I suppose someone should start archiving these stories. If we ever do need to confront Iran with force, the liberal Dems will be insisting they didn't support terrorists.
NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.
Oh wait, I forgot ... the Taliban kill American troops. That doesn't make them enemies, let alone terrorists to liberals, that makes them freedom fighters. My bad.
seekeronos: "Scripture backs up scripture."
Riiiiight. And your right because your right. This is why it's a fools game to argue with a religious fanatic. Magical thinking creates magical answers.
But this nugget takes the cake: "the Councils (plural) that lead to the adoption of the current canon of 66 (40 O.T. and 26 N.T.) books of the Bible were in the will of God"
Sorry, thumper, but the Council of Nicea, in the year 325, decided which books would be included. They left quite a few contemporary works out. Thomas, Judah and Mary come to mind. Is the bible-thumper imagining a magic scenario in which God whispered in the ears of the Romans at that council. Maybe something like, "pssst, leave the Thomas stuff out. It won't help church attendance."
It's still hard for me, as a patriotic American, to believe our government policy is being fashioned by delusional psychopaths like this thumper.
Posted by: BB | Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Seekeronos: "Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling."
Exactly, bible-thumper. Your magic is all about fear and intimidation. That's why those of us with courage and intelligence reject your dogma.
Posted by: BB | Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 08:00 PM
"What did you think raising chickens was? Financial services? Manufacturing? Medicial science? Entertainment? Information technology?"
Funniest line I've read in weeks. haha. Gotta love the direction threads go here.
Truth is, the USDA is just now deciding whether or not to allow the importation of Chinese chickens. They won't allow our beef, so they're squabbling over that. In the meantime, we send dead chickens to China for processing. I am serious. We grow the sqwaukers, kill them and then send them to China for processing and packing and they send them back. We have a couple of people over there to check out the plants to make sure no rats and boogers get in the chicken fixings. How's that for efficiency? Think of the fuel to send the chickens over there in refrigerated units and then send them back.
I don't know what is wrong with us that we continue to send our economic bonanzas to China, but we do.
By the way - for the millionth time - Halliburton got the job because it is the only company that could handle it. Jaysus.
Posted by: Phoenix | Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Phoenix - I have had my last chinese chicken salad. And you are so right on Haliburton.
Posted by: ET | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 12:50 AM
While we can't seem to agree on why the US invaded Iraq, it seems unanimous that it wasn't to rid Saddam of his WMDs.
Since this was the reason the US gave for the war, is it fair to say the war is unjustified?
Posted by: moldy | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 03:03 AM
For "BB" :
I won't use too much time to try to reach you, since you seem to have your mind made up, (Proverbs 26:12) but here goes:
Mock all you want, but it still doesn't change the truth. You still need to repent from following your own ignorant way of thinking (Proverbs 12:23) and turn to the truth of God's Word (John 17:17).
And btw, the FEAR of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7). If indeed you are such a wise man (of which I have my doubts)... you would recognize that you SHOULD fear Him who is able to cast you body and soul in fiery hell. (Matthew 10:28)
--------------------------------------------------------
References:
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him" (Prov. 26:12)
"A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness." (Prov. 12:23)
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17)
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov. 1:7)
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 08:10 AM
Chickens? I get mine from a local farmer who grows his own.
I wouldn't trust those Chinese Chickens. I hear they go "Meow".
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 08:13 AM
"Your post is a perfect example of the many reasons why we should NOT have invaded Iraq."
As if there was only one reason we *did* invade...
"I count on and expect corruption everywhere"
I doubt that, because if you did then you wouldn't be such a tool of American politicians. Either the politicians you love who whisper the sweet nothings you love to hear SO MUCH into your ears, and which reifies all those biases and prejudicial beliefs you hold so dear, or the "enemy" American politicians you distrust so badly and can't even bring yourself to utter their names lest your tongue catches fire. See, kiddo, if you weren't so gullible, then you'd realize that it takes two people to make a lie:
1] a person to say something knowingly false, and
2] a schmuck who's dopey enough to believe him.
If Bush lied to you, then you are a dope who doesn't know enough about the subject to filter the politics out of his words. And that's no one's fault but your own ... to the degree "fault" is even relevant. [And I don't think it is. Not everyone works in this field. You're probably very good at what you do; it's just that filtering military-subject data isn't your line of work.]
So what were you saying about the "democracy building" in Iraq? Or was it "WMD"?
Do you always open wide, and swallow what you're fed? Or did you pay attention in history class?
"We are a corrupt society..."
My, your self-loathing is getting a decent workout today.
"What kind of nutcakes expected Iraq to be anything but corrupt to its core? That would be George Bush and the neocons."
