Saved 4ever

While we may not see eye to eye, thank you for your well thought out and civil reply.  It was quite refreshing to see someone willing to debate certain issues without resorting to personal attacks.

As a general point of oreder, I should be understood that the Dali Lama does not oppose Christ.  I don't imagine you've ever read any of his stuff, nor would I excpect you to, but most of his writing deals with the acceptability of many world religions.  Infact, he thinks that Christianity is pretty fantastic.   Is it against forum rules to say that he is a pretty neat guy?

Tim,

Not to labour a point, but you certainly used the term "enjoy" before I did.  that is why I wrote my post.  I don't beleive that the Iraqi militants who are doing the decapitating enjoy it anymore than a U.S. marine enjoys killing an Iraqi civilian.  Also, I feel that this is where we need to be be clear.  Rightly or wrongly, the individuals fighting in Iraq are reacting in a manner that I'm sure you all would, if an Islamic fundamentalist nation invaded the U.S.  George W. made the enormous error of calling this fight a Crusade.  Now, that got huge media play all across the Arab world. Now, they are reacting to the invasion of their homeland by who they see as a Christian fundamentalist.  Unfortunately, when fundamentalism meets fundamentalism, very little good can come of it quickly.  I'm sure some of you hard-linners will jump at the opportunity to throw out your standard knee-jerk reactions, and suggest that I love terrorists.  I only hope others see just how silly such a claim is.  Pastor Roger kindly informed me that Freedom isn't free, a statement which I whole-heartedly applaud.  But I simply cannot buy the idea that this war somehow protects my freedom.
 
On another note, I would recomend that Darwinatridge take a look at any U.N. fact book before claiming that it elected not to go to war, because Iraq pays it "Billions of dollars".  This is utterly false.

I was commenting on your use of the word "enjoying", as I hardly think that the individuals of whom you speak "enjoy" cutting heads off.

How do you propose advocating peace with folks who enjoy cutting off the heads of peacful individuals?

The same way the international community tries to advocate for peace with a president who enjoys invading sovreign nations.

I would however like to join you in your prayer for the brave men and women risking thier lives for their country.  May God watch over them.

Bronzesnake,

Thank you for the history lesson of regarding the misgivings of Saddam.  In giving it though, I think you fell into the group to which I was reffering.  At no time did I say that I supported the actions of the Husein regime.  To do so would be madness.  It seems to be a pretty typical republican reaction to, at this stage of the game, comment on all of the horrors committed in Iraq.  This I fear is not because anyone in the U.S. administration cares about the Kurds, but because they are now gropping for new reasoning, having found no WMD's.  It is true that Saddam has used such wepons in the past, but they were provided to him by the American government. (Who incidently also sold wepons to Iran in the same war)  I also found your use of the U.N. argument to be contrary to many on your other posts.  It seems that you would act in defyance of the U.N. given any opportunity, yet you hold Saddam to a higher standard of global citezenship.  Make no mistake, the war in Iraq is not about saving the lives of the noble Iraqi, it is not about freedom, it does not make you any safer, and it is certainly not condoned by any God that I know.  Ofcourse, you are free and welcome to disagree, just don't tell me that I hold the opinions I do, because  I'm uninformed.  

As per the comments by our noble moderator, I find it odd that I would be called a troll, or have it implied that my views on this particular issue are unwelcome in some way.  I was not aware that being a good Christian meant automatic support for the War in Iraq. I hold my views on this matter because I beleive that killing innocent people is wrong, particularily when the reason behind their deaths is so ambiguous.

As a general point, I absolurely reject the notion that people who speak out against the war in Iraq are somehow supporting Al-Queda.  This is the kind of easy to understand political pablum that the Bush campaign was so eager to sling at any opponent.  Simply call them unpatriotic, in a hyper-sensitive time, and everyone will condem them.  Its simple-minded to a disgusting degree.  Furthermore, to even imply that God is working through the U.S. military in order to deal with an enemy of Israel is nauseating.  In order to beleive that, one would have to close one's eyes to every action and motive of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle and Wolfowitz; Ignore the fact that the initial reason for going to war was an absolute lie, and finaly, somehow come to the conclusion that God thought he could use a little more oil.  Using the Bble to justify one's warring ways is a perfect example of how easy it has become to use the holy scripture when it is convenient to do so, and tailor it a little if need be.  To beleive that W. is acting with the will of God, is to live in a sick delusion.  It is the same sort of delusion that has justified thousands of evil actions over the centuries, by many world religions.  Killing another human being while wearing a cross around your neck, or proclaiming that it is in the name of God, or for the protection of Israel does not make it God's work.  If God is to judge us all, I'm comfortable with the positions I've taken.

I'm not overly familiar with biblical prophecies.  What sort of stuff do you see falling into line with said predictions?

Just to clarify, are you upset because the new sheriff is gay, or because she was elected?

