Think Rumsfeld should be fired?

[Ulkieab]

Well if you do think that way then go to this website, John Kerry's website, and sign the petition!! http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php

Lets pressure Bush into firing Rumsfield and doing whats right!

[Nojin]

Signed! Everyone else should too. :)

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Well if you do think that way then go to this website, John Kerry's website, and sign the petition!! http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php

Lets pressure Bush into firing Rumsfield and doing whats right!

:scratch:

Where is the petition to get Bush fired?

:lol:

[Essex]

its in november maullus :)

[Maullus]

Greetings,

its in november maullus :)

Yea, good point. Because there is no way he will be elected if he isn't the best candidate for the position. (/sarcasm.)

Allow me to introduce you to the 2000 election. I'm not normally ashamed of anything, but it does indeed embarass me to admit that I'm originally from the section of the country largely responsible for that...debacle. I don't think south Florida is that stupid, (though I could be wrong), but let's hope they can take their heads out of eachother's ***es long enough to run an election properly this year, mmmk?

[Rath6585]

Allow me to introduce you to the 2000 election. I'm not normally ashamed of anything, but it does indeed embarass me to admit that I'm originally from the section of the country largely responsible for that...debacle. I don't think south Florida is that stupid, (though I could be wrong), but let's hope they can take their heads out of eachother's ***es long enough to run an election properly this year, mmmk?

Now now dont underestimate the power of chads. Those little sobs like to mess with your votes by getting them disquilified then they laugh to themselves as you turn in the slip.

btw... no im not insane, and i also live in florida (central florida that is) but was not old enouhg to legaly vote (was 15) but i can vote now :) .

[Essex]

lol oh I know full too well what went on in 2000. I damn near cried myself to sleep that night, and I was sick at my stomach for weeks.

[PlagueBearer]

I think John Kerry will probably win, and it saddens me. It's like the ads for the new Aliens vs. Predator movie.

"Whoever wins...

...we lose."

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don't follow american politics much - hence, my general absense from political threads. Yet, I don't forsee the ousting of Bush the panacea for america. While many would spurn his ideological approach, I applaud his personal character.

[SaroDarksbane]

lol oh I know full too well what went on in 2000. I damn near cried myself to sleep that night, and I was sick at my stomach for weeks.
Same here, but it only lasted until morning because I went to bed thinking Gore had won. =/

[Graav Wolfsong]

Rumsfeld has to be fired. But even if or when he is fired, he is just a scapegoat.
To throw all the blame on him and fire him then say "Hey, look we solved the problem, nothing like his will ever happen again" simply wouldnt solve anything but theyre probably going to try to get away with that anyway.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sadly enough, he probably is being used as a scapegoat. Such is the viccisitudes of politics. Yet, I'd rather see Bush in office than Kerry.

[Anidem]

Rumsfeld has to be fired. But even if or when he is fired, he is just a scapegoat.
To throw all the blame on him and fire him then say "Hey, look we solved the problem, nothing like his will ever happen again" simply wouldnt solve anything but theyre probably going to try to get away with that anyway.

JOhn Kerry said it best when he said he wanted a new man with a new strategy and policy.

Rumsfeld is in controll of implementing ideas and policy. I seriously doubt that humiliation (If I see torture used again I'll barf. embaressment is hardly torture.) Is written into occupation plan for Iraq. Unfortunatly this kinda crap happens all the time and will always happen in time of war.

Kerry and the Dems are desperate for something to run on and how they keep talking the war down is just sickening. They are just using the whole situation for there gain. And this from a group that cried unfair when bush used 911 in his ads. Hypocrits. you can say that it is ok to oppose the war and argue against it, but to run to the media instead of taking care of it behind closed doors in the capital is childish and embarassing.

Our freedoms are important but to spew like a child regardless of how it affects peoples lives in Iraq is sickening. How many more are gonna die because of the negative propaganda comming fron the left? We shoulda just hit hard once instead of all this PC warfare. Remember how we finished WWII? KaFriggen BOOM! enough pussyfootin around.

[Ulkieab]

Politics is all about scapegoating to try and get the public to think that the problem is gone, and I hope I hope that most people realize this won't be the case.

[Andarcel]

I don't follow american politics much - hence, my general absense from political threads. Yet, I don't forsee the ousting of Bush the panacea for america. While many would spurn his ideological approach, I applaud his personal character.
It's quite clear that you don't follow American politics.

Bush's "character" consists of a total inability to accept responsibility and a profound mental laziness, as well as unlimited personal smearing against anyone who has the nerve to question his policies. He has succeeded in destroying decades of post-Wold War work in foreign policy and more than thirty years of immense effort to create the all-volunteer services and sound environmental progress. In four years, he has squandered the employment rates, low poverty rates, and sound fiscal practice of his predecessor. His budgets are not only filled with glossy campaign photos showing the preseident looking presidential (an unprecedented use of public material for private campaigning) they are nakedly dishonest - as are his promises of growth in employment. He has slashed veteran's benefits, destroyed social security, and embroiled us in a conflict that will bleed America for years without ever achieving its goals.

These are the facts of George W. Bush's presidency. I would prefer Nixon - by far.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Can I safely assume that you see Kerry as a cure, or is it just about voting for the "lesser of the two evils"?

[SoujirouTheTenken]

Thank you Andarcel for explaining that, I would have come by and said it.. but not nearly that good.

But in terms of "lesser of the 2 evils" I would have to say it's not to that yet, but if they keep pointing fingers at each other on TV.. Then I think it will come to that.

~Soujrou~

[Havard]

Throwing my two cents in... I think politics is always about the lesser of two evils, sadly.

But in my opinion, Bush is the lesser evil.

I think he's a good man, but just a fair statesman. Kerry, on the other hand, is someone to whom I cannot relate at all. Bush may have some policies wrong, but at least he has a message. Kerry's intentional vagueness on so many issues seems like a curtain, behind which hide some very liberal politics. He has a more liberal record than Ted Kennedy in the Senate. He's completely playing it down in his campaign promotions, but go ahead and look up his voting record.

Oh, and as far as Rumsfeld is concerned, I'd rather have someone else running the DoD, but I don't support an ousting. If Bush taps someone else in 2004, I might not mind, depending upon who it is.

[Essex]

i'm glad we all ignored anidem's post because really it made no damn sense. Let's see someone do all this to your family and see what you call it. (damn there I went and stoppedt he ignoring)

[Andarcel]

JOhn Kerry said it best when he said he wanted a new man with a new strategy and policy.

Rumsfeld is in controll of implementing ideas and policy. I seriously doubt that humiliation (If I see torture used again I'll barf. embaressment is hardly torture.) Is written into occupation plan for Iraq. Unfortunatly this kinda crap happens all the time and will always happen in time of war.

Kerry and the Dems are desperate for something to run on and how they keep talking the war down is just sickening. They are just using the whole situation for there gain. And this from a group that cried unfair when bush used 911 in his ads. Hypocrits. you can say that it is ok to oppose the war and argue against it, but to run to the media instead of taking care of it behind closed doors in the capital is childish and embarassing.

Our freedoms are important but to spew like a child regardless of how it affects peoples lives in Iraq is sickening. How many more are gonna die because of the negative propaganda comming fron the left? We shoulda just hit hard once instead of all this PC warfare. Remember how we finished WWII? KaFriggen BOOM! enough pussyfootin around.
Since essex broke the chain -

We'll pass over your appalling belief that this inexcusable conduct is inevitable. Let's just skip over the fact that any form of humiliation is torture under the Geneva convention, recognized even by the ****s. No, we'll go on to the meat of the issue.

Back around Nov[ember] an OGA prisoner was brought to IA. They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately 24 hours in the shower in 1B. The next day the medics came in and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake I.V. in his arm and took him away. This OGA was never processed and therefore never had a number.

U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.
The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true."...

..."She was held for about six weeks without charge," the envoy told Wednesday's Evening Standard newspaper. "During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey. A harness was put on her, and an American rode on her back."

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;...

...g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick;

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee...

...a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;...

...g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;... [note: he was told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off, and left for hours. This was one of Saddam's favorites.

...These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

Murder, ****, beatings, dogbites.

If you do not consider this torture, you are, as far as I'm concerned, not a human being. You are animated scum that ought to be put down like a rabid dog. May God, in His grace, find mercy on what passes for your soul, because I frankly couldn't. What a twisted excuse for a conscience.

I view Kerry as an unknown quantity.

[WarrenMoons]

First, I would say there's no reason for Rumsfeld to resign. These were not standard operating procedures or any sort of policy that was in place. These were a few bad soldiers doing horrible things. They will take the fall, not Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has over 25 years of experience in the government, and is increadibly beneficial to this administration.

In reply to Andarcel:

It's quite clear that you don't follow American politics.