I wasn't talking about Iraq, you comprehension-less dingbat. Iran and Syria: duplicitous. They stood in front of the world and wept and gnashed their teeth about the US invading their "islamic brother", and then closed the doors and jumped for joy. With Hussein in Iraq, Assad was second banana; with Hussein in Iraq, Iran was perpetually on the defensive. The US invasion was a good thing for them.
Just like it was a good thing for us. We had a double-digit portion of our military tied down in a UN babysitting brigade. We've been in Korea for over 50 years now. Wanna be tied to Iraq for ditto? Not unless you are really desperate to see the US relegated to impotent punching bag.
How deep does your self-loathing go?
"I am sure you will correct me..."
I'm sure I will too.
"haven't those paramilitary groups in the past mostly been defeated by wholesale civilian slaughter, forced internment, etc. back in the day when that was a recognized tool of warfare?"
You mean, for the first 9,850 of the 10,000 years of human civilization? The literally first 98.5% of human existence, when there was no effective difference between "soldier" and "civilian"? You mean then?
Or are you trying to post-rationally sanitize history so as not to offend your modern "enlightened" sensibilities? Particularly those ever-so enlightened sensibilities which is so bereft of real-world knowledge and experience that you are unaware that three-fourths of the world, even today, operates on a warfare model unchanged in 10,000 years.
Yes, skeezix, the people we are fighting do not distinguish "soldier" from "civilian". But they know we do, and they know, in particular, that some of us so keenly make that distinction that if they can play up the "atrocities" we commit -- like bombing the hospital next to the Iraqi supply depot, or the Chinese Embassy mistaken for the Serbian military warehouse -- that we will effectively fight ourselves and they won't have to.
Which is why we have rules of engagement with double-, triple-, even quadruple-checks built in to ascertain if the woman or child pointing the kalishnikov at us is serious or maybe just holding someone else's place in line, while they think nothing of blowing holes in Tel Aviv bar mitzvahs or Baghdad bazaars. ...or Darfurian women and children. It's even why Fur tribe children are given guns to kill government soldiers -- what few of them there are -- or the Bagara tribe "janjaweed" who were hired by the government to put down the Fur revolt -- "soldiered" by men, women, and children.
Do we, in The West, consider that barbaric? Why of course we do. Because we are enlightened, and that just demonstrates our moral superiority. Dunnit?
Oh, but I'm certain that you'll tell me that this self-righteous moral posturing -- confined as it is to the Western "left" -- is **completely different** from the self-righteous moral posturings of the Western "right", because, well, it just is!
It is only the Western "right" which is prohibited from making presumptive assertions about those backward people in the "uncivilized" parts of the globe, I'll bet. When the "right" tells them to abstain to stop AIDS, well, that's just *wrong*, but when the "left" throws condoms at 'em and tells them not to procreate while boinking like bunnies, that's *good*, because it also keeps them from "overpopulating". Racism from the "right" is bad, but racism from the "left" -- disguised as worry and fret about "overpopulation" -- well, that's good.
So, when you're done parsing the reality out of the real world, and positing absurd and ridiculous fantasies to replace them, then we can continue the discussion.
...unless you're not up for it, that is.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 08:20 AM
As for the Council of Nicea, yes, that was the big one that left out the gnostic "gospels". Other councils helped eliminate heresies which had originated from some of these false writings (Pseudographia) like Judas (sic) Mary and Thomas.
Guess what? They (the Pseudographia) were left out because they were full of lies and other contradictions that questioned the truth of Christ's divinity, and advocated many other heresies.
Bear in mind that the "Church" of the fourth century was in no way the monolithic ecclesiastical entities that the Orthodox Patriarchates or the Roman Catholic Church became during the dark ages. Rome particularly took on a life of its own after the Western Empire fell in the late 5th century.
Those councils were necessary because at that time, most Christian churches were autonomous, with loose affiliations to regional "bishoprics" seated in a few of the major cities... there was a need to ensure that the main stream of faith was kept on track to teachings Christ had given to the Apostles.
There was a need to consolidate the writings of the Apostles and determine which were forgeries and which were the divinely inspired writings. Satan was very busy spinning off his lies about "secret paths" to self-actualization and divinity, just as he had done in the garden with Eve, and these lies wre threatening to become mixed in with the Truth.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 08:32 AM
"While we can't seem to agree on why the US invaded Iraq..."
Uh ... why are you suggesting that *you* are in a position to make that determination? Can we vote on the "real" reason for things and it changes reality now? Izzat it?
"...it seems unanimous that it wasn't to rid Saddam of his WMDs."
This strikes me as very similar to a plebescite of fleas ... a veritable fleabescite ... to determine why the dog is scratching.
