Hi all,

To F.C., I admire your conviction to keep making reasonable arguments when it is clear, that the points you are trying to make aren't even being read.  I think the two posts that immediately follow your comment regarding people's unwillingness to examine each party for what they are, rather than what they are said to be, is a perfect example of the kind of thought that is so indoctrinated here in CU.  Some people flattly refuse to even look at the errors made by the republicans (just as some refuse to look at errors of democrats) and that sort of rabid adhearance to one part saddens me, and it weakens our democracy.  Pastor Roger made that abundantly clear when he refused to comment on the content or validity of your post, prefering instead to demonstrate his own dogmatic politics.  That's not a personal attack Roger, you are more than welcome to your views on the way the nation is run, and I vote republican too.  I just don't think they are either infallable, nor are they a party who looks to God for their direction.  Karl Rove should be proof enough of that.

As far as little pilgrim is concerned, I have to admit, they have organized for themselves a fantastic racket.  If  I mention any problem with the current administration, it will just be countered by the claim that it is only a fabrication of the liberal media.  Man, what a sweet scam.  I applaud you.

Thanks for the discussion though,

Thommy

JudgeNot and BEP,

If my post came off as a bit crass, rest assured that I was merely responding in kind, as I feel as stongly about this issue as you do.  I took issue with some of the terminology that was used, and continues to be used like "murder" and "excecution."  I firmly beleive that these things have not happened in this case.  What annoys me the most in these cases is the presence of all the crazed protesters who jump at the opportunity to make a media circus out of anything that can garner their cause some attention.  

My comment about sometimes being ashamed to call myself a Christian comes from a fear of being associated with some branches of my faith that I see as being totally without God.  Ironically, It is often these people that profess their love of Jesus the loudest.  I'd like to continue calling my self Christian though, if that's ok with you.

thanks,

Thom

Hi BEP,

In my post, I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that you do not have the right to your opinions or the right to voice those opinions.  I personally, am a huge advocate of first amendment rights, and would not dream of arguing that you should not have the right to speak your mind.  With that said, I think there is a time and a place for the militant right-wing of Christinanity (I'm not neccesarily suggesting that you are in this camp) to spout their rehtoric, and there is a time when their particular brand of preaching is counter-productive.  In the matter of the al-asqa mosque, I think the latter aplies.  Considering there are some "Christians" who have been linked to terrorist plots to destroy the mosque so that a new temple can be built, I think Christians of any ilk ought to be quite cautious in their rehtoric in this specific case.

In the end, these are just my thoughts on the matter.  You are more than entitled to your own views, just as I am entitled to challenge those views.  As the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire once penned: "I may not alwas agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

thanks,

Thom

Could it not be argued that it was God's will that Terry die when she had her stroke?  The only reason she was alive was through medical science.  A lack of that science would have meant her death.  I really don't understand why the Christian right wing has taking this case so personally, and turned it into such a good versus evil situation Correction:  I'm not suprised that the Christian right has professed to be the interpreters of God's will and all other "liberals" are evil, but I'm shocked at their insensitivity towards a dying woman and her husband.  Using such a death to further their own political agenda is shameful.  A complex situation cannot simply be solved by rigid adhearance to a particular interpretation of biblical doctrine.  It's people like those who would refuse to ask God to bless our justices and political leaders that trully make me ashamed to call myself a Christian.  I cannot believe that God works in the way that some "Christians" beleive he does.  His is not a way of selective morals and hate.

thanks,

Thom

Hi all,

Just thought I'd toss in a little of my thinking on this one.  PeterAV, your question / comment: "Is the land really theirs,or not?What is the big delay?"  While simple in its asking, is perhaps one of the most complex geo-political querries in modern history.  While it is widely speculated that the site of the current al-asqa mosque / "dome of the rock" is also the site of the first two temples, it is very hard to say which nation holds the justifyable land claim.  The issue is all too often over-simplified by members of of the fundamentalist sects of all three abrahmic faiths.  It is particularily difficult for North Americans to jump into the fray, given our own history of taking land from its original inhabitants.  I have no Doubt that God's will will one day come to light regarding this particular site, but until then, I think it is an issue that ought to remain free of interferance from the Christian right.

thanks,

Thom

Hi Chancellor,

I wasn't saying that dino's evolved into chickens, simply that they were on the planet before the chickens were.  In my line of argumentation, there is room for both sides of the coin.  One could say that God created the chicken as an entire creature, but simply did so after he had done the same for the dino.  

No need to even get into the tired evolution / creation debate.  Although, by your signature "B. Div."  I would assume that you are / have studied divinity, in which case you may concider yourself something of an expert and are looking to flex some doctrinal muscle.  Either way.

thanks,

Thom

Hi,

As a general note, people of many faiths or even no determined faith can often be found in the pro-life camp.  People of faith typically use arguments from thier own holy scriptures, while the thousands of agnostic or atheist members of the ant-abortion camp simply use secular lines of argumentation to try and proove their points.  To suggest that the abortion fight is only a christian battle, is to mis-represent the cause.

thanks,

Thom

Hi,

Do you guys all really think that we will see the rapture in this generation?

Thom

Hi Lisa,

I couldn't help but take note of this little nugget.

You wrote: "If you are saved there is nothing that you can do to unsave yourself."