Bush's "character" consists of a total inability to accept responsibility and a profound mental laziness, as well as unlimited personal smearing against anyone who has the nerve to question his policies. He has succeeded in destroying decades of post-Wold War work in foreign policy and more than thirty years of immense effort to create the all-volunteer services and sound environmental progress. In four years, he has squandered the employment rates, low poverty rates, and sound fiscal practice of his predecessor. His budgets are not only filled with glossy campaign photos showing the preseident looking presidential (an unprecedented use of public material for private campaigning) they are nakedly dishonest - as are his promises of growth in employment. He has slashed veteran's benefits, destroyed social security, and embroiled us in a conflict that will bleed America for years without ever achieving its goals.

These are the facts of George W. Bush's presidency. I would prefer Nixon - by far.

What exactly do you want him to take responsibility for? I never heard Clinton apologizing for not capturing Osama, or even admitting that he passed up the chance. If you think Bush is stupid, you are so incredibly biased that it is laughable. Do some reading from people close to him, or think about the fact that he was nominated by his party to run for president and you will realize that he's not stupid. I don't know what smearing you are talking about. Bush hasn't run smear adds. Kerry on the other hand attacks people who question his policies by pronouncing that they have not right to "question his patriotism" because he served in Veitnam. And you yourself attacking Bush for smear tactics when you took the first two points of your paragraph to smear Bush.

What are you talking about regarding the post WWII politics? France, Russia and Germany all were getting billions from Saddam. We have 70 countries supporting our actions in Iraq. I don't see a problem not falling in line with people getting kickbacks from Saddam. They already broke the progess we made. Additionally, military re-elistment rates are above what was hoped for. And have you ever heard of Clear Skies? Bush has made some amazing progress in protecting our environment.

On the economy, did you know that unemployment rates were at the exact same level 4 years ago when Clinton ran for re-election as they are today? Maybe you should check your facts before you spout stuff off. Additionally, according to the standard misery index, not the one John Kerry made up a few weeks ago, Bush is doing very well in it. Additionally, the Standard of Living is very high right now. And don't talk about fiscal responsibility. Clinton averaged 8% increases in discressionary spending each year when he was in office. Bush, on the other hand, is around 4%, and this current year has only increased discressionary spending by 1%. That is amazing fiscal responsibility.

If you didn't notice, the economy gained over 500,000 jobs over the past two months. That is simply amazing. And our GDP growth was 4% for the past quarter, higher than any other industrialized country. Bush isn't promising economic gains, he is providing them.

I don't know what you're referring to specifically regarding social security and veterans benefits, but Bush is dedicated to improving both of them. Maybe you should provide more information on that topic. And our actions in Iraq have already made the US safer, which was the goal. But, like all things, that will require dedication to our goals, which is something Bush isn't afraid of committing to.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Personally, I agree with Warren in that the resignation of Rumsfeld would only serve to be a bandaid solution.

[PlagueBearer]

If you do not consider this torture, you are, as far as I'm concerned, not a human being. You are animated scum that ought to be put down like a rabid dog.

There seem to be some inconsistencies in your humanitarian message.

[TheDagdaMor145]

(i wrote quite a long response to warrenmoons, and other political pieces of this thread. but i really dont want to turn this thread into the political candidacy debate thread, so i deleted it. lets keep it on topic guys, we have enough threads where you can post your 'facts' about bush and kerry)


on topic:
at first i wanted to chalk everything up to personal responsibility, and say that rumsfeld wasnt the one doing the torturing. it was the soldiers. it was their responsibility. however, the nagging fact that he knew about the torturings for 5 months now does kind of swing things in the other direction. he could have stopped it if he wanted to. im sure he just felt that he had better things to do, and that it would be covered up.

yes, rumsfeld resigning or being fired would only be a scapegoat. but whatever the case is, we know for sure now that he is more of an *** than we thought previously. therefore, i would support him being fired or resigning.

[Graav Wolfsong]

The thing that really disturbs me is that high ranking officals knew and didnt act on it until it leaked and the **** hit the fan.
And many of the accused soldiers even say they were just carrying out orders.
Are they saying this to save their own behinds or does this go way beyond a dozen sadistic guards?

Rumsfeld even admitted that there were far worse things that happened that have yet to be made official.

There seems to be a notion that this wast just the work of a few maniac guards and that the government cant be blamed for what happened.
Thats just wrong, the responsibility lies on the military and the government.

In any case, no matter what happens, the already tarnished reputation of the US has taken a hard and long lasting beating over this.
The middle eastern population was already angry with the US, how much worse will it get after this?

I mean, the US invade, bomb Saddams regime to pieces while waiving their flags and and singing Hulk Hogans WWF theme 'Real American', telling the Iraqi people they are free and then turn around and do the same things Saddam did to them.
Thats real cute.
It has pretty much destroyed any trust and respect the Iraqi people had in the US.

[Booms]

This is a little off-topic, but since this whole thing is eventually going to turn into a Bush/Kerry thread, I felt that I should recommend this site:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Be forewarned, strong language is used on the site.

But this site kicks total ***.

[Eiger]

For what it's worth, I signed it. Rumsfeld's a boob. He did an exceptionally poor job of planning the Iraq war. He'd be replaced with another one pretty much just like him, though. Gotta get rid of Bush and get some competent people in there. Whether Kerry will do that or not remains to be seen, but he sure can't do worse.

[niteshade6]

Unfortunately this incident makes it pretty clear that we are in more danger now then before we invaded Iraq. Not only did we justify all the bad things terrorist groups said about us, by invading a country with no clear justification behind it, but now we are giving them far worse things to accuse us of. Regardless of weither this is Rumsfeld's fault, this is a horrible thing that will probably spawn another 10 Osamas.

As for the lesser of two evils, that's an unfortunate fact of our political system. Everyone chooses a candidate that is designed not to be too different from the one they are competing against to avoid alientating people. They know most people are sheep and vote a strict party line, and the vast majority of their own party will vote for their candidate no matter what. So they focus on trying to influence the fairly small percentage of people who are more in the middle and actualy think about who they vote for. It's not entirely clear to me if Kerry's policies will be all that different then Bush. However the Bush administration has already shown themselves to be extremely secretive and dishonest, So even if Kerry has the same policies, there is a good chance he will at least be more honest. He'd have to try extremely hard to be less.

[Andarcel]

There seem to be some inconsistencies in your humanitarian message.
Perhaps if I claimed to be humanitarian, there would be. As it is, I invite you to find inconsistency between any two statements.

On to WarrenMoon.

Of course I smeared Bush. I made a number of nasty statements about his character. Of course, that lasted only two sentences, not two paragraphs. The rest was commentary on policy. But my smearing Bush is perfectly appropriate, as is your smearing Kerry. We are not in a debate with them personally over policy; their character is one of the topics under discussion.

Mounting a campaign of charcter assassination against someone for speaking the truth, however, is a diferent matter. If I said that you were paid by the RNC to project these opinions, that would a) be totally impossible to prove or disprove with the information at hand, and b) be an attempt to avoid having ot actually refute your arguments by taking refuge in ad hominem attacks. Instead, you get this massive post. Enjoy.

If you think I said Bush was stupid, you're so incredibly bad at reading it's laughable. I said he was intellectually lazy. The guy sits through briefings directed at him personally for hours and never comes up with a single question? The same attitude that made him a solid C student in college, I'm guessing. He made the minimal effort to get by all his life, and he's taking the same approach to leading our country.

You apparently didn't notice the colorful smear campaign run on, say, a certain former Secretary of the Treasury or a guy by the name of Richard Clarke. That one was really hilarious - htye couldn't decide if they followed every suggestion he made or if he was hopelessly out of the loop. Either way, they definitely distracted everyone from the fact that the substance of his testimony is unrepudiated. Perhaps you also overlooked the Valerie Plume leak? Guess Rush doesn't spend nearly the time on thsoe that he spends complaining about the fact that the liberal media had the nerve to actually print the stories.

What are you talking about regarding the post WWII politics? France, Russia and Germany all were getting billions from Saddam. We have 70 countries supporting our actions in Iraq. I don't see a problem not falling in line with people getting kickbacks from Saddam. They already broke the progess we made. Additionally, military re-elistment rates are above what was hoped for. And have you ever heard of Clear Skies? Bush has made some amazing progress in protecting our environment.

I would like everyone to admire this paragraph for a moment. Let's start with "Clear Skies." It is astonishing to me that anyone could have the gall or the ignorance to claim that this singular triumph for polluting industries could be to Bush's environmental credit. It lowers the standards far below the previous Clean Air act - an act which Nixon as a matter of fact signed into law. This should tell you something about Bush. But with Bush, having any standards on pollution at all appears to be as green as we're getting.

Why should we listen to people whose nations contain companies that traded with Iraq (which is the accurate version of the question, btw). First, because as major trading partners these nations had a vested interest in removing Saddam to dispell the embargo. Second, because we would not be turning to them for moral advice, we would be using the same system that has improved stability and shielded America for fifty years. Instead of pissing off our major trading allies and dropping one country under construction to hare off around the world after a quiescent dictator based on the most manipulated intelligence since the Tomkin Golf resolution, we could have actually respected their interests and opinions. That's what makes alliances work, and it's made the world a safer place. But now, with the US abandoning its effective virtual empire for a real one, we must bear all the burdens alone. The cost is bankrupting our budget, breaking our Army and destroying all traces of a positive image we retained in the Arab world. Welcome to never-ending jihad.

