many bridges or other large civic works projects. Being a shepherd should be a good fit though. Uh, unless someone wants to take your flock by force...

[BillyTheMountain]

True Christians follow the teachings of Jesus.

People who support war are going against the teachings of Jesus.

Those people are not true Christians.

Funny how difficult this is to grasp.

Thank you, MikeFule.

I could not have done it without you!

[James_Potter]

You know what, I think Jesus Christ was actually a Buddha...and actually I'm not the first one to come up with this theory, I first read about it in a Kerouac book but these days it's looking more and more like it's true...because he taught nothing but love for everyone including your enemies, nonviolence, the Buddha taught the same thing! And all the word Buddha means is One Who Is Awakened, seems like Jesus to me....

[unipsychler]

Exactly!!
I think that the purpose of this thread is to say that most Christians are hypocrites to some extent.

While it is true that a Christian is admonished by the Holy Scriptures to TRY to live a life pleasing to God as exemplified by Jesus Christ, the fact still remains that Christians are not perfect. When a true Christian sins against God or his neighbor he will be grieved deep in his soul and repent of that sin. That's the difference between Christian and non-Christians. A Christian lives a life of repentance because even though he tries to live a holy life, he knows he can't do it and fails miserably over and over again. The core message of the gospel is that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of His people. Jesus did not come to save the righteous but rather sinners. The Apostle Paul said it best in I Timothy 1:15 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

In regards to the Christian and war; this is a very difficult subject. In light of
James 4:1, war is a byproduct of the lust of the flesh.

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

In Luke 6:27-36 we read, But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Simply looking at these two verses a Christian should be anti-war. However, since the whole bible is the Word of God it is not wise to hand pick a couple of versus and make a definitive conclusion. A good student of the bible will make a conclusion based on everything the bible has to say. In the Old Testament God not only helped National Israel fight wars but at times He fought some for them. Since the God of the OT and the NT is one in the same we have to consider this. We read about Jesus (who wether you agree or disagree, was and never ceased to be Eternal God) in Colossians 1:16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Throughout the history of man God has and continues to raise up nations and put down nations for his own purpose and glory. Abraham is an example of how God raised up a mighty nation simply by blessing their numbers and protecting them from their enemies as they grew. I believe it was around 70 A.D. God became angry with Israel's rebellion and scattered them. They ceased to be a nation. In 1958 God once again raised them up to be a nation. The U.S.A. can be viewed as another nation that God blessed and rose to power. Against all odds they defeated the armies of Great Britain and became a viable nation. Over the last 230 years God has used the U.S. in a wonderful way to provide protection and humanitarian aid to many people. Even more important is that greatly because of the U.S. the message of the gospel can be heard in just about every corner of the globe which MAYbe a fulfillment of the prophecy we read in Matthew 24:14, And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I guess we can conclude from this mini-study that Christians should be anti-war, however, God can and does use the sinful lusts of man to help accomplish His will of rising up thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.

Once again I submit this information with much trepidation because I've not studied this topic at length.

[RB2]

anti-global warming

:confused:
You can't be anti-global warming...global Warming isn't an opinion (unfortunatley).

[BillyTheMountain]

Simply looking at these two verses a Christian should be anti-war. However, since the whole bible is the Word of God it is not wise to hand pick a couple of versus and make a definitive conclusion. A good student of the bible will make a conclusion based on everything the bible has to say. In the Old Testament God not only helped National Israel fight wars but at times He fought some for them. Since the God of the OT and the NT is one in the same we have to consider this.

Thanks for some excellent quotes.

As I've said, Jesus' life was a massive protest against much of the Old Testament. The Old Testament states pork is unclean, menstruating women are unclean and cannot go out in public, and other people are unclean.

Jesus pronounces: Pork is clean: My father makes nothing unclean. "It is not what goes into a person's mouth which makes him unclean, but what comes out of it."

Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26 makes clear that under Jesus, menstruating women are now clean-
In this throng was one woman who for twelve years had been suffering from a bleeding hemorrhage. According to Levitic Law, a woman who was bleeding was considered unclean and under law could touch no one. There were many ancient taboos. She thus devised a plan. Having heard the stories of Jesus' power, she declared: If I but touch the hem of his garment I will be healed."

She reached out from the crowd and touched the garment of Jesus. Immediately he stopped, bolted upright, and asked: "Who touched me?" He said: "I felt power flow from me."

She panics in apology for violating the purity code, and Jesus says: The purity code is bullshit. No one, not prostitutes, not even gays and lesbians, are unclean.

Daughter, said Jesus, daughter, your faith has made you well. And, we are told, she was immediately healed.

[tomblackwood]

and Jesus says: The purity code is bullshit. No one, not prostitutes, not even gays and lesbians, are unclean.
Excellent quote...is that one of the passages they print in red ink in those special editions of the King James?

[unipsychler]

As I've said, Jesus' life was a massive protest against much of the Old Testament. The Old Testament states pork is unclean, menstruating women are unclean and cannot go out in public, and other people are unclean.

Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus' life was not a protest against the law but rather the fulfillment. Jesus, who is Emmanuel (God with us), came to earth as the second Adam to succeed where the first Adam failed. In Genesis 3:15 we read And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Seed in this verse is a singular word referring to the Messiah to come. One of the qualifications for the Messiah was that he had to be fully man (as Adam was) and be tempted by Satan and live a sinless life. Romans 5:18-21 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners (Adam), so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Simply put Jesus came to succeed where Adam failed.