Get over yourselves.
"Since this was the reason the US gave for the war, is it fair to say the war is unjustified?"
No. First, the government doesn't tell you everything, and second, they are under no obligation to do so. Trying to determine from the fraction of a single percentage of their actions that you can actually see the "true" motivations they have for doing what they just did is a lot like reading tea leaves, or divining from goat innards. Grab your tarot deck; you just as likely to figure it out from that as anything else.
Scratch that: Grab an education, folks. Learn the basics of international law, and study the inherent duplicity in politics, both national and international. Military history wouldn't be bad either.
Iraq violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire.
International Law, from the time of Westphalia to the present, makes such violations "acts of war".
Acts of War can be responded to by -- as the term implies -- war.
That is all the justification anyone needs. We did so.
Everything else is politics.
The purpose of the politician, particularly in a democracy, is to get the nation dancing around the flagpole. Any means by which that can be done is fair game. Scaring the pants off the public? tried and true; Bush isn't the first to use it, and won't be the last.
But congratulations, guy; you've been had.
.
Morning, phoe.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 08:40 AM
"Ignoring her is probably the best tactic."
This person is highly distractable, and not very original.
The type of person that annoys the snot out of me is the "seeker" drip, who insists on regurgitating the bible everywhere, and who plays circular reasoning into gilded wisdom: "Guess what? They (the Pseudographia) were left out because they were full of lies..."
Uh, bud, how do you know? The early church was, as you said, scattered autonomous religio-political enclaves. The decisions on which scripture were kept and which were discarded as heretical was based entirely upon politics, and not uncommonly politics backed by sword.
The scripture we have today -- and even the popular interpretations of same that are more than a few hundred years old -- are what they are because the powerful kingdoms made them so. If Alexandria had been more powerful than Constantinople then we'd be Arian now. [Arian is not Aryan...]
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 09:00 AM
So sorry that you do not like God's word, rwilymz. But it is His words which must come first, ahead of mankind's stupid reasoning.
Do you not think, rwilymz, that God is capable of preserving His word through the ages?
And yes, even if that involves using the mechanics of human politics to achieve His purpose? Did not God even depose and dispose of empires to accomplish His will? Babylon fell so that Cyrus the Persian might arise, and restore the captivity of Judah.
The Roman Empire fell in order to see the rise of Christianity to pre-eminence in Europe and Asia Minor.
And so also might the USA be replaced in the not-to distant future as God continues to allow governments and politics shaped by men, WITHIN His divine will and purpose.
Coming back to Arianism - it was a nasty heresy which had to be addressed at that time, (though it lives on in somewhat reduced form in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, among other cults) and I could go on at great length about the evils which came out of the Alexandrian stream of writings.
God simply directed the path of that development through His allowance that one region had a bit more power than the other (Alexandria) to ensure that a key doctrinal error was not locked into the Biblical canon:
Without Christ being 100% God and 100% Perfect Man, the salvation of God through Christ becomes untenable as a doctrine.
I'm sure that people - Christians even, disagree on minor points of doctrine. The important part that needs to gotten right is salvation by grace through faith.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Oops, EDIT:
The important part that needs to gotten right is salvation by grace through faith - through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 09:22 AM
LLATF (Let's Look At The Facts): 6/8/07 3500 American volunteer military have been killed over four years of Iraq War II. Total U. S. Population = about 300,000,000. Over the same four-year war period 170,000 Americans have died in traffic deaths. (From the Wall Street Journal today.) Traffic deaths = .0005666 of 1%. War deaths = .0000003 0f 1%. Question: Is a country that has half its citizens unable to bear to take this war loss still a great military power? If not, who is responsible for this outrageous lack of will?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 09:33 AM
"So sorry that you do not like God's word, rwilymz."
I love God's word, bucko. But y'see ... God's word comes from me.
Cuz, -- and y'gotta understand the inscrutible plan of His -- he works through the agencies of all manner of folks, almost none of whom are those who profess righteousness for righteousness' sake.
Note what I said, there, charlatan -- can I call you Charlie? -- ***profess*** righteousness. Those who seek it are not often those who profess it. I'm sure you know how that goes...
You're very right about one thing: God works through the politics of His Kingdoms, in incremental bits. Only ... and sadly for you ... I am His Bit, here.
And He tells me you're full of it.
Okay? And now, you can't find anything in that magic 8-ball of yours to deny any of that, because it all boils down to faith, dunnit? That's what everyone says [Ephesians 2:9].
So, it's what you believe. And if you believe it, that's one thing. But if others don't, then who's to say who's right?
Cuz I'm also reminded of a "judge not" command, and also a "render unto Caesar" dictum as well.