"They already broke the progress we made"? What wingnut ********. WE broke the progress we made with a series of profoundly stupid decisions. We made this bed WarrenMoon, and you can carp on Clinton and France and Germany all you want, but we're the ones with control over Iraq and we're the ones that screwed it up.

How have we made the US safer? What, Saddam's propaganda minister would menace us all with fake weapons programs? Or maybe we're safer now with civilians being beheaded? Or safer with more than 90% of all arabs saying they hate the US? There is no single dimension in which we've become "safer" without Saddam.

Perhaps if Clinton had run for reelection four years ago, I would give some credence to your proposterous claim that unemployment was at the same level. Unfortunately, I happen to know that more Americans have lost their jobs under Bush than any president since Hoover. I can't think of a single more damning economic fact. One month of good job growth is all Bush has to show after being on the job for forty. Wow. It would be astonishing if he DIDN'T manage a good month in that time. I mean, he's already reached the "greatest sustained job loss since the great depression." It's only bad if he manages ot make it worse, I guess.

On promising and delivering - take a long hard look at this chart, and tell me this president delivers anything but empty promises. http://www.jobwatch.org/

Actually, the most striking thing about this economy is the way GDP manages to grow, but unemployment stays level and poverty only increases. It's like Bush found a magic formula for increasing CEO profits without any of it going to the bottom. Oh wait: he did. The tax cuts that are breaking the US treasury have gone to line the pockets of the wealthiest. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I would have you witness the cold hard fact: trickledown theory does not work. We've known this for decades. Unfortunately, Bush prefers ideology to truth, so he hasn't yet caught on. Maybe if he'd thought to ask O'Neill during one of his briefings, "Hey, do tax cuts for the rich actually produce jobs for the poor?" he'd have figured it out.

You know what? I think I will talk about responsible spending. Clinton left the budget with a surplus. Bush turned it into a deficit. Surplus, deficit, surplus, deficit. It's really not a hard call, man. When one is saving money and the other is borrowing like a fourteen-year-old with Dad's credit card, it's not too hard to decide who actually knows how to spend responsibly, now is it? But, in the great Limbaugh tradition, you bring up the irrelevant issue of growth in spending to try and obscure the simple fact: one left us with a surplus, the other is piling on our debt.

You don't anything about veteran's affairs or social security, but you're sure Bush is dedicated to improving both of them. Why? Because he tells you he is. I hate to end your innocence, but politicians lie. Even politicians with politics you happen to like.

So let's take a look at both these topics: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0315/news-anderson.php

Or Social:ecurity:http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/brokenpromises/social_security.html
Bush Promised to Stop Social Security Trust Fund Raid. George W. Bush repeatedly promised that Social Security payroll taxes would not be tapped for general government spending. During the campaign Bush promised, "In my economic plan, more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus is locked away for Social Security. For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it." In March 2001 he said, "Another priority is retirement systems of Americans. And so the budget I set up says that payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one thing, and that's Social Security. But the Congress won't be using the payroll taxes for other programs. Lockbox, I think, is the terminology they like to use up here." (Bush Speech, Rancho Cucamongo Senior Center, "A Defining American Promise," 5/15/00; Bush Remarks at National Newspaper Association 40th Annual Government Affairs Conference, 3/22/01)

Broken
Bush Budget Will Spend the Entire Social Security Trust Fund Over Next Two Years. The Wall Street Journal reported that Bush uses "all the Social Security surpluses ... to fund the government for the next two years, and to spend well over $100 billion of Social Security funds in each of the following three years." (Wall Street Journal, 2/5/02)

Bush Raids Social Security Trust Fund of $1.6 Trillion. A House Budget Committee Democratic staff analysis of the Bush budget proposal found that over the next ten years $1.6 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on other government operations. CBO found that without assuming any new spending — such as homeland security and prescription drug coverage for Medicare — the Social Security Trust Fund would be raided every year through FY 2009. After including Bush's spending proposals, CBO predicted a trust fund raid every year through 2012 and an on-budget deficit of $1.8 trillion. (House Budget Committee, Democratic Staff, "Return to Red Ink: Back to Budget Deficits," 2/8/02; CBO, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2003-2012, 1/31/02, Summary Table 2; CBO, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for 2003, Table 1, 3/6/02)

Bush Was on Track to Breach Social Security Trust Fund Before September 2001. Contrary to Bush and Republican rhetoric that the terrorist attacks of September 11 forced the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund, CBO reported as early as August 2001 that Bush was due to tap the Trust Fund. CBO also said the Bush administration would raid the Trust Fund again in FY 2003 and 2004. USA Today reported, "The White House is backing away from its pledge to protect every cent of Social Security reserves in the face of a report today that the government is tapping Social Security taxes for other programs." (Associated Press, 4/7/02; CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2001; USA Today, 8/28/01)

Note the sources. You can track them all down individually if you like.

On Rumsfeld. He's a civilian fool who refused to listen to competent military advice. He laughed off Shinseki's requests for more troops, and as a result Iraq was looted. Hundreds of thousands of troops necessary? Nonsense! We have only to march in there, and law, order, peace and prosperity will break out all round. You want 2,000 armored Humvees? 200 should be plenty. After all, it's not like we have to worry about roadside ambushes! And it's like the Marine Corps manual on Small Wars specifies that ambushes will be a major problem in any insurgency. And even if it does, there will be no insurgency! Everyone will welcome us with open arms, no matter what all those naysayer Middle East experts say.

There's a reason why senior military staff all loath Rumsfeld. Even Novak, often the shrill for this Administration, has commented on this phenomenon. This guy is HATED by the military. So why not replace him with someone who has a clue or at least will listen to someone who does? You got me. No one here seems to actually have a reason NOT to replace him, unless you count WarrenMoon's "he's been around a while" attempt.

As for the notion that was a few isolated instances: I'd disabuse you, but there's no point. Any major network will do that for me soon enough, if you bother watching. Or you could always listen to Taguba, the general charged with investigating the abuses, when he says they were due to "failures at the highest level." Since he's probably killed his career by saying that, I think he damn well means it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehe.. I must admit, seeing Andarcel manhandle his opponents is one of the more humorous phenomenons on these forums :p.

[Booms]

hehe.. I must admit, seeing Andarcel manhandle his opponents is one of the more humorous phenomenons on these forums :p.

I agree; Andarcel, you're awesome. :clap:

[WarrenMoons]

Don't tout him as "manhandling" anyone just yet. He avoided some of my points and used incorrect "facts" to back up his refutation of my others. I don't have a chance to write a response now, but I will within the next day.

In the meantime, so I don't blast you on this later, maybe you can explain how it's not a problem that France, Germany and others who strongly opposed the war were getting billions of dollars in illigal payoffs from Saddam? And then seperate from that, how about the UN's skimming off the profits from the oil for food program? Both of those things you did not address in that post you made.

[RingoStar]

no nope negative noway uhuh

[TheDagdaMor145]

rgh, once again wrote a long response and deleted it. didnt want to be neck deep in the conversation. but ill summarize it anyways.

those countries had the contracts, and were making money off of iraq.
we wanted the contracts, so we stole them through physical force.
no we give the contracts to whomever we like (oddly, this is mostly haliburton....)

just because those nations had a vested interest in iraq does not make them wrong about one central issue: iraq was not a threat to the world. if iraq was really a threat, then we might have gotten international support. as it is, more of our allies are leaving all the time.

and what the heck does this have to do with rummy?

[Elorion]

You people make me sick... One thing I have always hated about every game forums are all the damn liberals. Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the perdicament in Iraq, and if you believe he did your just another Bush/republican hater.

How you people can like Kerry I dont know. I know you hate Bush, but Kerry is the most selfish lier I have ever seen as a presidential canidate. He contridics himself atleast onces a week and his party ignores it. Hes the most liberal person ever to run for president and Im frankly scared to death to see what he does if he became president. I know you hate Bush, but come on.

After "The Passion of the Christ," I thought everyone might start to realize that there is a silent majority. Conservative and perhaps old school, but if you get them passionate about something, who do you think they would vote for. Kerry has made statement like, I havent seen christians treating thier neighbors they way they want to be treated. Mocking every single one of those people and what they believe in.

How could this man, that is in politics for his own gain, able to win the Democratic ticket? Just because they hate one man. The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush believes in something greater then himself. Kerry just believes in himself.

Why do you hate Bush? I understand alot of it. I know its like he trys to force his beliefs on the country, even though he doesnt seem to relieze it himself. Its basically because hes an old school hard ***. Hes was raised a specific way and does everything that way. He comes off sometimes as a guy that some of us wouldnt like irl, so why have him as your president. But, I think the main reason most liberals dont like him is because hes openly a christian and that he doesnt take any **** from them.

This is the same with Rumsfeld. Hes been in Washington for three decades and as we have seen in his press confrences, he doesnt take any **** from no one. People want a nice guy and a politician as president. Bush really isnt a politician and doesnt really come off as a nice guy. But, in the same curcuimsances, I dont think any democrat could do any better.