Luke 24:44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The "Law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms" comprise the entire Old Testament and they were about the coming Messiah. Jesus the long awaited Messiah was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

As for uncleanness: Everything that God declared as unclean in the Levitical Law of the OT was an illustration of the uncleanness of man. We read in Matthew 15:10-20 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man…Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Romans 3:19-31 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Since “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” in the eyes of God all are considered unclean.

So what does all this do for us? All this helps us to understand that it is not by the righteous of the law that saves a man from the pending wrath of God but rather the righteous of Christ.

Philippians 3:9-11 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

From the time that Christ entered the Garden of Gethsemane to the time of His resurrection He endured the equivalent of an eternity in Hell for all those who would believe on Him. How can a man endure anything eternal? He can’t unless in his nature and being he was not only fully man but also fully God. Only God is eternal and only God could possibly qualify for and accomplish what Jesus did on the cross of Calvary. Hence the name Emmanuel, God with us.

Forgive me for the lengthy post but this is very complex stuff and not easy to explain quickly. I’m enjoying the very intelligent exchange though. Thanks!

[koebwil]

Forgive me for the lengthy post but this is very complex stuff and not easy to explain quickly. I’m enjoying the very intelligent exchange though. Thanks!
It's not that complicated and you didn't explain much at all. Jesus still refuted a lot of the old laws.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Seed in this verse is a singular word referring to the Messiah to come.
So women and men have different messiahs.

[unipsychler]

So women and men have different messiahs.

No in the verse God is speaking to Satan.

And I (God) will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

There's only one Messiah for all mankind.

[steveyo]

There's only one Messiah for all mankind.This statement assumes Judeo-Christianity is/are the only possibility(ies), right?

[unipsychler]

This statement assumes Judeo-Christianity is/are the only possibility(ies), right?

You be the judge.

In Acts 4:12 we read this about Jesus:Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

John 1:29 states:The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Isaiah 53:4-9 the prophet Isaiah also speaks of Messiah: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

[BillyTheMountain]

When a true Christian sins against God or his neighbor he will be grieved deep in his soul and repent of that sin. That's the difference between Christian and non-Christians. A Christian lives a life of repentance because even though he tries to live a holy life, he knows he can't do it and fails miserably over and over again.

But so-called Christians who sign up and fight, if I may propose, actually ENDORSE the war and their efforts within it. Their hearts and minds are congruent on the issue, which means they are not true Christians.

I don't even think this fits the definition of hypocrite.

[unipsychler]

To be honest with you, I struggle with the subject. I think it comes down to the condition of the heart.

If a true Christian enlists in the military for the purpose of earning an income, paying for college, etc...their motives are pure. However, if the "Christian" enlists in the military with the attitude "SHRINK, I WANT TO KILL! KILL! KILL! (Alice's Restaurant) then we can know with absolute certainty that something is wrong with the moral character of that person.

There is another senario though that we must address. It's with the Christian who joins the military for income, college or other then finds himself/herself in Baghdad with a rifle in his/her hands expected to kill. That person has to make a choice to either follow the orders of their superior officer or follow the orders of their Saviour and accept the consequences. I guess the same would apply for the person who is drafted.

[steveyo]

You be the judge.
<snip bible quotes which say that Jesus is the one son of the one God>
Yebbut, I'm a Jewish atheist.

Your quotes from a book which I consider a great work of fiction prove nothing to me. Sorry. This is why we can't spend a lot of time together in a confined space, even though I love you as a fellow human and unicyclist.

[Chris.James]

To be honest with you, I struggle with the subject. I think it comes down to the condition of the heart.

If a true Christian enlists in the military for the purpose of earning an income, paying for college, etc...their motives are pure. However, if the "Christian" enlists in the military with the attitude "SHRINK, I WANT TO KILL! KILL! KILL! (Alice's Restaurant) then we can know with absolute certainty that something is wrong with the moral character of that person.

There is another senario though that we must address. It's with the Christian who joins the military for income, college or other then finds himself/herself in Baghdad with a rifle in his/her hands expected to kill. That person has to make a choice to either follow the orders of their superior officer or follow the orders of their Saviour and accept the consequences. I guess the same would apply for the person who is drafted.

so you are suggesting that our entire nation go to hell because of religious beliefs? Beliefs that shouldnt matter do to the framework of our constitution? Sorry, but i think that you are a soldier, you are honor bound to fight to protect your home, family, job and country. I am relying on these people in Baghdad to protect me

[koebwil]

If a true Christian enlists in the military for the purpose of earning an income, paying for college, etc...their motives are pure.

So by that logic a Christian who decides to go against his God for profit has pure motives. Bullshit. His motive is the deadly sin of greed. If he joins the military then he should know what he is getting into. he has joined a governmentally sanctioned killing machine in the hopes of getting some money. I wouldn't follow any God that would be ok with that.

[cathwood]

I am relying on these people in Baghdad to protect me

How can they protect you from anything if they're in Baghdad?

[lukkyjay]

I don't understand how people who seriously follow any one specific religion can look at it with an open mind and see the truth, yet look at other religions with an open mind and come to the conclusion that the followers of the other religions are delusional?