A little less preaching and a little more living, doncha think?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 09:44 AM
No, you may not call me "Charlie". There are two other folks who post here regularly who might go by that name, and I am not one of them :)
Addressing your ever-apparent foolishness:
"So, it's what you believe. And if you believe it, that's one thing. But if others don't, then who's to say who's right?"
Umm, God says what is right. Perhaps you should stop speaking idle words so arrogantly, and _prayerfully_ read your Bible some more?
Although you play a nice little self-righteous game here, making no small number of vain janglings yourself, you also lie.
It is you who are sadly mistaken: God's word does not come from you (any more than it comes from me).
God's word stands alone, and is inerrant, and when either you or I are in disagreement with it, then we are wrong. Period.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 10:10 AM
"when either you or I are in disagreement with it, then we are wrong. Period."
Admission is the first step to recovery.
Good for you, big guy.
I trust you'll keep the sanctimonious homilitics to yourself now?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 10:16 AM
"I trust you'll keep the sanctimonious homilitics to yourself now?"
------------------------------------------
You need not concern yourself with what I say, unless God just might happen to be speaking to you about some issue in your life. (Perhaps, rejection of His words...?)
Heh.
And thanks, rwilymz, but no thanks, I'll continue to speak God's words where the Holy Spirit leads me to speak them: although you seem to have taken offense at God's word being used, your problem is not with me, but with God's word. Perhaps God is trying to draw attention to some problems (sins) in your life?
If it applies (God's word), then take it to heart. Otherwise, ignore what I have to say, or just say "amen", and read on.
Nobody's forcing you to read my comments, or much more importantly, read God's word which I've quoted, much less respond to it...
... Although you should read and obey God's word, if indeed you are a saved, born-again believing Christian - and by that, I mean the 66 books of the true Bibilical canon, and not that other spurious garbage which denies Christ.
I'll refrain from judging your salvation readily, as I don't know you from a can of paint, (even as readily as you have become my judge - somewhat hypocritically, I might add)...
...but your apparent hatred for the words of God seem to show the fruit of rebellion :)
If this is the case, why not repent now, get on your knees, and get your heart right with God?
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 10:41 AM
"get on your knees"
I think not. That may float your boat, though. I'm not here to judge.
Look son, do you not get it? You've talked yourself into one big circle. God uses what he uses for His purposes, but if someone suggests that His purposes are not what you believe them to be, then that someone is wrong, ungodly, "arrogant", full of "hatred", sinful and a whole slew of other self-righteous prattle. And why do you dispense this self-righteous prattle? Because you **believe** that you know better than someone else what God intends.
In other words, "my god can beat up your god".
Here's the thing: no you don't.
You simply believe. And I'm willing to accept that God made you smug and unctuously self-righteous for some mystical purpose known only to him; but in return for that, he made me arrogant and **seemingly** sinful in the eyes of the smug and self-righteous for some equally important purpose as well.
Your job is to figure out what it is.
Christian, save thyself.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 10:51 AM
the concept of god on this thread is so utterly simplistic and small-minded that it is amusing.
Posted by: jay k. | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Oh, but jay, it goes by the book. That's the important thing. Saves having to conceptualize for yourself when it's already been conceptualized for you.
...cuz god is rote, after all. Much, much easier that way.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 11:08 AM
" First, the government doesn't tell you everything, and second, they are under no obligation to do so."
Jaysus. I have said this since I became 'aware'. That is, aware of politics. * JUST UNDERSTAND THIS.*
It is a fact that is as necessary as it is a truth. (It's one way I keep my hope up.)
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 11:13 AM
rwilymz,
Seek is not smug and self-righteous. I have come to admire him so much because he's never proselytized other than in the abstract in terms of war, and he is always extremely polite to those who challenge him. I am a non-believer and I've asked him many questions over the many months we've blogged together here, and he always takes time to answer my questions. I know he is deeply religious, and though I am not, he never fails to treat me with the same gentlemanly responses he gives everyone. I have been eaten alive on other blogs by Christians, and I hold Seek up for great approbation in light of some of the grief he gets here. He is also extremely knowlegeable about lots of stuff I know nothing about, so I tend to read him carefully. I surely respect the man.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 11:24 AM
"I think not. That may float your boat, though. I'm not here to judge."
Heh, I'm not the one who made a filthy, perverted conclusion here out of a simple request to humbly go to God in repentance. But we all do sin and stumble in many ways; and I'm a sinner too - a sinner saved by grace. My righteousness is but filthy rags... but through seeking God's will and obeying His word, so will I be able to live in Christ to the glory of God the Father.