Tired of the elite media telling us what to think? Buy a gun and celebrate our rights as Americans... Muhahahahaha.

[Elorion]

Andarcel

HAHAHA, have you been to Iraq or have a clue about what your talking about? Then stfu. Half the stuff you just sad are lies or the oppisite of what really happened. Damn elite media is even on these boards telling us what to think... NOOOOOO :cheesy:

[Essex]

anyone who brings up the passion of the christ in their arguement really realllllly scares me, or is doing a damn good impersination of Cartman from south park.

If you don't think Bush is a politican your crazy, his entire god damn family is in politics for christ sake. He's earned over 100 million dollars for his relection campaing, that's a sign of a damn good politican. You don't raise that kind of money from the common people who were touched by "The Passion"

What happened to his compassionate conservatism? Because I haven't seen a bit of compassion out of this man since he's been in office. All he has done is enact polcies that have almost divded this country in half. We're on the brink of a social civil war and he's the figure head for the conservative side.

I'm all for electing a nice moderte independant canaidate who can appease both sides without losing his dignity but that is never going to happen. So long as we have this two party system that basically pits us against each other i'm going to scream and ***** and moan as loud as I can for my guy because it's not my side (liberals) who are the ones trying to exclude rights from people, it's my side (liberals) who try to enusre that everyone is given a fair shake in life.

So please keep on preaching about the passion because the more you bring religion into these debates the more your gonna be seen as a radical. Unless of course you were talking about the silent majorty who just really enjoy good camera work, and not the religious aspect.

Gah I hope someone else goes and rips your posts apart piece by piece because I'm not very good at that sort of thing, but I'm sure they will.

[Elorion]

anyone who brings up the passion of the christ in their arguement really realllllly scares me, or is doing a damn good impersination of Cartman from south park..

.... I cant help it that you dont have any respect for Jesus, the single most influiential person in the history of mankind.

If you don't think Bush is a politican your crazy, his entire god damn family is in politics for christ sake. He's earned over 100 million dollars for his relection campaing, that's a sign of a damn good politican. You don't raise that kind of money from the common people who were touched by "The Passion"

Maybe I should of refraised it a different way, but let me tell you now what I ment.

Bush doesnt worry about every time someone calls him a lier, or makes some kind of complaint agaisnt him. Many times he doesnt even respond to things that could hurt the way the public see him. This is what I ment by politician. Being a fund raiser is a part of politics, but hes not an Aberham Lincon. Who had nightly radio talks with the people of the US.

What happened to his compassionate conservatism? Because I haven't seen a bit of compassion out of this man since he's been in office. All he has done is enact polcies that have almost divded this country in half. We're on the brink of a social civil war and he's the figure head for the conservative side.

All I have to say is 9/11. The historic speach at ground zero, to the people trying to find all the victoms of 9/11.

I'm all for electing a nice moderte independant canaidate who can appease both sides without losing his dignity but that is never going to happen. So long as we have this two party system that basically pits us against each other i'm going to scream and ***** and moan as loud as I can for my guy because it's not my side (liberals) who are the ones trying to exclude rights from people, it's my side (liberals) who try to enusre that everyone is given a fair shake in life.

Well I respect your oppinion, but since we are stating oppinions let me say a little of whats on my mind. I see the liberals more out to get a job and move up the ladder then actully people that care about issues. They put themselves above the people. (this isnt correct for everyone of course, but in Kerry's case, I cant see around it) In Bushes case I see a man that believes what he is doing is right, and is kinda tunnel vissioned to do what he set his mind to. Atleast Bush is somewhat predictable and believes in something. Kerry just believes in himself.

Fair shake in life...

So please keep on preaching about the passion because the more you bring religion into these debates the more your gonna be seen as a radical. Unless of course you were talking about the silent majorty who just really enjoy good camera work, and not the religious aspect.

Enjoy good camera work.. you are talking for over 100 million people in the US alone. Im sorry but you dont have a clue.

By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
March 15, 2004
"This pushed the 19-day total of "The Passion of the Christ" to $264 million."

Lets assume that your statement that everyone that saw The Passion really werent there because of the camera work. now $264 million dollars. I dont know about you but thats alot of money. Not to mention that, that is of March 15. The movie has still been running and has many more coutrys to go to before its all over.

Now I didnt mean to sound like a radical. I was trying to point out that there are alot of people backing Bush and his ideals. Im sorry you have to view me as something besides another human trying to share my view.

Gah I hope someone else goes and rips your posts apart piece by piece because I'm not very good at that sort of thing, but I'm sure they will.

Want to know what I hope? You prububly couldnt give two ****s. I know many of you are looking through my post just to find things that I wasnt completely clear about or didnt have adaquite backing, but Im going to tell you anyways.

I hope the War in Iraq goes well and the terrorist one day dissapear. That terrorism itself is annialated. I hope that we could all learn to understand eachothers differences, and not to live in the selfish ways so many of us do today.

What will happen? I will get flamed, terrorism will never be distroyed and the War Agaisnt Terror will last for hundred of years.

Instead of reading and taking everything with lideral meaning, try and find the meaning behind what has been writen. If you dont read the bible with this in mind, you cant understand it. This is true with people. Stop thinking about yourself for once, because its not about you.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Elorion ~ You can't seem to accept that Bush is simply inept, it has little to do with his religious upbringing. But while we are on the subject, I just have to know: Do you believe Bush is invading Iraq because he believes God wanted him to? Some do, so I'm curious.

As to the 9/11 speak. Bravo. You are commending a man for his "historic"(bad choice of words on your part) at ground zero in order to show that the man has compassion. Any imbecile could go and say what Bush did, with his words holding just as much meaning. Such a tragic event takes place, a few simple kind words go a long way for anyone. It was hardly special or "historic". I say historic in quotations because his speech will not be remembered. It is not worthy of mention quite simply. This one speech hardly shows him to be compassionate. It was simply the worst and most tragic event ever to take place on U.S. soil, I don't think there was a single american who did not show compassion for those affected by 9/11, so are they all now compassionate people? In theory yes, in practice it means squat. Perhaps one thing was historic about it however, it marked his determination to destroy "terrorism"... terrorism by his definition seems to mean anyone who he feels needs to be killed. It was the beginning of the end of "Good'ol U.S.".

Finally, and quite simply: Religion has no bearing on Bushs ability to run his office. It is pointless to bring it into this discussion. Your assumption that people have a problem with Bush simply because of his religious views are ignorant at best. I love God but still think Bush is completely inept. I am hardly an exception to the rule. Bush is/will destroy our economy, raise unemployement, sever long-standing alliances, and bring down the overall perception the world has of the U.S. The fact that he worships Jesus will never change the fact that he is not fit to be president and will do nothing to help relieve my mind of the other problems he causes.

If you can't see the man is inept, simply look at the history of this war in Iraq. Never before has a man so fully, completely, and incompetently screwed up a "rescue mission". It is extremely difficult to go into a country where the majority of the people want their leader out, you get their leader out, and end up leaving(which we have yet to do) with the VAST majority of that population hating YOU instead. Bush has screwed up this war at so many intervals it is impossible to even keep track anymore.

[Graav Wolfsong]

.... I cant help it that you dont have any respect for Jesus, the single most influiential person in the history of mankind.


Bringing religion in to this subject is completely futile.
It is simply a belief, nothing tangible. For all we know, he could be myth.


Kerry has made statement like, I havent seen christians treating thier neighbors they way they want to be treated. Mocking every single one of those people and what they believe in.


Tell me, do YOU treat others the way you would like to be treated. Yes? So you like having people constantly telling you how sick you make them? How wrong your opinions and beliefs are? Telling you to "stfu" whenever you voice an opinion?
No? you dont? Huh ... maybe Kerry had a point. God forbid he actually hit the nail on the head on that one.
I have yet to meet a Christian who have stayed true to the ten commandments.

I wish I had the self control nescessary to ignore people like you. Youre the living breathing reason I have such negative feelings towards Republicans and Christianity in general.

You Sir, are a simple minded baboon.


I hope the War in Iraq goes well and the terrorist one day dissapear. That terrorism itself is annialated. I hope that we could all learn to understand eachothers differences, and not to live in the selfish ways so many of us do today.

What will happen? I will get flamed, terrorism will never be distroyed and the War Agaisnt Terror will last for hundred of years.


Terrorism will never go away and I do not think the War against terror is something that can be won without opressing a substantial amount of people.
Terrorists is what the big army always call the small army.
As long as there are conflicts in the world the will be terrorists.

[Elorion]

First thing I would like to say is I probubly shouldnt of posted cuz now Ill be defending myself and my statements for a month. Anyhow here we go.

Elorion ~ You can't seem to accept that Bush is simply inept, it has little to do with his religious upbringing. But while we are on the subject, I just have to know: Do you believe Bush is invading Iraq because he believes God wanted him to? Some do, so I'm curious.