WWJD? Would he join the Marines to make money knowing that he'll likely have to go kill people? No.

If you're trying to control people, the easiest way to get them over moral dilemmas like this is to tell them that this is God's work (like the Muslim leaders are doing on the other side). And even if it is wrong, as long as they have faith in the Holy Spirit they'll be forgiven and go to heaven.
And if they don't care about any of that anyway and just like to kill people, it's pretty easy to just claim to be a Christian. 85% of the population will still think you're a good person.

[Chris.James]

How can they protect you from anything if they're in Baghdad?


well, i hope that they are taking care of the people that want to do me/my family harm.

[James_Potter]

well, i hope that they are taking care of the people that want to do me/my family harm.
They've never even met you or your family, why would they want to do harm to you?

[koebwil]

well, i hope that they are taking care of the people that want to do me/my family harm.
So you are saying that you/your family want them to do harm to these people/their families. A bit ironic. Maybe they just want to take care of you people.

[Chris.James]

They've never even met you or your family, why would they want to do harm to you?
did the 9/11 hijackers ever meet their victims?

[BillyTheMountain]

Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus' life was not a protest against the law but rather the fulfillment. !

I think if you consider all the times Jesus is seen hanging out with women, and the "wrong" kind of women, and breaking the law, causing anxiety in his followers, you'd have to see that he's changing SOME laws--not the 10 commandments, except the one about the Sabbath, which Christians follow (if at all) in a VERY lenient way compared to observant Jews.

[BillyTheMountain]

I don't understand how people who seriously follow any one specific religion can look at it with an open mind and see the truth, yet look at other religions with an open mind and come to the conclusion that the followers of the other religions are delusional?

WWJD? Would he join the Marines to make money knowing that he'll likely have to go kill people? No.

Ping.

This thread has nothing to do with religion.

Jesus the Man walked the earth and had some simple teachings. Jesus did not come to start a religion. By my standards he was a nice Jewish boy, but other Jews of his time were threatened by him.

Jesus taught peace. You can do what you want. Personally, I prefer peace.

[GILD]

How can they protect you from anything if they're in Baghdad?
Probably the single most telling post on this entire thread.

did the 9/11 hijackers ever meet their victims?
We're the 11th of September hijackers from Iraq?

[johnfoss]

However, since the whole bible is the Word of God it is not wise to hand pick a couple of versus...
...Or to take any large chunks too seriously either. God never wrote a book. The Bible was written by men. Men who may have been relaying what they heard, or men who God spoke to in their sleep, or whatever. I don't think God dictated to a guy who was writing everything down word for word. Even if he did, it wasn't in English, so you have to be careful about translating it. Currently I'm reading about stuff that took place only 250 years ago, and was originally written down in English, and even *it* needs lots of back-story to put everything into context.

I don't think God did any editing or proofreading. Most of the writings are about stuff that happened many, many years before they were written down. So any Bible written in English is, at best, a translation (and update) of stuff men wrote a long time ago, about stuff that, in most cases, happened a long time before that.

Throughout the history of man God has and continues to raise up nations and put down nations for his own purpose and glory.
Usually one down every time another went up, and one up every time another went down. Is God always on the side of the winners?

The U.S.A. can be viewed as another nation that God blessed and rose to power. Against all odds they defeated the armies of Great Britain and became a viable nation. Over the last 230 years God has used the U.S. in a wonderful way to provide protection and humanitarian aid to many people.
I don't have to go back and look at your avatar to know you're probably not from Great Britain (or anyplace other than the USA). What should the British think of your assesment of who's "side" God took in the American Revolution? Do you have some way of proving God sided with one country over another? Or is it just that, that the winner always has help from God?

Once again I submit this information with much trepidation because I've not studied this topic at length.
Me either, so please keep that in mind for both of us. :)


...and Jesus says: The purity code is bullshit. No one, not prostitutes, not even gays and lesbians, are unclean.
I want a copy of Billy's Bible!

[johnfoss]

Sorry Chris, more backlash on the same quote...

I am relying on these people in Baghdad to protect me
The ones those people in Baghdad are mostly fighting are just trying to protect their own families, or lifestyle, in the actual country where the fighting is. To some degree they're fighting to get us the hell out of there, so they can run their own country their way, which is not necessarily *our* way but it isn't our country either.

Are we *distracting* some percentage of the world's terrorists by giving them a battle ground in Iraq? Probably. But by being there we're causing the recruitment of many more than there would have been otherwise. I don't think we can defeat terrorism by creating a terrorist factory and hoping all the terrorists stay near it.

[steveyo]

I don't think we can defeat terrorism by creating a terrorist factory and hoping all the terrorists stay near it.That is truly sig-worthy. If we meet I'll buy the first round.

[leo]

a few non-Christians parading as Christians (like Bush), giving all the Christians a bad name.
Welcome to the world.

True Christians Are Anti-War
Truth unicyclist to (http://www.unicyclist.org/blog/show.cfm?serial=00876).

[Mikefule]

It is a bit of a diversion from the original thread, but it is alarming for me to see how much basic misunderstanding there is out there about the war in Iraq.

On 9/11, a small group of terrorists, backed by a fairly small crackpot organisation did a terrible wicked evil thing, destroying the twin towers, and attacking other American icons: the Pentagon, and the White House. The attack on the twin towers was devastatingly successful; the attack on the Pentagon less so, although it did cause some damage and loss of life; the attack on the White House failed, but with great loss of life. The attacks had been at the heart of the economy (trade centre) military (Pentagon) and democracy (White House) - a tripple whammy.