I'll admit that I can be pretty stubborn, and when in the flesh, foolish... but by God's grace, I shall be stubborn for the Gospel, and a fool for the sake of Jesus Christ first and foremost. It took the better part of 33 years for God to finally break me so as to receive His word where it mattered most - my heart, not my head.
I owe Him nothing less than my complete devotion to doing His will, even if I do stumble every now and then.
And:
"Christian, save thyself."
I think you meant:
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)
... only Jesus can save the souls of men. Nothing in our own self warrants salvation except for Christ's atoning work on the cross.
Finally, no, I'm far from being the smartest guy on the block or on this "forum"... (if I were, I'd be off working as a CEO for some megacorp making gobs of money).
But worldly wisdom and the profit of mammon doesn't count for much with God.
Nor do I have an interest in outsmarting you or thinking that I know more than you about God, rwilymz... that takes too much spiritual and mental real estate.
I'm only interested in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints: God's word, both Old Testament (40 books) and New Testament (26 books).
To know only Jesus: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2)
Plus nothing, minus nothing.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Oops, egg on my face:
39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament.
Guess I better learn to count correctly :P
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Well, jay k, we would, or at least, I would, be interested in hearing your "concept of god", as you say.
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 12:09 PM
"I'm not the one who made a filthy, perverted conclusion here out of a simple request to humbly go to God in repentance"
For all you know, I already have "gone to god in repentance", and my god-given direction is to do exactly what I'm doing.
But you aren't likely to accept that; to this point you've claimed to know better.
And why? Near as I can tell, because you are smug and self-righteous.
.
.
.
.
.
Now ... which one of us is right? as in "more holy"? or "more closely following the word of god" if you prefer?
If you're going to be honest, which is to say, strictly obedient to the magic 8-ball you quote, you're going to say "uh ... I don't know".
Which would mean, by definition, that you'd be better off praying in a closet [Matthew 8] than prancing around and "testifying".
"worldly wisdom ... doesn't count for much with God"
How do you know? Might worldly wisdom be expected of those with the talent and capacity for it, and humble, mere earth-tending be expected of those with the talent for *that*? Or is god's infinite wisdom to relegate all his children into a one-size-fits-all mold that allows for the unnuanced and superficial assertions of Gods Will?
"Nor do I have an interest in outsmarting you or thinking that I know more than you about God, rwilymz"
Then you wouldn't have suggested that I get on my knees and submit, or supplicate myself, or whatever forelock-tugging act of contrition is in vogue nowadays. You would have accepted the suggestion that maybe I *had* actually been contacted by god to do His Work, and that my version of His Work differs from yours in ways that you do not understand -- nor were meant to. Because we each have different god-given talents to be used in different ways. And you would have allowed me to be judged by god when this mortal coil has been shuffled off just in case I'd gotten it wrong, instead of doing it here, yourself.
Because maybe my version of Gods Work is to remind others that doing Gods Work often as not means keeping your mouth shut about how great it is to do Gods Work. And that perhaps the bible is a really swell book and all, but using it as a blunt instrument to beat others over the head with may, in the end, serve more to drive people *away* from the fold than to bring them in.
And perhaps, in this era in which we are seeing what happens in a religion such as islam which has not had its Reformation, and which thrives in a culture which has not had its Renaissance, [which from a historical/group psychology perspective are not a coincidence that they occured virtually simultaneously], ... perhaps the different religio-cultural approaches would be better *contrasted* than made similar by a guy doing his best to impersonate a "christian imam".
---------------
"I surely respect the man."
Go ahead. My opinions are not obligatory upon others.
I'll accept that he's a kinder and gentler type of self-righteous than others that I have also run across.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Ross/rwilymz: - (yes, I figured I'd check out your blog for a few minutes to see if that might lend more insight into where you are coming from) -
I've nothing against you personally. And, for all I know, you might be saved. My issue was connected to how you (apparently) atacked the Word of God.
There are some things which ought to be treated carefully, even with reverence. One of those is God's Word. When you irreverently compare God's Word to a toy (Magic 8-Ball) that (which humouously) mimes a divination tool which consults demonic wisdom - it gets my notice.
Seeking God's will through His Word should not be compared to what is essentially witchcraft; it is night-and-day different.
Also, our response regarding "getting on your knees in repentance" by twisting it into a common sex act is also a tad disturbing. I'm not judging _you_ personally - only God and you know if you are truly His... but "by their fruits ye shall know them".
"...for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34)
By your words, you have stated your heart, (Mt. 12:34, above) your attitudes toward people who want to put God's word first. This is tantamount to saying that you believe that your thoughts are higher than those of God's. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
Of course, these internet tubes can more often than not bring out a more curmudgeonly edge to our responses - especially on those old controversial horses as "politics" and "religion".