I simply dont agree hes inept...
I dont think hes thinks that far ahead. Hes so busy that everytime he makes a desission its not about where he wants to take something. Its about how can I do what I think is right and thats best for the US.

He didnt go to Iraq because he thinks God wanted him to. How can we possible know what God wants. If you truly believe in God then you believe that its Gods plan for "us" the USA to be there, cuz it couldnt be anyway. its fate... whatever. Do to the experiences that God made Bush go through, Bushes ultimate desission was to go to Iraq. Theres not a conspirasy. Its just that simple.

As to the 9/11 speak. Bravo. You are commending a man for his "historic"(bad choice of words on your part) at ground zero in order to show that the man has compassion. Any imbecile could go and say what Bush did, with his words holding just as much meaning. Such a tragic event takes place, a few simple kind words go a long way for anyone. It was hardly special or "historic". I say historic in quotations because his speech will not be remembered. It is not worthy of mention quite simply. This one speech hardly shows him to be compassionate. It was simply the worst and most tragic event ever to take place on U.S. soil, I don't think there was a single american who did not show compassion for those affected by 9/11, so are they all now compassionate people? In theory yes, in practice it means squat. Perhaps one thing was historic about it however, it marked his determination to destroy "terrorism"... terrorism by his definition seems to mean anyone who he feels needs to be killed. It was the beginning of the end of "Good'ol U.S.".

I will never forget him standing there talking with those people.

Finally, and quite simply: Religion has no bearing on Bushs ability to run his office. It is pointless to bring it into this discussion. Your assumption that people have a problem with Bush simply because of his religious views are ignorant at best. I love God but still think Bush is completely inept. I am hardly an exception to the rule. Bush is/will destroy our economy, raise unemployement, sever long-standing alliances, and bring down the overall perception the world has of the U.S. The fact that he worships Jesus will never change the fact that he is not fit to be president and will do nothing to help relieve my mind of the other problems he causes.

People do have a problem with religion. Just the fact that he cut taxes save the economy. And he is the best person for the Job.

If you can't see the man is inept, simply look at the history of this war in Iraq. Never before has a man so fully, completely, and incompetently screwed up a "rescue mission". It is extremely difficult to go into a country where the majority of the people want their leader out, you get their leader out, and end up leaving(which we have yet to do) with the VAST majority of that population hating YOU instead. Bush has screwed up this war at so many intervals it is impossible to even keep track anymore.

First of all they dont hate him. You havent been there so please dont make assumption based on what others have said. Expecially those that havent been there themselves.

The elite media has controll of your points of view... just because they say something doesnt mean its writen on stone.

[Elorion]

Bringing religion in to this subject is completely futile.
It is simply a belief, nothing tangible. For all we know, he could be myth.

HA



Tell me, do YOU treat others the way you would like to be treated. Yes? So you like having people constantly telling you how sick you make them? How wrong your opinions and beliefs are? Telling you to "stfu" whenever you voice an opinion?
No? you dont? Huh ... maybe Kerry had a point. God forbid he actually hit the nail on the head on that one.
I have yet to meet a Christian who have stayed true to the ten commandments.

Nope Im not perfect. But I did predict that someone would try and pick apart everything I said instead of looking for the meaning behind it. When someone is lieing I get pissed off. Im sorry but thats how I am. Not just lieing taking a truth and turing it around the oppisite way causing others to believe a farse. Its sad.

Have you ever read the Bible. It was impossible for the Jews to follow the law that God gave them. Thats why Jesus changed everything forever. Its our Faith that saves us not our accomplishments. The meaning is what you must understand and live by.

I wish I had the self control nescessary to ignore people like you. Youre the living breathing reason I have such negative feelings towards Republicans and Christianity in general.

You Sir, are a simple minded baboon.

I agree with you here my friend. I also wish I had the self control to ignore those that pinch a nerve. But I am not here to call you names and throw out oppions at you to try and hurt your feelings. But thank you for being truthfull cuz you have just proven my statement about people that hate republicans and religion in general.



Terrorism will never go away and I do not think the War against terror is something that can be won without opressing a substantial amount of people.
Terrorists is what the big army always call the small army.
As long as there are conflicts in the world the will be terrorists.

I agree.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I simply dont agree hes inept...
I dont think hes thinks that far ahead. Hes so busy that everytime he makes a desission its not about where he wants to take something. Its about how can I do what I think is right and thats best for the US.

Agreed, to an extent. However when the outcome of your good intentions turn out bad, that would make you inept. You may be doing something good, but it turns out badly... again this makes you inept. You don't plan ahead what you are going to do and simply rush out and do it thereby making mistake after mistake... once again, this makes you inept.

If you truly believe in God then you believe that its Gods plan for "us" the USA to be there, cuz it couldnt be anyway. its fate... whatever. Do to the experiences that God made Bush go through, Bushes ultimate desission was to go to Iraq. Theres not a conspirasy. Its just that simple.

Yes of course, this explains alot actually. Another one of those "humans have no free will, everything is forced by Gods hands". We'll simply have to disagree I suppose because I can hardly agree with that point of view.


I will never forget him standing there talking with those people. Without the use of the internet... would you care to recite to us what he said? Can't do it? A summary? He stood there... I suppose that makes it about as historical as Al in Scarface standing in his mansion with gun in hand saying "Say ello to my lil friend!".


People do have a problem with religion. Just the fact that he cut taxes save the economy. And he is the best person for the Job.

Eh? You lost me.

First of all they dont hate him. You havent been there so please dont make assumption based on what others have said. Expecially those that havent been there themselves.

Personal interviews do not lie. There are "others" who do fabricate information, but it is simply a matter of finding the correct sources. If however you only judge based on others as you stated, where does your info come from that they do not? Lastly, I did not say all. The majority yes, all no.

The elite media has controll of your points of view... just because they say something doesnt mean its writen on stone.

Someone needs to be hit in the head with an irony brick...

No really? You've opened my eyes! Alright now, for one, don't run around making idiotic uninformed statements like this. You have no idea what media if any I listen/read/watch so don't jump to making assumptions simply because my views do not back yours. This one statement alone shows you are out of material with which to argue with. Someone doesn't hold the same view as you so naturally their views must be controlled by the "elite media". Next you'll even be calling me a liberal because I disagree with Bush... then it will get REAL ugly in here. (no offence to my Liberal fellow posters) :lol:

[Graav Wolfsong]

I agree with you here my friend. I also wish I had the self control to ignore those that pinch a nerve. But I am not here to call you names and throw out oppions at you to try and hurt your feelings. But thank you for being truthfull cuz you have just proven my statement about people that hate republicans and religion in general.


You use the word hate quite freely.
Negative feelings and hate are two very different things ... well, they fall in the same category but if I hated something I would say I hated something, not that I had 'negative fellings'. Hate is much to strong an emotion to use to describe things you simply do not agree with.
Do you not fully understand the concept of hate?
I dont hate people like you, I simply dont like you, the opinions you have and your attitude towards people who feel differently.

[niteshade6]

I simply dont agree hes inept...
I dont think hes thinks that far ahead. Hes so busy that everytime he makes a desission its not about where he wants to take something. Its about how can I do what I think is right and thats best for the US.



You do realize that a president who doesn't think ahead is the very definition of inept. I do agree he often tried to do what he thinks it's best for america (when he's not doing what's best for his corporate sponsors). He just doesn't think of the consequences.

I will never forget him standing there talking with those people.

Yep, bush really knew how to milk that for all it was worth. And you say he's not a politician.

People do have a problem with religion. Just the fact that he cut taxes save the economy. And he is the best person for the Job.

Ah yes cutting taxes has worked great so far hasn't it? Cutting taxes is generaly considered a very poor way to boost the economy, especialy if you only do it for the rich.

First of all they dont hate him. You havent been there so please dont make assumption based on what others have said. Expecially those that havent been there themselves.

The elite media has controll of your points of view... just because they say something doesnt mean its writen on stone

Ok then.....so have you been to Iraq since the recent torture photo scandal? I really hope you have, because otherwise your just making stuff up. If it's a choice between trusting the word of people who have been there and report on what they saw, and somebody who blindly refuses to believe them, I know who I will believe.

[Elorion]

Guys I cant make perfect statements. There are going to be things I write that just come out not as clear or more emotional then they should. Im not a professional writer and I dont pretend to be.

Graav Wolfsong Im sorry you dont agree with my usage of hate, but you wont even try to understand what Im have been saying. Its all about defending your point of view.

Agreed, to an extent. However when the outcome of your good intentions turn out bad, that would make you inept. You may be doing something good, but it turns out badly... again this makes you inept. You don't plan ahead what you are going to do and simply rush out and do it thereby making mistake after mistake... once again, this makes you inept.

This is where it becomes a pain to argue, because we arent on the same page. From my experiences of viewing Bush and of others views of Bush I dont think Hes has really made some of the mistakes you believe he has. Some of it has turned out bad, but he is not nessisarily at fault. Hell we are blaming Rumsfeld for something that a few soldiers did. He has never met them or any of the people involved and yet we want to blame someone.