The loss of life was terrible for a single event - but not dissimilar to the number of Americans shot or stabbed by other Americans every year.

Those terrorists were mainly from Saudi Arabia, a country generally regarded as friendly to the west. None of them was from Iraq.

The US government felt the need to be seen to be strong and to strike back at someone, somewhere, quickly.

This led to a massive attack on terrorist and other bases in Afghanistan. There was some small justification in that the terrorists had links to Afghanistan, but the US government took the opportunity to impose a regime change. Many innocent people were killed. The situation in Afghanistan is still severe, soldiers and local people are still dying, but the focus of world attention has shifted to Iraq.

Iraq had nothing whatsoever at all to do with 9/11. 9/11 was an attack carried out by fanatical Muslims. Iraq was one of the most secular of the Arab countries, with a leader who, whatever his faults (e.g. being a bloodthirsty tyrant), had no liking for fanatical Muslims, and no common cause with them.

America took the opportunity to go into Iraq to settle an old score: Saddam Hussain had given the West a bloody nose last time, even though he had been forced to retreat from Kuwait. A pretext was created (fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and non compliance with UN Resolutions) and a massive invasion was started by the USA and UK, with some support from other countries, but mainly in defiance of world opinion.

The Secretary General of the United Nations declared that there was no legal justification for the invasion, which is strange as the alleged "justification" was that it was to enforce UN Resolutions.

Incidentally, Israel and Turkey have each been in defiance of UN Resolutions for a very long time indeed, but neither has any reason to fear a massive US led invasion. The Turks will not be bombed out of Cyprus, for example.

The invading forces successfully deposed Saddam Hussain, and destroyed much of his military infrastructure - which means that lots of soldiers were killed. Soldiers are human beings with mothers, wives, and children, and they feel fear and pain.

Having destroyed the political and economic infrastructure of Iraq, and having killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process (far more than were killed on 9/11) the US had no idea what to put in its place. The Iraqis have no tradition of democracy, and democracy is hard to impose on the unwilling. That's why about 40% of people in the UK never bother to vote, and why voting has had to be made compulsory in some countries.

One good thing that Saddam Hussain did was he kept Iraq's tribes from fighting each other. Iraq is home to a large number of a Shi'ite Muslims and a smaller number of Sunni Muslims. The differences are as (un)important as the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland - that is, it seems daft to outsiders, but some of each group hate the other lot enough to want to kill them, in the name of the God they share.

So the USA and UK troops find themselves stuck as piggy in the middle between tribes who have been suspicious of each other for 1,500 years, and have a long history of conflict, and a couple of decades of recent scores to settle.

Meanwhile, a lot of people have become suspicious of the USA and UK's intentions, and resentful of the chaos they have unwittingly caused. Therefore, the USA and UK troops have become a target of hostility in their own right.

With no exit strategy, and no prospect of peace in the near future, the USA and UK governments need to divert public attention from the devastation they have caused, and they are pumping up concern about Iran - a country that has historically been an enemy of Iraq. Instead of leaving Iraq and Iran to waste their energy sporadically fighting each other, the USA and UK will be wasting their own energy fighting both - and thus reinforcing a general feeling in the Arab world that the West is hostile to Arabs.

But none of this whatsoever is anything to do with protecting any American citizens, unicyclists or otherwise.

In the UK, we lose more people to car accidents each year than we lost in the 9/11 attacks. We do little about that, but we spent billions on the savage invasion of Iraq.

In the UK, we have had only a small number of people killed by so-called Islamic terrorists. Those terrorists were not from Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan. They were from, er... England.

The soldiers in Iraq are brave people, but they are there because of a monumental cock up by their governments, and their actions, if anything, are making the world more dangerous for the people back home.

My brother is working in Iraq, and this is one thing on which we agree - me because I've followed it; he because he's been there and seen it.

[steveyo]

It is a bit of a diversion from the original thread...The soldiers in Iraq are brave people, but they are there because of a monumental cock up by their governments, and their actions, if anything, are making the world more dangerous for the people back home...My brother is working in Iraq, and this is one thing on which we agree - me because I've followed it; he because he's been there and seen it.Well spoken, as usual. I hope your brother stays safe.

[bugman]

They've never even met you or your family, why would they want to do harm to you?

So your position is the terrorists on 9/11 met everyone of their victims?

[bugman]

I hope your brother stays safe.
Ditto.

[unipsychler]

...God never wrote a book. The Bible was written by men. Men who may have been relaying what they heard, or men who God spoke to in their sleep, or whatever. I don't think God dictated to a guy who was writing everything down word for word.

Forgive me if I sound harsh, this is not my intent for I try to speak the truth in love, but I'm often amazed by statements of absolute that are made out of sheer speculation. Here's a few versus that address your statement that "God never wrote a book",

Deuteronomy 18:18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Isaiah 51:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Jeremiah 1:9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

Jeremiah 36:6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Usually one down every time another went up, and one up every time another went down. Is God always on the side of the winners?...What should the British think of your assesment of who's "side" God took in the American Revolution? Do you have some way of proving God sided with one country over another? Or is it just that, that the winner always has help from God?