I was just wondering how I can get myslef on that sweet gravy train of consequence free sin?  It seems to me, that many people who call "themsleves" saved, can often do some pretty awful things.  I am in no way implying that you fall into that nefarious camp, but I do not see how a "saved" person who then commits grave and terrible sins, (like say, killing hundreds of people) can still go to heaven.  That's certainly not the impression I got in Sunday School.

thanks,

Thom

Bronze,

I wouldn't dream of denying cration as you so crassly suggested.  To do such a thing would be contrary to the Bible, and very un-Christian.  I wholeheartedly beleive that the universe in which we live was created by God, and that we are the products of that creation.  In that, I'm sure we can at least find some common ground.  My own views on the evolution creation matter are probably something for another thread, but I'm sure you would argue them with the same welcome vigor you argue most of your points.  I really wasn't looking for a fight on the chicken and egg bit, it was more of a joking observation, that I think dinosaurs laid some form of egg before the chicken existed... thats it.. no argument intended.  

On another note, I do think that a lot of evolutionary theory is slightly more than a brian cramp, but you're perfectly entitled to your opinion..albeit usually divergent from my own.

Kris777, I feel remiss in pointing out that you misinterpreted my post.  I was pointing out that a dinosaur, lets call him jimmy, laid an egg before the chicken existed as a species.  So, the egg that jimmy laid, still an egg in its own right, sat on this planet before the chicken did.  I was not suggesting that the egg opened and produced a horse.  

thanks,

Thom

Oh,  as an adendum, although this is a completely seperate matter, Bronze, I've really enjoyed your satunch defence of your position on the Jewish question. For the record, I think you're bang on with this one, and you should be commended for your wisdom in that particular side of the debate.

Hi all,

Perhaps I should have been more clear as to what I meant, and more careful not to set off your collective "deny evolution" alarms, but I was simply refering to an egg an entity seperate from a chicken all together.  Seeing as Dinosaurs produced things called eggs, then that becomes the answer to the question.  Not because the dinosaur gave birth to a chicken, but simply because it laid an egg of any variety.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

cheers,

Thom

Hi all,

If you wanted to get technical about it, I think you'd have to say that the egg came first, seeing as dinosaurs laid eggs well before the chiken existed.

cheers,

Thom

Hi All,

There are several brutal posts in this particular thread.  Firstly, to "M", I couldn't help but notice your scathing critique of Islam showed a remarkable lack of understnading or even basic knowlege of the faith.  I'm in no way suggesting that anyone should feel compelled to join that particular faith, I just think that if you are going to accuse a major world religion of terrible mis-givings, you should at least equip yourself with a rudamentary understanding of the religion first.  Citing actions perpetrated by the worst that fundamental Islam has to offer, is sort of like citing the actions of ubber-fundamentalist christians.  

Secondly, I'm not sure if this Mr. 5020 dude is around anymore, but its posts like his within this thread that really make me doubt the faith of the author.  That kind of blatant disrespect should not be tolerated here.  I'm not holding my breath for a formal reprimand however.

thanks,
Thom

Hi DW et. al.

I agree with you to a point that some of Mike Moores stuff is slanted, and clearly has a bias.  I do not, however, think that his bias is any more dangerous than the stuff being produced by so called pundits such as Bill O'reilly or Ann Coulter.  Perhaps we can simply see Moore as a liar who tells lies to refute the lies told by the other two?  Either way, I think that Moores films can be helpful, in that they spark a public debate about various social issues.

Also, DW, I noticed that you mentioned the 9/11 commison report in your post, saying that " Also in case you didn't know the 9/11 commission has said that there is absolutely no connection between 9/11 and Iraq!! Someone should do a documentary on Michael Moore and see if He likes it."  I'm not sure if you were aware, bu that kind of prooves the entire point of the guys movie, in that G.W. used the ruberic and fear that came out of 9/11 to get the american people on side for an invasion of iraq.  The entire movie was based on the notion that there was no real connection between Osama and Saddam, and it was all fabricated by the old boys club .  By putting that in your post, you're actually supporting Michael Moore's case! Maybe you should rent it! I'm sure he'd be delighted to know that you're such a fan, and have finally statred seeing things his way.

Pastor Roger,

I agree entirely with your point that if one signs up to go to military school, or joins the armed forces, then one had better be prepared to fight.  There do seem to be some troubling cases in Iraq though, where soldiers are being forced, against their will to stay for much longer than their terms of service, which may be problematic in the future.

I must say that I disagree with your statement:

"The only way Iraq is like Viet Nam is in the way these people are reacting to it and denigrating our Soldiers and Sailors."

I will not tell you that the two conflicts are identical, but to make a statement such as yours, is to under-analyze the situation.  I beleive the two are similar for several reasons.

1. They are both wars fought with a conventional army against a guerilla style force.

2.  The defence department grossly misjudged the nature of the enemy in both cases.  I think that in both instances, the military elite felt that victory would be swift and easy, not realizing that the real fight would not be against uniformed or conventional forces, but in the streets.

3.  The incramental increase of force size.  I think you will find the number of u.s. servicemen and women in Iraq has and will grow, much as did throughout the 60's in Vietnam.

4.  The lack of a clear exit strategy.

As a result of these similarities, I think that the U.S. has a tough fight on its hands.  Other than the fact that no modern army has ever defeated a guerilla style opponent, I beleive that a weak conventional defence to the U.S. initial onslaught was part of the Iraqi plan all along.  If any guerilla leader can take one lesson from Vietnam, its if you drag out a fight long enough, Americans may lose their stomach for flag draped coffins.  I'm not saying that this is neccesarily the case here, but it is certainly worth some time and thought.

Finally, I do not beleive that speaking out against the war is denegrating the fine men and women of the armed forces.  I have the utmost in respect for anyone who dons their nations uniform.  To borrow a vietnam era slogan: agianst the war, not the soldiers.

thanks,
thom