Its about blame its not about Bush being a good president.



Yes of course, this explains alot actually. Another one of those "humans have no free will, everything is forced by Gods hands". We'll simply have to disagree I suppose because I can hardly agree with that point of view.

No we have all the free will there is. its just hard to imagine something so intellegent that can completely understand us and use people for a greater good. Remember if there is a God, he created us... how could he not know everything there was to know about us, expecially if we were made in his image.


Without the use of the internet... would you care to recite to us what he said? Can't do it? A summary? He stood there... I suppose that makes it about as historical as Al in Scarface standing in his mansion with gun in hand saying "Say ello to my lil friend!".

I cant even recite some of the names of my favorite bands. Im just not a guy that remembers that stuff. So that point is better used on someone else.

Personal interviews do not lie. There are "others" who do fabricate information, but it is simply a matter of finding the correct sources. If however you only judge based on others as you stated, where does your info come from that they do not? Lastly, I did not say all. The majority yes, all no.

Then we are looking at two different set of interviews, cuz from what I have heard 80% of Iraq suports us being there as long as we finish the job.


Someone needs to be hit in the head with an irony brick...

No really? You've opened my eyes! Alright now, for one, don't run around making idiotic uninformed statements like this. You have no idea what media if any I listen/read/watch so don't jump to making assumptions simply because my views do not back yours. This one statement alone shows you are out of material with which to argue with. Someone doesn't hold the same view as you so naturally their views must be controlled by the "elite media". Next you'll even be calling me a liberal because I disagree with Bush... then it will get REAL ugly in here.

Hehe, you got me here. I was just being a little sarcastic and silly at the same time. I watch Fox News and had to say something wierd like O'Reilly would say.

You have to admit though... the majority of the media besides Fox is bias against the republican party. Or perhaps conseritives would be better.

[Elorion]

I apologize but this is the last "hate mail"(dislike mail) I can answer before I go to work.

You do realize that a president who doesn't think ahead is the very definition of inept. I do agree he often tried to do what he thinks it's best for america (when he's not doing what's best for his corporate sponsors). He just doesn't think of the consequences.

As far ahead I dont mean he doesnt think ahead as in whats best for the future I mean he cant think ahead because no one knows the possiblities yet. After 9/11 ever single democrate were behind him 100% and they also voted to go to Iraq.

Yep, bush really knew how to milk that for all it was worth. And you say he's not a politician.

At that time Everyone was behind him, Democrates and Republicans alike. If you remember the democratic race, there were so many people bashing him and he never said anything. Thats not like a politician. This is just a single example.

Ah yes cutting taxes has worked great so far hasn't it? Cutting taxes is generaly considered a very poor way to boost the economy, especialy if you only do it for the rich.

Yes it has... the cutting for everyone. I sorry you are jellous of the rich people. The more money they have the more money they can spend so the more jobs thier businesses make.

Ok then.....so have you been to Iraq since the recent torture photo scandal? I really hope you have, because otherwise your just making stuff up. If it's a choice between trusting the word of people who have been there and report on what they saw, and somebody who blindly refuses to believe them, I know who I will believe.

Your really willing to ignore the entire time we have been in Iraq. The whole ordeal is absolutely sickening. Thats one thing we will all agree with. I just hate to see it used for political gain. There has never been a war were war crimes were not committed by both sides. All that I can say is what about the evil they are doing to our troops.

[DeadSquirrel]

HAHAHA, have you been to Iraq or have a clue about what your talking about? Then stfu.
.... I cant help it that you dont have any respect for Jesus, the single most influiential person in the history of mankind.

Let me get this straight....
watching a dozen serious TV channels and newspapers who are publishing present day reports from journalists on the terrain... is being clueless.
Yet you believe the Bible, that's been rewritten over and over by different priests, and translated from a very old language into english, and that talks about things that happened 2000years ago... actually, not 2000 years since it is said that there was an error in the writings.
This "Book" talks of a man who saves all humanity and all animals on earth, by building a boat of his own hands. It talks of a flat earth. It talks of the first humans being Adam and Eve...
of course, it's a much more reliable source then present day journalists huh?

"Were you there in Jerusalem, 2000ish days ago? Do you know what really happened back then? Then stfu."

[Elorion]

Time for one more short one.

Let me get this straight....
watching a dozen serious TV channels and newspapers who are publishing present day reports from journalists on the terrain... is being clueless.
Yet you believe the Bible, that's been rewritten over and over by different priests, and translated from a very old language into english, and that talks about things that happened 2000years ago... actually, not 2000 years since it is said that there was an error in the writings.
This "Book" talks of a man who saves all humanity and all animals on earth, by building a boat of his own hands. It talks of a flat earth. It talks of the first humans being Adam and Eve...
of course, it's a much more reliable source then present day journalists huh?

"Were you there in Jerusalem, 2000ish days ago? Do you know what really happened back then? Then stfu."

As I have said many times, look for the meaning in what is writen. If you truly believe in God, then its not about what has happened to the Bible over the years, its what was allow to happen. And then you take things out of context and state them as if they have completely literal meaning. The reason its so hard to believe in God is because the Bible is writen in such a way, that if you dont read it with a open mind, there is no possible way you can understand what is really being said.

Take the storys of Jesus for example. It was profisized that Jesus would speak in parables so that only those willing to believe would be able to understand. Jesus himself says that he speaks in parables for that reason. Now, you read the old testiment different then you do the new? Why?

Metaphores... storytelling.... come on its the meaning... atleast try and look for it.

[niteshade6]

As far ahead I dont mean he doesnt think ahead as in whats best for the future I mean he cant think ahead because no one knows the possiblities yet. After 9/11 ever single democrate were behind him 100% and they also voted to go to Iraq...

Every single democrat was behind him huh? Did you even read the news? Do you know how many protests there were about the war? It's true that more supported him then then now, but he still had ALOT of opposition. In fact that was the key thing that made people support him, before that he was considered a very unimpressive president. After that he was still considered bad by many, but he actualy had a decent approval rating for awhile.

At that time Everyone was behind him, Democrates and Republicans alike. If you remember the democratic race, there were so many people bashing him and he never said anything. Thats not like a politician. This is just a single example...

What do you mean that's not like a politician? There have been numerous articles written about how the way Bush responded was classic in politics. Almost every president handled that the same way...rather then attacking the people in the race, they let other people do it for them. They wait until a winner is chosen before taking their gloves off.

Yes it has... the cutting for everyone. I sorry you are jellous of the rich people. The more money they have the more money they can spend so the more jobs thier businesses make

haha, now that's funny. First off you assume I'm jealous of rich people, and try to be rude about it. I actualy benefit greatly from Bush's tax plan, and I can assure you that none of the money I save is in anyway helping the economy. Secondly if you actualy followed the economy, you'd realize that companies are using their tax breaks to hire more people overseas thereby not helping our people at all.

Your really willing to ignore the entire time we have been in Iraq. The whole ordeal is absolutely sickening. Thats one thing we will all agree with. I just hate to see it used for political gain. There has never been a war were war crimes were not committed by both sides. All that I can say is what about the evil they are doing to our troops

How does any of this have anything to do with people's opinions of us over there? Have you decided your opinion was uninformed, so you completely changed the subject?

I will agree it's unfortunate to see it used for political gain, although nowhere nearly as unfortunate as how Bush used the tragedy of 9/11 for politcal gain. But once again, none of this answers the question of weither you've been to Iraq recently since your telling us that none of us should talk about it unless we have been there

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

This is where it becomes a pain to argue, because we arent on the same page. From my experiences of viewing Bush and of others views of Bush I dont think Hes has really made some of the mistakes you believe he has. Some of it has turned out bad, but he is not nessisarily at fault. Hell we are blaming Rumsfeld for something that a few soldiers did. He has never met them or any of the people involved and yet we want to blame someone.

Its about blame its not about Bush being a good president.

Alot of it has turned out bad, most as a direct result of Bushs orders, how can he not be at fault? When we ran into Iraq, Bush blindly thought that the Iraqi police force would continue "business as usual", and thereby there would be no jump in crime... come on... Bush expected these guys to just continue their jobs while bombs are falling and troops are looking for armed Iraqis to kill? He did not choose to have our troops take over the policing immediately allowing for massive wakes of looting and other crimes. That kind of blind idiocy that Bush has shown is just one small example i can give of his continuing ineptitude. This is the fault of Bush, he made the decision, and it was a very bad decision. He is directly at fault for his own orders. If he makes an order which turns out bad, then obviously he will be blamed for it. Decisions are what you use to gauge how good or bad a president is, so one who continually makes bad decisions would be...

Then we are looking at two different set of interviews, cuz from what I have heard 80% of Iraq suports us being there as long as we finish the job.

Links? I can provide links all day long to my information if needed. I have yet to see any semi-recent poll showing U.S. support in the majority. Not that I am doubting you, I truly would like to see a poll showing otherwise.

[Elorion]

Sorry nite this is the last chance I have to post before work. Ill be on later tonight or tomarrow.