I wouldn't say that God is always on the side of the winners. During Old Testament days when God was angry with Israel because of their disobedience God used pagan nations to opress or defeat them. God was not on the side of those pagan nations.

I'd say that there were times when God was on the side of the victors and other times when God didn't necessarily have a favorite but rather allowed whichever side to win that would best serve his sovereign plan.

In OT days God's ordered events so that the Messiah would be born in the blood line of King David, in a stable in Bethlehem, at precisely the right time to save the world. In NT days God is ordering events so that the Messiah will return again, at precisely the right time to judge the world.

It's not my intent to 'dis' the British. After all their may come a day when God allows the U.S. to be defeated by it's enemies. To learn how the British feel you would have to ask them. I can't say whether or not it was Gods intent to bring judgment upon the British by allowing them to lose the war but rather allowed the colonies to win to better provide for the going forth of His gospel and His agenda.

God has an agenda and a timeline for that agenda. God's ordering of events is simply to see that agenda come to fruition. To put it more succinctly, The timeline of history is the unfolding of God's salvation plan, not the rising and falling of nations.

Mikefule - All the best to your brother.

[James_Potter]

Forgive me if I sound harsh, this is not my intent for I try to speak the truth in love, but I'm often amazed by statements of absolute that are made out of sheer speculation. Here's a few versus that address your statement that "God never wrote a book"
You forgot the rest of John's quote:

God never wrote a book. The Bible was written by men. Men who may have been relaying what they heard, or men who God spoke to in their sleep, or whatever. I don't think God dictated to a guy who was writing everything down word for word. Even if he did, it wasn't in English, so you have to be careful about translating it. Currently I'm reading about stuff that took place only 250 years ago, and was originally written down in English, and even *it* needs lots of back-story to put everything into context.
So he agrees with what you're saying, which is that man wrote what God told him to write, or at least what he thinks God told him to write, or what other people think God told him to write....

[unipsychler]

You forgot the rest of John's quote:

So he agrees with what you're saying, which is that man wrote what God told him to write, or at least what he thinks God told him to write, or what other people think God told him to write....

UniPsychler 1:1 Oops! Sorry.

[Unimichael]

People have different beliefs/interpretations of the Bible, hence why there's so many denominations. If everyone believed the same thing, everyone would still be catholic. (ironic, huh?)

druids, more likely...

[Unimichael]

I can't stand by idle anymore; I have to add my 2 pennies worth to this conversation.

(snip)

The lack of support for the military by politicians, the media and many U.S. citizens is a disgrace. The same disgusting behavior was displayed during the Vietnam War. It took us as a nation many years to recognize the psychological damage experienced by many who fought in the Vietnam War as a result of the anti-war movement and to start recognizing the selfless sacrifice made while serving their country. This nation vowed NEVER to repeat that mistake. How soon we forget. Here we are all over again disrespecting our men and women in uniform simply because we don’t agree with the war or some aspect of it.
That’s my 2 pennies worth. .
No, WE did not forget Vietnam, our Commander in Chief forgot Vietnam. Ran head long into the same rats nest! This mess was likened to Vietnam from day one, by many news commentators.
It was a bad idea, still is.

[Gilby]

Forgive me if I sound harsh, this is not my intent for I try to speak the truth in love, but I'm often amazed by statements of absolute that are made out of sheer speculation. Here's a few versus that address your statement that "God never wrote a book",

BS 10:1
The lord saith, for if you claim someone else said something to you, it must be believed by all.

[cathwood]

It is a bit of a diversion from the original thread, but it is alarming for me to see how much basic misunderstanding there is out there about the war in Iraq.


I don't think it's misunderstanding so much as people believing what they want to believe, what they feel that it's necessary to believe in order to maintain thier beliefs about the USA/UK. Having read your post, those that think that Iraq and 9/11 are intimately connected will continue to believe that, despite you eloquent presentation of the facts.

[koebwil]

Forgive me if I sound harsh, this is not my intent for I try to speak the truth in love, but I'm often amazed by statements of absolute that are made out of sheer speculation. Here's a few versus that address your statement that "God never wrote a book",
I would just like to add that you use a lot of circular reasoning.

"The bible is the word of God!"

"How do we know that for a fact?"

"Cause it says so in the bible, and the bible is the word of God!"

[James_Potter]

I would just like to add that you use a lot of circular reasoning.
"The bible is the word of God!"
"How do we know that for a fact?"
"Cause it says so in the bible, and the bible is the word of God!"
+1

[unipsychler]

Here are some very interesting facts about the bible.

The Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.

It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over approximately 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture and time. That message is God's plan for His people and His eternal kingdom. The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.

There are over 300 Old Testament prophecies regarding the future Messiah. Jesus Christ, in his birth, life, death and resurrection fulfilled all 300+ prophecies.

In his book, “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner estimates the odds of one person fulfilling ONLY EIGHT of these Messianic prophecies as being one in ten to the seventeenth power (1 in 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10). Since this number is so incomprehensible, Stoner illustrates this by supposing that we take ten to the seventeenth power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up only the one silver dollar that he thinks has the mark. The chance of him picking the correct silver dollar is the same chance as the Old Testament prophets would have had of writing these EIGHT prophecies and having them come true in any one man, from their day to the present time. From this example it is clear that CHANCE had nothing to do with the fulfillment of these 300+ predictions but rather the grand design of an Almighty God.