This is probably due to the relative safety and (false) sense of anonymity behind several thousand miles of fiberoptic cables and telephone wires and some servers and routers between the any two or more idiots on one side of an argument or another; whereas meeting in public (at least here in the USA between two Americans brought up more or less under the same standards of civility which have prevailed in our culture over the past 50 years or so)... we would be much less likely to engage in verbal beatdowns, simply for civility's sake. If not that, then for the sake of avoiding a black eye or worse.
So, Ross, please forgive me, if I have wrongly cast aspersions upon you, or made faulty assumptions about you.
However, God does have standards, He is holy, and ought we not to seek to be made perfect (completed) even as He is perfect, just as the Saviour said?
Shall we not seek to be humble, teachable, and willing to let God's word change our deceitful hearts?
As for Matthew 8 - I do pray in my closet, and also with fellow believers in my local New Testament church. But I shall also obey my Lord's command to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2), in order that those who have ears to hear, may hear.
My goal (and yours, too, if you are a believer saved by Christ's blood) should be nothing less than the salvation of souls and the preaching of the Gospel.
Is this not the Christian's main duty in Christ?
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 01:05 PM
"Is this not the Christian's main duty in Christ?"
Depends on how intent you are to have your "christian duty" interpretted as cultural imperialism [by those who've had a college education] or as outright beligerence [by the rest], and in either event responded to by one form of resistance or another -- such as we are seeing in parts of the globe dominated by other dogmas. I.e., my god can beat up your god.
Depends also on how much pertinence you grant to the Reformation, in which christianity became less a religion of literal interpretation and more a religion of spiritual interpretation. I.e., my *drawing of god* is prettier than your drawing of god.
Are we willing to give back all the benefits to mankind derivable from a delineation between aspects of a culture's constructs? namely religion from politics? religion from science? religion from whatever-else?
Those delineations are not seen in, e.g., Greater Islamia. Why not? Because they do not separate religion from ANYthing. Religion IS politics IS science IS culture. What they have, materially, that separates them from 12th century goatherders [a la no-win], is what was imposed upon them by Westerners. Which they, at once, admire and despise. They crave it, but when they get it they call it "cultural imperialism", "Western hegemony", "hegemonic imperialism", "economic imperialism" [the latter being more useful to the socialists among them, fwiw], et cetera. Or just plain old "Crusading". ...which they inspired but, like a 6 year old, can't quite seem to remember in chronological order.
You are talking very much like you are inviting the clash of fatalist eschatologies. If the "duty of christians in Christ" is to veritably browbeat those around him into submission, and the purpose of islam is to spread islam ditto [and it is; there's only a veryvery few, and mostly Western, branches of islamic theological thought which say otherwise], sooner or later all the unwashed heathen with the missionaries boiling in the pot will have been "saved" one way or another, and the only way to recruit is to work on each other.
Well, from a realistic perspective, that day has come -- centuries ago. Among the first heathen the muslims tried converting -- by force -- were Iberian Catholics [and the Jews among 'em], and next were the Byzantine Orthodox [and their Jews ditto]. Which spawned Crusades or, by another name, Standard Tactical Response to a two-prong invasion.
But then an interesting thing happened, and Galileo arrived on the heels of Luther [or vice versa, I can never keep them straight] and together they decided that all the literalist bullshit was keeping us constantly poor and at war, and we could at least become rich if we couldn't completely divest ourselves of bloodlust by relaxing the pious literalism of the prevailing christian religion.
So we now have wars for economic interests rather than needing to save the face of god -- who, if he's omnipotent and all, doesn't need his face saved in the first place.
And you want to go back to that?
.
.
"Is this not the Christian's main duty in Christ?"
No. It is not. The era of the Christian Soldier is gone from all but a fringe christian theology.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 01:46 PM
Seek, as in days of Old, sometimes it is best to shake the dust from your sandals, and proceed to the next village.
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Aye, Templar. But my last parting words to Ross shall be thus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So we now have wars for economic interests rather than needing to save the face of god -- who, if he's omnipotent and all, doesn't need his face saved in the first place".
I can agree with that, Ross... God doesn't need any help from us. But He does command and reward our obedience to Him.
As for browbeating others into submission - I believe that Jesus said to "preach and teach" others (taken from Matthew 28:18-20), not to beat up the heathens and force it down their throats. We also live by example - showing the unsaved how Christ can work through a (spiritually) victorious person in Him.
I can show a man the Word of God and explain it to him, but in the end, he has to want to come to God, and come to that same place any Christian did at the point of realizing he needs Jesus: to realize that he is a sinner without any other hope except Christ.
Christians are called to preach and teach, and not wage physical war to force conversions at sword point: such conversions, for the most part, would not be anywhere near being sincere, but made to hopefully get that swordpoint away from that person's throat.