Every single democrat was behind him huh? Did you even read the news? Do you know how many protests there were about the war? It's true that more supported him then then now, but he still had ALOT of opposition. In fact that was the key thing that made people support him, before that he was considered a very unimpressive president. After that he was still considered bad by many, but he actualy had a decent approval rating for awhile.

Im sorry I just dont agree or believe half the stuff you are saying is true.

What do you mean that's not like a politician? There have been numerous articles written about how the way Bush responded was classic in politics. Almost every president handled that the same way...rather then attacking the people in the race, they let other people do it for them. They wait until a winner is chosen before taking their gloves off.

Ok I was going an example... the best, probubly not, but it was off the top of my head. He just doesnt play the politician as well as many would like. And when he does he critisized for it. Just mindless Bush bashing if you ask me.

haha, now that's funny. First off you assume I'm jealous of rich people, and try to be rude about it. I actualy benefit greatly from Bush's tax plan, and I can assure you that none of the money I save is in anyway helping the economy. Secondly if you actualy followed the economy, you'd realize that companies are using their tax breaks to hire more people overseas thereby not helping our people at all.

Sarcasm... sorry I didnt make it more clear. Your assurence sounds more like a persuasive lie to me. Just look at the numbers... Of course your not looking at the numbers I am, and if you saw um you would say they arent the real ones.

How does any of this have anything to do with people's opinions of us over there? Have you decided your opinion was uninformed, so you completely changed the subject?

Just look for the meaning. I think about this one Im going to stop replying to oppioned flaming.

I will agree it's unfortunate to see it used for political gain, although nowhere nearly as unfortunate as how Bush used the tragedy of 9/11 for politcal gain. But once again, none of this answers the question of weither you've been to Iraq recently since your telling us that none of us should talk about it unless we have been there

Thats sick... next youll be saying Bush was behind 9/11. Dont assume everythings for political gain.

If none of us should talk about it then tell your friends to not bring it up as an arguement.

[niteshade6]

"Im sorry I just dont agree or believe half the stuff you are saying is true."

And of course you give no justification for why. What were you living under a rock during the massive anti-war protests?

"Ok I was going an example... the best, probubly not, but it was off the top of my head. He just doesnt play the politician as well as many would like. And when he does he critisized for it. Just mindless Bush bashing if you ask me."

Yes you gave a bad example. You have yet to give a good one. I'd say your the one who is being mindless. Back up your arguments if you want to use them.

"Sarcasm... sorry I didnt make it more clear. Your assurence sounds more like a persuasive lie to me. Just look at the numbers... Of course your not looking at the numbers I am, and if you saw um you would say they arent the real ones."

Now your accusing me of lying, but not giving any justification for why. Ok so what are these so called numbers I should be looking at? I'm the one backing up my arguments with facts, but yet you accuse me of making things up?

"Just look for the meaning. I think about this one Im going to stop replying to oppioned flaming."

Oh of course there was a meaning, your just not going to bother telling me what it was. You were just trying to change the subject, and now your embarassed that I caught you so your avoiding addressing the subject.

"Thats sick... next youll be saying Bush was behind 9/11. Dont assume everythings for political gain."

So it's not sick when you accuse the democrats from using Iraqi torture for politcal gain, but it is sick when I accuse Bush of doing the same with 9/11? Once again you don't justify your statements, you just avoid the topic.

"If none of us should talk about it then tell your friends to not bring it up as an arguement"

Since when did I say none of us should talk about it? You were the one who said that nobody should talk about Iraq unless they have been there. But then you started talking about Iraq without actualy having been there. Are you even paying attention?

[Booms]

Sarcasm... sorry I didnt make it more clear. Your assurence sounds more like a persuasive lie to me. Just look at the numbers... Of course your not looking at the numbers I am, and if you saw um you would say they arent the real ones.

Bush Administration Projects Economic Improvements, Then Backs Away from Data
During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." However, the New York Times recently uncovered a White House report indicating that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down.
Sources: MSNBC Transcript, Feb. 8; The New York Times

Are we looking at the same numbers? Because the ones that I have don't seem to be very good. Also notice how Bush is trying to reclassify jobs to change around some numbers.

Hmmm, now that we've looked at the Economy, lets look at education!

Ever heard of the "No Child Left Behind" Act? It was supposed to give all children in America the education that they deserve. But guess what? Bush decided to cut funding for the program. I mean, really, who really cares about the future generations anyways? In 2004, NCLB was underfunded by $9.7 billion. If you would like more information about Bush in general, I point you in the direction of this: The Truth (http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/budgetvsreality.pdf). Yes, it is a democratic publication, but the numbers are real. And how much of a liberal slant can you put on a number anyways?

Bush also doesn't seem to care about the fact that we only have one Earth. Now, you may not care that in the next few hundred years we're going to be ****ed, but I'm sure that many people actually do care. "The Bush energy plan is increasingly reliant on fossil fuels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1337248.stm), Clean air rules are being relaxed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34334-2003Aug22&notFound=true), Land contaminated with PCBs (which are known carcinogens) may now be sold to developers before cleaning occurs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat_x.htm), Automakers may continue to build less efficient vehicles thanks to a loophole recently renewed by Bush (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000056.php)" and more. The quoted text is taken direction from Here (http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/), but that doesn't make it any less true.

I don't want to delve into Iraq right now, but I think that you're the only person whose heard that the arab population of the Middle East likes us. Last I heard 90% didn't like us...I'll try to find a link for you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Urg.. What an ugly thread... Elorion, stop trying to save the world. A mature Christian doesn't claim to preach the Gospel while telling his detractors to "STFU". Furthermore, your detractors were correct in that bringing religion into this particular topic - especially at your less than elementary knowledge - was counter productive.

To his detractors - we've had many mature discussions about religion before. To dismiss it as "myth", makes you sound just as foolish as your opponent. The correct approach would be to seek out the matter in earnest.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I know I'm bringing this thread even more off topic with this but I cant resist. :)

I assume you are refering to my "For all we know, he could be myth" comment.

Would you care to explain how that makes me sound foolish?

As far as I'm concerned, the story of Jesus is simply a legend, as is pretty much all the stories in the Bible and other holy books about encounters with Godly beings.
Legends are often based on an actual event and blown way out of proportions. To believe that these events transpired as told in the Bible requires a certain amount of blind faith wich I find myself unable to have.
I did not say anyone who believes religious stories like that are stupid or anything, I just mentioned that I do not believe in it.
And unless someone shows me proof that this actually happened I will never believe in it, so called 'proof' of the existence of Jesus is sketchy at best and proof that he was the son of God with amazing supernatural powers will never come, simply because it never happened.
Sidenote: That goes for all religions touting adherence to 'the one true god'.

From where I'm standing, the stories of Jesus in the Bible are about as plausible as the ancient northern belief that thunder was caused by an angry Tor hitting the clouds with his hammer.

So like I said, as far as I know it could all be myth.
In case you find such a statement offensive I will not apologize as that is my opinion and I stand by it.

[niteshade6]

I have to agree with Age on this one, if you believe he is a myth that's your decision, but flaunting that does not make for a mature discusion on religion. Realize that atheism like anything is a belief system, and things always get out of hand when one belief system attacks the beliefs of another. I realize that I probably sound overly PC here, and that you were somewhat provoked by Elorion who is far more guilty then you of flaunting his belief system in a non religious discussion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I know I'm bringing this thread even more off topic with this but I cant resist. :)
I assume you are refering to my "For all we know, he could be myth" comment.


Hello Gravvy, you assumed correctly.


Would you care to explain how that makes me sound foolish?


Indeed. I see your sweeping statement as lacking the necessary clout to give it the substance your tone indicates. To call something a myth is to label it heresay, or a story that may or may not have sufficient grounding. You'd be well advised to look at some evidence that would raise the Gospel above mere myth. I'll reply in kind with the remainder of your post.


As far as I'm concerned, the story of Jesus is simply a legend, as is pretty much all the stories in the Bible and other holy books about encounters with Godly beings.


Legend - as like "robin hood"? Througout scripture, if you care to read it, you would see an underpinning of historical events and people. Your reference to "Godly beings" is also laughable, as the Bible text speaks of our encounter with God, not a "Godly being".


Legends are often based on an actual event and blown way out of proportions.


How was this event blown out of proportion?


To believe that these events transpired as told in the Bible requires a certain amount of blind faith wich I find myself unable to have.


"Blind" faith isn't faith in anything. Faith must have some sort of content for it to be "faith in" something. I don't believe anyone could have "blind faith" in anything.


I did not say anyone who believes religious stories like that are stupid or anything, I just mentioned that I do not believe in it.


Sure you have. What you have stated was that Christianity was a myth, because your less than elementary understanding of it did not conform to your own thinking. On a side note, a seemingly foolish message transformed and crafted the last 2000 years of history. I have yet to see norse mythology do that. This is not a story, it is a reality.


And unless someone shows me proof that this actually happened I will never believe in it,


Oh, so now these lofty truths must conform to your understanding?


so called 'proof' of the existence of Jesus is sketchy at best and proof that he was the son of God with amazing supernatural powers will never come, simply because it never happened.