[James_Potter]

Could you list some of those 300+ prophecies found in the old testament?

[koebwil]

Here are some very interesting facts about the bible.

The Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.

It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over approximately 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture and time. That message is God's plan for His people and His eternal kingdom. The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.

There are over 300 Old Testament prophecies regarding the future Messiah. Jesus Christ, in his birth, life, death and resurrection fulfilled all 300+ prophecies.

In his book, “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner estimates the odds of one person fulfilling ONLY EIGHT of these Messianic prophecies as being one in ten to the seventeenth power (1 in 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10). Since this number is so incomprehensible, Stoner illustrates this by supposing that we take ten to the seventeenth power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up only the one silver dollar that he thinks has the mark. The chance of him picking the correct silver dollar is the same chance as the Old Testament prophets would have had of writing these EIGHT prophecies and having them come true in any one man, from their day to the present time. From this example it is clear that CHANCE had nothing to do with the fulfillment of these 300+ predictions but rather the grand design of an Almighty God.
Simply saying that something is statistically improbable isn't that incredible. There is something called the cosmological constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant)which if changed at the 150th decimal point would vastly change the universe, and that doesn't prove the existence of God. Just because a guy did what people said he would doesn't make him the son of God. It makes him a statistical anomaly, though not really. Eventually someone would have done that anyways. Also you are still using circular logic. Those prophecies were all made by people of the same religion who had read the books that came before. Even then they are all just from a book. A book written by people.

[johnfoss]

Just because a guy did what people said he would doesn't make him the son of God.
Or were the stories about Jesus' life written to fit the prophecies, not his actual life?

The circular logic thing is hard to get out of. If you start with the assumption of a certain end product, it really messes up your ability to explain it when others don't assume the same end product.

[unipsychler]

Could you list some of those 300+ prophecies found in the old testament?

You asked for it...you got it!

I'd love to post this info on this forum but out of respect for the time of those not interested in scrolling through it all I've included a link to a webpage that lists very nicely the prophecy, the Tenakh/Hebrew scripture that makes the prophetic statement, and finally the New Testament fulfillment of the prophecy.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

Enjoy!

[monkeyman]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

I sense bias. :D

[BillyTheMountain]

ping

[unipsychler]

Regardless of the name of the website you can't manufacture the overwhelming amount of theological and historical evidence to support the claims of the bible. You can deny the existance of God and the claims of the bible but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Would you feel more comfortable if the website was:

http://www.allah-is-lord.com/mohammad.htm ???

I didn't think so.

Is this what thread hijacking is? If so I think I hijacked my first thread!

[Chris.James]

Were the 11th of September hijackers from Iraq?

did i say they were?

well, rereading my post, i guess i kind of did, but that wasnt what i meant. I meant that I really feel threatened by people that so cowardly kill their own innocents and call it being a martyr to God. I really sort of doubt that they would have any inhibitions to killing me and killing my family if they were given the chance

[koebwil]

In his book, “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner estimates the odds of one person fulfilling ONLY EIGHT of these Messianic prophecies as being one in ten to the seventeenth power (1 in 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10). Since this number is so incomprehensible, Stoner illustrates this by supposing that we take ten to the seventeenth power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up only the one silver dollar that he thinks has the mark. The chance of him picking the correct silver dollar is the same chance as the Old Testament prophets would have had of writing these EIGHT prophecies and having them come true in any one man, from their day to the present time. From this example it is clear that CHANCE had nothing to do with the fulfillment of these 300+ predictions but rather the grand design of an Almighty God.

Born of the seed of a woman
People sat there looking at Him
Presented with gifts
Betrayed by a friend
Accused by false witnesses
Hated without a cause
His body was pierced
Rejected by His own
There are my eight.
Wow, that silver dollar was kind of easy to find.

[GILD]

Forgive me if I sound harsh, this is not my intent for I try to speak the truth in love, but I'm often amazed by statements of absolute that are made out of sheer speculation. Here's a few versus that address your statement that "God never wrote a book",
Funny that god never thought to mention the whole council of nicea thing.
One would think that would be important enough for the omnipotent to mention.
You know, when they're going to get together and chuck half your book away, one would think you'd mention that up ahead of time. If only to warn people not to take those bits too seriously.

Can you say 'political expediency'?

While we're link swoppin (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/myth.html)g.

Kicking the maths to the curb, the jesus story borrows substantially from other god-men myth (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm)s.

[Mikefule]

In dark age Britain, there was a population of around 3 000 000, of whom only one was a king.

There were around 100 000 lakes or ponds.

A typical person would spend only 10% of his time, if that, next to a lake or a pond.

Only one of those lakes contained an arm clothed with white samite that rose from the water bearing a magical sword.

And the one time that happened, King Arthur happened to be right next to that very lake, and so he got the magic sword.

1/1,000,000 x 1/100,000 x 10%!

Makes you stop and think.

If the prophecies in the Bible were so accurate, how come the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population did not agree that the details of Jesus' life so accurately fulfilled those prophecies? We all know that the Jews never miss an opportunity for a prophet...:)

Most prophecies are fulfilled retrospectively.

[GILD]

Makes you stop and think.


Which is why there isn't an Arthurian Religion.