Science? A good thing, if it is not exalted in and of itself above the knowledge of God. I can accept the evidence of the geological record which holds that the earth is several hundred million years old. I can accept that the stars revolve around a certain center of gravity with the galactic core, as well as accepting that the Earth and the other planets in the solar system are oblate spheroids that revolve around a particular Class G star we call the Sun.
But I hope that I will be wise enough to exalt the Creator of these things, the One who gives knowledge to men to accomplish fantastic and marvelous things - medical knowledge, engineering feats, and understanding of the natural world around us.
Politics? We have a constitutional republic, which may be nearing the end of its lifespan, or at the very least, showing signs of age, and perhaps more importantly, signs of stress fractures caused by systemic abuses at the hands of the few selfish, wicked men and extremely power-drunk elites (on both the right and the left).
We've fared much better than the previous monarchies of Europe, and later, the socialist democracies that replaced most of them, as well as the godless Communism of the USSR, to say nothing of the Islamosphere. Here (for the time being at least) we are free to deny God or accept Him and submit our lives as _living_ sacrifices to please Him. Thus far, our constitutional republic is as good as, if not the best, a form of government mankind can hope to make. However, it too will fail, save only for the influence of godly men to steer her back to God.
In theory, the same could be said for a monarchy with a Christian king, but again, it is only as good as that one king's ability to spur his subjects on to the faith, or his vicegerents. We have the examples of the failed kingdoms of Israel and Judah to counsel us on that. More often than not, such a monarchy failed because of that conversion by sword point, or a moral failure of the king and/or the king's men.
Religion? Religions, for the most part, are constructs we build to attempt to get to God (or some other thing we calue as a god). There is a "true and undefiled religion", but that comes as an outworking of Christ through the believer.
It is not about the rituals of this or that or the keeping even of certain seasons and days, but about the heart of a believer toward God, his brother believers, and the unsaved (lost men who do not know Christ).
"Crusading"? The myth of the Crusades being a thing where gallant knights bravely figthing back the Mohammedan Horde, or even a more earthier picture of an armoured thug clobbering someone with a morning star for refusing Christ neglects that most of the knights and soldiers fighting were mercenaries and other rogues sorts, and many of the nobles were (tenuously) Roman Catholic ... remembering that Rome, and the Holy See at that time had much more concern with temporal rule than serving as a spiritual shepherd of her flock. Most of these guys were less concerned about converting sinners than they were about killing Musselmen and hopefully getting some gold or a scrap of land as a fief (and with it, vassalship)... planting a cross atop some captured minaret was far less a concern than either defending "Christian lands", or hopefully capturing some Turkish land, or a piece of Levant real-estate... any real conversions were an afterthought, and probably (given the conditions they occured under) not likely to be made out of a willing and genuine nature.
I did state earlier (either in this thread or another) that it wouldn't be a half-bad idea to deploy some missionaries and preachers armed with crates of Arabic bibles after the region is (reasonably) pacified.
I am certain that there are a good many folks who are thirsty for the Gospel, and may God open a door for His word there as well, even if it is without the expediency of doing so behind the military.
The preachers and missionaries should be there to share the gospel, win the lost Muslims to Christ, build churches, and restore the infrastructure of that shattered country one village and neighborhood at a time, after it is disarmed by the American armed forces (who are there for political reasons, without reference to salvation of conversion of anyone to any religion).
So then: is my God "better" or "prettier" than someone else's Allah or other interpretation of God?
Judge by the fruit of it - Jesus Himself said the every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and every bad tree, bad fruit.
If the fruits of thier service (or idolatry, as the cases may be) is wickedness, debauchery, carnage, and general misery, then I'll say "Yes, my God is better".
If on the other hand, the fruit is that same "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance..." (Galatians 5:22-23) which Paul preached concerning God's Holy Spirit ar work in the regenerated man - then chances are really good that the other person is walking in a sound faith, even if he happens to believe in a seven-day literal creation or an old-earth creation, or any other minor point of belief that does not otherwise contradict Jesus's rightful place as the King of kings and the only-begotten Son of God.
Such a person I'll welcome as a fellow pilgrim and follower of Christ.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Templar:
All told, I've had a wee bit of enjoyment talking with Ross... he made me think more than I would normally need to than I do with Nowingie or some of the other Libs that lurk around these here parts. :P
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 03:08 PM
So you're saying the US invaded Iraq because they violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire?
Posted by: moldy | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 04:41 PM
So you're saying the US invaded Iraq because they violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire?
Posted by: moldy | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 04:42 PM
So you're saying the US invaded Iraq because they violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire?