Broonzesnake,

I'm just curious as to why you feel that we need to appologize fo recent policies of multiculturalism?  I personnaly feel that the presence of other cultures and ideas enriches my life in many positive ways.  For example, while I do not follow the teachings of buddist monks, Jewish rabi's or Hindu spiritual leaders, I've always found theological discussion with these sorts of people fascinating.  Besides, the openess and religious tolerance upon which Canada and the U.S. was predicated is the very characteristc that seperates us from many other global regions.  If we were to allow religious doctrine to become the basis for policy, particularily in the realm of human rights, we would quickly become quite similar to the fundamentalist islamic states that we so abhor.  I'm all for the adhearance to staunch religious morals if that is your cup of tea, but I'm also for the fundamental separation of church and state.  I don't want to wake up in the morning to find myself in any sort of theocracy, Christian, Islamic, Hindu or otherwise.

BEP,

Just a quick point.  In Canada, we too are experiencing a problem with activist judges.  For the most part, I agree they can act in a very undemocratic fashion, which, at best is problematic.  However, if all decisions regarding the rights of individuals were made by the population as a whole, I think our continent would perhaps be worse for it.  In your country for example, it was judges that forced an end to segregation with Brown V. Board of Education, a wildly unpopular move in many places at the time.  If left to a vote, I'm sure many states would have voted overwhealmingly to hang onto segregationist pracrtices.  In my opinion, it is quite dangerous to allow a majority to decide the fate of a minority, particularily when it comes to human rights.  Sometimes, for the moral good of the nation, we need judges who have the stregth of conviction to make unpopular rullings.  I'm not saying this is the case with the abortion issue, just something to ponder before you make your plea for more democratic accountability in the supreme court.

[Terms of God Capitalized]

Evangalist,

I'm glad you chose to retort by showing gruesome pictures on a discussion forum used by children as well as adults.  While you may find it appropriate to frighten your children with such images, I find it quite boerish.  The fact that you chose that style of argument makes me beleive that you must have misinterpreted my post.  At no time did I say that abortion was approachable.  I did however, suggest that more approachable arguments must be forwarded by the staunch Christian community, in order to make headway in the fight against such procedures.  The wording here may be subtle, but these two points are miles apart.  In the end though, Roe V. Wade has been held up by numerous republican administrations and as such, an all out ban is highly unlikely.  I beleive it to be high time you focus your energy on finding ways of legislating some abortion control measures, as opposed to criminalizing it.  I do not beleive that in a nation now consisting of millions who do not see abortion as a cardinal sin, a womans right to chose will ever again be suplanted by religious doctrine, thank God.

Terms of God Capitalized

Easy there boys..  I have to say that I am a little shocked that you have chosen to jump to the attack so quickly and with such malice.  In questioning the motivations of one magazine reader, I was certainly not expecting to have my intelligence or faith questioned in such a harsh and unwelcoming manner.  While I too, my have made some barbed comments, it was certainly not my intention to insult or pull into question the depth of faith of any fellow christians.  I am often remis to learn that there are those in the christian fold that feel as though divergent opinions on key theological questions is something of a sin.  I trully beleive that it is not only our divine right to do so, but our duty as human beings.  Just imagine where we might be if no christians never questioned what they were being told by the seemingly faithful.  On the topic of National Geographic, I am firmily of the opinion that not all of the bible's stories are to be taken literaly.  I feel as though the 7 day creation story falls into this large group.  Regardless of how some may feel about that, I do not think that such beleifs are uncommon or in any way satanic.  Most importantly, they do not make me a non-christian.  Throughout my university career, I was often apauled at what I saw as a disgusting knowledge of international geography.  In fact, most students could not point to Iraq or Afgahnistan on a map.  (one would imagine that these would be two well known nations to America's young)  I simply feel that National Geographic can only serve to help these problems despite their view on evolution.

To suggest that I think 7 year olds should be getting sex-ed in schools is a gross misrepresentation.  I thought my point was quite clear, but I will try again to make it so.  There are things in this world that you and I both see as wrong for various reasons.  While you insist on calling them evil and simply leaving it at that, I am trying to find perhaps some more rational and approchable lines of argumentation.  I'm sure you will agree that your community's schools would be better off if the Planned Parenting group were not permitted to discuss certain issues.  Therefore, while you may feel justified in saying "abomination, end of story", you're not going to accomplish anything by doing so. (ie you're not going to convince anyone that you're right)  While you seem to have some strong beleifs, and I aplaud your zeal, you don't seem to be very result oriented.  In fact, at times many people here remind me of children with their eyes closed and their fingers stuffed into their ears.  Its safe, its comfortable, and best of all, you don't have to listen to anybody.  But as long as you're keeping satan at bay by doing so, I guess you'll be okay.

Nor had I heard anything of the sort Kalthzar.  I think the "pastors" post was more an attempt to side step my question by accusing me of being an atheist.  Perhaps "change in tone was not the perfect verbiage, but I don't think that makes me an abomination  Maybe I've got it all wrong though.