[Borges]

In his book, “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner estimates the odds of one person fulfilling ONLY EIGHT of these Messianic prophecies as being one in ten to the seventeenth power (1 in 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10).
The whole thing (http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8) is online and FREE.

[Borges]

I've only yet read about the profecy of the destruction of Tyre, but so far I'm not impressed. If I had been more keen on the litteral truth of the scripture, might be offended at the way he twists the word of God. Now I'm just offended at the lack of propper research he did before publishing.

Not that faith requires proof. Jesus said so himself.

[JusticeZero]

you can't manufacture the overwhelming amount of theological and historical evidence to support the claims of the bible.
Lets start with the birth of Jesus. He was in that city because of the census. That census never happenned. In fact, Bethlehem wasn't founded until hundreds of years after the Crucifixtion.
Try to create a coherent account of Easter day which uses all of the details from all accounts in the Bible. If you can there's a large cash award waiting for you, because nobody has; they all end up including multiple sixty mile journeys in the middle of the day and such.

[johnfoss]

Not that faith requires proof. Jesus said so himself.
Or he was reported to have said so.

But it's true, faith requires no proof. It also requires no truth.

Believing is the easy part. Explaining *why* you believe can be a lot harder. Especially if you know a lot about psychology. But knowledge of science or logic are irrelevant to belief.

[johnfoss]

There were around 100 000 lakes or ponds.
.... basic King Arthur story.
Was your intent to compare fiction with fiction?

Most prophecies are fulfilled retrospectively.
Amen to that. With as much editing of the original prophecies as possible.

[Mikefule]

Was your intent to compare fiction with fiction?


No, I worship the Pendragon, my local priest is Rex Quondam, and I believe that Guinevere is the way, the truth and the wife.

[Borges]

Perhaps I should give at least the main reason why I'm not impressed with the book (or at least the part I read, which is the chapter about prophetic accuracy).
You can't say anything about the probability of making correct predictions without saying how many tries you had.
The authors calculations are simply wrong and misleading. He should have lead his textbooks more carefully before publishing.

As an example I'll use the same method to see if I can convince you that I'm really good at predicting who will win the matches in major league baseball next year.


I could write down 100 of my baseball prophecies.
After the matches have been played, I see that 50 of my predictions where correct (a likely number considering my knowledge of baseball).
I pick e.g. 43 of my correct predictions, the same number of propecies used in "Science Speaks".
Now I ask "What is the chance that I could make all these correct prophecies without knowing anything about baseball?"
For each game the probability is estimated at one in two.
Now the probability that all those propecies come true is found by multiplying the probabilities from each game.

The result is:
1/(2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 *2*2*2*2*2*2*2)
= one in 8796093022208.

To visualize this probability: 8796093022208 silver dolers would cover 40 square miles in a more than one foot deep layer.
Suppose we had marked one of these silver dollars, and had stirred it into the whole pile before we spred them out. Then suppose we had blindfolded a man and told him to go over all of those 40 sq. miles and pick up the dollar which he thinks is the right one...

Do I know my baseball or what?

[johnfoss]

Prophecies are only convincing if they are sealed up, in their complete and original form, before whatever predicted events happen. Then they must be examined dispassionately afterward, in their entirety, to see if there is any actual indication that the author was predicting the future or simply taking random guesses.

Pick up any tabloid newspaper around the first of the year, and it'll contain at least one article full of "Predictions for the coming year." They do this every year. What they don't do is publish last year's list to show whether the predictor was accurate to any degree. Because they weren't. It's a fun experiment to try yourself!

In the computer magazines I read they're a little more honest. PC Magazine is currently celebrating 25 years of publishing, and each issue contains some exceprts from the one exactly 25 years before it. Some show interesting predictions of where personal computers were going, while others are just funny to read.

[Mikefule]

An relevant example is the birthdays thing.

Assuming for the sake of simplicity that there is an equal chance of being born on any of the 365 days a year, and ignoring leap years, you would rightly assume that about 1 in 365 people whom you meet would have the same birthday as you.

So when you meet someone with the same birthday, it feels remarkable.

If it is the same year, it is even more remarkable - unless of course it is one of 365 people you met at school or university who were all born in the same year!

But if you put a large group of people in a room, each one of them has a chance of being a "match" with the birthday with each of the others in the room. It might be 1:365 for each pairing, but the chances of there being someone in the same room with the same birthday as someone else in the room is very high indeed even if there are only 20 people in the room.

But when these two people find out that they have the same birthday, everyone in the room (except for the mathematicians and pedants) thinks it is an amazing coincidence. "Wow!" they say, "That's worth drinking to!"

That is to say, we are very bad at intuitively understanding probabilities, and we construct reasons, coincidences and patterns according to what we perceive to be relevant. There is no sense to it, it's just the way we are.

So apply this to prophecy, or, at least, prediction. Let's set the Christian religion to one side for a moment for fear of clouding the issue, and take someone less controversial like Nostradamus.

He wrote a number of verses which were alleged to be predictive. I'm sure he could never have foreseen how widely read those verses would become.

Millions upon millions of things have happened since he wrote those verses. For example, wars, murders, assassinations, fires, plagues, the invention of aeroplanes, submarines, the iPod, the saxophone and punk rock. Somewhere among all these events, all of which are important to someone, there must be something that appears to fit one of the predicitions. And the person or group who "spot" this fit think it's amazing. They hold up their hands and say in self-congratulatory tone, "Well, didn't I say?"