Posted by: moldy | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Great discussion - both.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 06:00 PM
I'm only available for comment sporadically...
"So you're saying the US invaded Iraq because they violated the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire?"
Exactly.
That is the justification.
What are the different questions are:
1] what can/could we gain from it, and
2] how do we sell it.
We can gain almost any number of things, from diversionary international politics; to [if we desired] an actual political control over their nation or the resources within; to strategic emancipation of our forces tied to the UN containment; to any of the pre-war self-glorifications that were accused of Bush -- wanted to "finish Daddy's war", "be a war prez", "over-compensation", yadda yadda.
And we can sell it to the general public by any number of means as well. And these are all politics. The most common methods of selling wars to the voters are:
1] appeal to national honor -- "Remember the Alamo/Maine/Lusitania!!"
2] appeal to fear -- white cake ... WMD ... creeping red menace
3] appeal to self-interest -- "a million for defense, not a penny for tribute"
4] and others, including self-preservation.
They are not exclusionary -- they can be doubled up. But most people quibbling about it are confusing what *justifies* war with how war can benefit us.
And because they don't see a benefit [or the perceived benefit hasn't materialized], they equivocate that to "there was no justification".
The US went to great lengths to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Iraq violated the '91 cease fire. Even going so far as to get the UN to document it -- under the auspices of 1441.
Now, we *could have* done just what Congo and Eritrea et al do when they enforce a cease fire: simply claim that the other side broke it without corroboration. And that's perfectly valid in itself. A cease fire does not end a war; it simply calls for a time out. It can be resumed at any point.
But we're the US, not Eritrea. We're more powerful and, at the same time, able to get away with a lot less. Kinda like Brittney Spears. How many tartlets run around panty-less and flashing onlookers at nightclubs? Thousands every night; more on weekends. How many have their pictures plastered all over the internet the next day and have judgmental editorials written about them the nation over?
Just one: Brittney Spears.
How many nations could not enforce a cease fire without corroboration and the world would not react with howls of disapproval?
Just one: the United States.
So we got corroboration of the cease fire violations, and we *still* got howls of disapproval.
...mostly because of the way Bush politicked it. Which was ham-fisted and inarticulate.
Keep in mind that another method of politicking war is to appeal to self-righteousness, which Clinton used for Kosovo, and Bush could very well have used in favor of the Kurds, and which Hollywood is now attempting to use to drum up support for a war to save the poor Fur rebels who start revolutions against Sudan but are losing badly. "Oh, those poor people, being killed and oppressed by their own governments..." mostly for starting wars against those governments. ...be that as it may.
And honestly, in the back of my mind, I believe that if a soft-skulled rationalist Democrat gets elected in '08, were going to find a justification for going to war in Sudan, and the politics behind it will be "oh, poor Darfur".
And that will be no better or worse a foreign policy than invading Iraq. Or bombing the snot out of Serbia. Or anything else.
Posted by: rwilymz | Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 03:11 PM
I am seeking an interested company to dispose USED RAILS SCRAPS, which the Ministry of Transport has allocated to our company to dispose. In Nigeria, transportation by train collapsed for over the past 35 years due to inadequate government funding and poor maintenance, which as a result more than 87% of the Nigerian Locomotives is abandoned not only at yards but also on different railways.
Case got worsened when the Operator of the System declared bankruptcy in 1983, and since then efforts and strategies to rebuild the railways system have been unsuccessful until finally the Ministry of Transportation unanimously approved the disposal of all its USED RAIL SCRAPS in the bid to generate the required revenue to rehabilitate the railways; you can visit the below website for more details:
http://www.photius.com/countries/nigeria/economy/nigeria_economy_railroads.html
However, due to my relationship with the Honorable Minister of Transport here in Nigeria as well as his personal regard to me, he, the Minister therefore gave our company his mandate to source and negotiate the sells of all the Used Rails Scraps, hence I inquire your company's interest to buy.
Commodity: Used Rail Scraps
Quantity: 1,000,000 Metric Tons (M/T)
Price: US$85 per Metric Ton
Terms: F.O.B
Shipment in for 30 to 50,000 Metric Tons/30 days Mother Vessel allowed.
We can be arranging up to 30,000, 50,000 to 150,000 Metric Tons continuously and exclusively until we completely exhaust the stock. If you are interested to purchase the commodity, Feel free to send me an email immediately to confirm your receipt of this email, while trusting to develop genuine and build a strong business partnership with your firm.
Regards,
Mr. Atuko Mohammed
Email:chris_texileltd2@lycos.com or gaslandcompanylimited@yahoo.com
234-01-2600832
234-80-80980342
Posted by: atiku mohammed | Thursday, August 02, 2007 at 01:50 PM