It's a bit like me saying, "You will soon come across the number sequence 145 or it might be 154," and then you settling down to read the telephone directory. Within a few pages, you will say, "Well, stone me, he was right. Here it is, 145."

Or, to consider the prophecy problem from another angle, if the prophecies about Jesus were so clear an accurate, how come so many Jews, including Rabbis and others who had studied the prophecies, failed to spot the match?

[BillyTheMountain]

It seems like you people just love to debate prophecy, religion, and the existence of ancient people.

To me it matters not whether Socrates existed (or was an invention of Plato, as some propose), there's a cool philosophy in Socrates' name. And we can assess whether people who avow to follow Socrates adhere to his teachings.

Same for Jesus.

I guess we've pretty much established that true Christians are anti-war.

So there's no point in offering a "ping"

Let the threadjack continue!!

[johnfoss]

I guess we've pretty much established that true Christians are anti-war.
I think we have. So how many of these true Christians are there?

Anyone?

[steveyo]

I think we have. So how many of these true Christians are there?

Anyone?
Four, counting me, and I'm a Jewish atheist.

[unipsychler]

I'm anti-war. This thread has caused me to "see the light". You can use and abuse me all you want and I won't fight back, however, I can't allow the same to be done to my family. You mess with my wife and kids and I believe I'm obligated to defend them. I guess the same can be said for my country. You mess with her I'm obligated to defend her as well.

With that said, I'll step off my soapbox now but before I go allow me to cast one more "pearl",

John 3:16 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.

The preacher has left the thread.

[James_Potter]

Four, counting me, and I'm a Jewish atheist.
Five, counting me, and I'm Buddhist.

[Chris.James]

6, counting me, and I'm an atheist

you dont have to be a christian to be antiwar.

[steveyo]

6, counting me, and I'm an atheist

you dont have to be a christian to be antiwar.Amen, brutha.

[BillyTheMountain]

You mess with my wife and kids and I believe I'm obligated to defend them. I guess the same can be said for my country. You mess with her I'm obligated to defend her as well.

With that said, I'll step off my soapbox now but before I go allow me to cast one more "pearl",

John 3:16

The preacher has left the thread.

So you're saying they can crucify your son and you won't lift a finger?

[BillyTheMountain]

7, counting me, and I'm an interspiritualist.

:D

[James_Potter]

So you're saying they can crucify your son and you won't lift a finger?
I think he is saying that he will defend his family, even if it means resorting to violence...that's what I got out of his message anyhoo.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

I'm anti-war. This thread has caused me to "see the light". You can use and abuse me all you want and I won't fight back, however, I can't allow the same to be done to my family. You mess with my wife and kids and I believe I'm obligated to defend them. I guess the same can be said for my country. You mess with her I'm obligated to defend her as well.


Except in the case of this war, the people we invaded/attacked never attacked us or abused us. So the logic of violence is okay if it's defensive doesn't fly in the case of Iraq.

[johnfoss]

I think he is saying that he will defend his family, even if it means resorting to violence...that's what I got out of his message anyhoo.
I agree. He's saying he's not one of those extreme enough to be a "true Christian," like most of us. And crucifying anyone is pretty icky. I suppose the quandary would arise if God wanted to crucify his son. Now that could be a toughie.

[GILD]

But when these two people find out that they have the same birthday, everyone in the room (except for the mathematicians and pedants) thinks it is an amazing coincidence. "Wow!" they say, "That's worth drinking to!"

Mathematicians, pedants and alcoholics.

I need to find me a girlfriend with the name Guinevere now, Mikefule, you have opened my eyes.

[iridemymuni]

true christians like the ones in the crusades, and the one with all the jews, i cant remember what thats called though.

EDIT: i remember the name, the spanish inquisition. i think it was.

[Mikefule]

I need to find me a girlfriend with the name Guinevere now, Mikefule, you have opened my eyes.

Not if you have a best friend called Lancelot. If you do, never leave them alone together.

[GILD]

You're a deeply troubled man, sir.
Beer?

[Gilby]

I guess the same can be said for my country. You mess with her I'm obligated to defend her as well. You don't know what you are getting in to then, as the mess all started (again) in 1913.

[BillyTheMountain]

ROBERT WRIGHT: An Easter Sermon
Guest Columnist

Jesus knew viral marketing.

In the Gospel of Mark, the disciple John complains that nondisciples
are selling bootlegged copies of Jesus* miraculous powers. *Teacher,
we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop
him, because he was not following us.*

Jesus tells John to quit obsessing about the intellectual property and
to focus on getting the brand out. *Do not stop him; for no one who
does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak
evil of me.* Jesus adds, *Whoever is not against us is for us.*

Fast-forward two millennia. Weeks after 9/11, George Bush says roughly
the opposite. His famous *You*re either with us or against us*
means that those who don*t follow his lead will be considered enemies.
The rest is history. Today, Jesus has more than a billion devoted
followers. Mr. Bush has ... well, fewer than that.......

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/04/robert-wright...

[BluntRM]

This one's for BTM:
http://www.miqel.com/images_1/random_image/r1/jesus-versus-bush.jpg

[BillyTheMountain]

This one's for BTM:
http://www.miqel.com/images_1/random_image/r1/jesus-versus-bush.jpg

Thanks!!!