Another sweeping and notably foolish statement. Others are convinced. Why not you? Are they fools? What are "supernatural powers"? Could it be that your own preconceptions block you from enlightenment?


Sidenote: That goes for all religions touting adherence to 'the one true god'.


Where did their religion come from? Why is it different from polytheistic or pantheistic models we see in most other cultures?


From where I'm standing, the stories of Jesus in the Bible are about as plausible as the ancient northern belief that thunder was caused by an angry Tor hitting the clouds with his hammer.


LOL... Did a group of 12 norsemen with an incomprehensible and foolish (not to mention unpopular) redefine history and culture? No. The Gospel was spread by the power of God.


So like I said, as far as I know it could all be myth.


I don't pretend to "Prove" the existence of God, but I would say that the evidence for Christ makes a far greater case than your unfounded skepticism.


In case you find such a statement offensive I will not apologize as that is my opinion and I stand by it.

Don't worry, you're not that powerful. I don't see how anyone could offend me by cynicism. Truth stands on its own, and does not require my approval.

[Elorion]

Man you guys had some fun... :surprise:

Im not going to go through all your post and defend anything any longer. Its all good. Even if I did take the time to, what would be the point... I cant persuade you of anything. But, even though you dont believe in God, there is a reason we had this little discussion. What did you guys get out of it? I dont know. But, it made me realize and reinforce some of my beliefs. I thank you.

Is this a big deal, nope. Just helped me get through one more day.

I hope no one took any offence to anything I said. I didnt mean anything personal by any of it. I will not take offence to anything you said either.

Night guys. Got to paint a house tomarrow... Fun :P

[Booms]

Man you guys had some fun... :surprise:

Im not going to go through all your post and defend anything any longer. Its all good. Even if I did take the time to, what would be the point... I cant persuade you of anything. But, even though you dont believe in God, there is a reason we had this little discussion. What did you guys get out of it? I dont know. But, it made me realize and reinforce some of my beliefs. I thank you.

Is this a big deal, nope. Just helped me get through one more day.

I hope no one took any offence to anything I said. I didnt mean anything personal by any of it. I will not take offence to anything you said either.

Night guys. Got to paint a house tomarrow... Fun :P

Oh come one...you totally left my comment without a response! Argh, all that typing for nothing. Well, I guess I'll just have to re-post it when another Bush thread comes along.

[Essex]

AoA this is more a question than a comment. I know you have your faith and that's great, but Gravv's point of "a one true god" made me think.

I think what he was refering too was not the idea of monothesim, but the christian (and other religion's view point) that their religion is the only right one and everyone else is going to be punished in some way.

So my question to you is how do you resolve the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God? Do you feel that anyone who follows those three religions are ok but anyone else is going to go to hell? That's what is curious to me considering how closely related those three religions are.

Many people's major problem (and mine too) with christanity or other religions who do the "one true god" thing is that it is so strict and doesn't allow for the fact that other religions exsist in the world.

Anyway, you may have already answered a question similar and i just didn't catch it. And sorry for taking this off topic but clearly its already there lol

[AgeOfAbnegation]

but the christian (and other religion's view point) that their religion is the only right one and everyone else is going to be punished in some way.


Essex, whenever you bring up Christianity, there seems to be this reoccuring theme of punishment and fatalism. Where did this notion come from?


So my question to you is how do you resolve the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God?


I'd say this is a strengh, more than a weakness. It points to the fact that "something happened" of monumental significance. Of the 3, there were obviously different interpretations of the dynamics of how our glorious God relates with humanity. As to settling on the "correct" interpretation, that we can discuss later.


Do you feel that anyone who follows those three religions are ok but anyone else is going to go to hell?


Again, what is the root of this fear?


Many people's major problem (and mine too) with christanity or other religions who do the "one true god" thing is that it is so strict and doesn't allow for the fact that other religions exsist in the world.


That is hardly the case. Try taking the emphasis off the outward appearance and structure of "religion", and putting in on one's "inward disposition" to God and others. There are thousands of religions and belief structures.. with adherents of various persuasion. What of the inner person though?

[Graav Wolfsong]

I may be way off here, but I think Essex's 'fear' comes from stuff like the rapture and things like that. How many times in the bible does it mention how the believers will be saved while others will suffer eternal torment? How many times does the bible speak of a vengeful God that will strike all manner of people down?
As a homosexual person the judgements of Christianity naturally leaves a bitter taste, would it not for you?

Now, your comment on my 'less than elementary' understanding of Christianity: I come from a Christian family, church every Sunday and all that, I even suffered through some Sunday school as a child, and I assure you, all the points youve brought up I've heard thousands of times since I chose to renounce Christianity.

So I find myself unable to believe that there is a God watching us and that things happen as God intends it to, that it is all a part of Gods master plan.
I believe there is no God, no creator God, we are alone. How can there be a benevolent all powerful God with all the misery and horror in the world? What kind of God would allow religion, 'his will and word' be spread by the tip of a sword?
IF there is a God, he either abandoned us long ago, or he is a sick twisted sadistical bastard I would be more inclined to fight than worship.

Religious people are free to believe what they will, but when they preach 'the word of God' and even claim that they are doing 'Gods will' I WILL speak up.
How many times in the past have we seen the maniacs that genuinely believe they are doing Gods will and use that as an excuse to commit all sorts of atrocoties?
Religion in general invites hate and prejudice and brings conflict, pain and death. It has spilled so much blood and done more damage than it will ever do good and we would all be much better off without it.

LOL... Did a group of 12 norsemen with an incomprehensible and foolish (not to mention unpopular) redefine history and culture? No. The Gospel was spread by the power of God.

"The Gospel was spread by the power of God" ?
It is not the power of God, it is the power of suggestion.
Did it ever occur to you that these people once believed as strongly in their religion as you do in Christianity? Pretty much same thing goes for Greek mythology. That religion was certainly spread by the 'power' of their Gods as well.
Hell they might even have still believed it if Christianity had not been brought to the 'savages' by the sword.
Your feelings toward these old religions is pretty much the same feeling I have for religion now.


I also know that discussing religion with people set in their beliefs will take us nowhere, as it is all subjective opinion depending on how you interpret things.
It doesnt take much in the way of intelligence to realize you find my refusal to believe and my 'sweeping, foolish' statements as ridiculous as I find your belief and your equally sweeping foolish statements.
It will inevitably degrade in to a shouting match going something like this: "There is no God!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Youre dumb" "Well youre dumber" "Youre dumber times infinity" "Well youre dumber times infinity plus one" and if we were standing face to face one would eventually take a swing at the other and we would have nosebleeds all around.
Catch my drift?

I will consider myself done with this subject as a religious discussion that started like this is almost as futile as bringing 'the will of God' into a discussion of war, torture and the firing of a government official.

[TheDagdaMor145]

did you know that in the last 12 posts there has not been one mention of rumsfeld at all? and that mention was only to quote someone else, and the post did not talk about rummy at all? you have to go back another 5 posts before that to see one that a person actually talks about rumsfeld.

just thought i would point that out. :uhhuh:

so what do you guys think about him visiting iraq? is that insulting or a good idea?

[Graav Wolfsong]

I think he probably has a death wish.
"Hey! I know what would be fun! Lets run into the Lions den and see how many take a swipe at me!". :lol:

[Essex]

yeah graav pretty much pointed it out with my constant mentioning of hell. Everything I enjoy in life and most of the people I like, if the bible is accurate, is going to be punished. I'm from the south and there's a reason why Fire and Brimestone go hand and hand with Rocky Top :) so all my life that's been drilled into my head, not by my family thank goodness, but through all the other religious people I've known. I stopped going to church by the time I was in highschool, but that was still a long time of hearing the same thing about going to hell and yadda yadda yadda.

So yeah I have a major problem with the concept of hell and total, eternal, punishment for something I don't even belevie in. Of course I don't belive in it so I don't really care, but a lot of people do and they always defend the love part of the faith, they never mention it's evil cousin, the hell part. Maybe I was just preached a different version of christianity (the southern baptist version) than you got. either way it's turned me sour and I'm not going back.

Still AoA you never did answer me (least not that i could tell lol you always do speak in riddle and high philosphy so I do tend to get lost) do you figure that Muslims and Jews would go to heaven if the "christans" were right. Or vice versa, if the Muslims were right would the other two go in?

Basically AoA I just don't like people preaching the loving forgiveing side of Christanity when they always gloss over the bad part, which is hell. Since Rev Phelps keeps telling me I'm going to go to hell I like to bring it up just as a counter to the lovey dovey part lol.

I like the Islmaic idea of hell, it's not an eternal punishment, you sever a type of jail setence and when you have paid your pennence you get to heaven just like everyone else.

Any way. I heard Rummy was in Iraq, maybe it would have been a good idea for him to go back in janurary back when this was all first reported. I do wonder how long it will be before the graphic pictures are released, I do think that it would silence these peopl who claim that this wasn't torture. (Apprently there is a video of them killing someone I may have heard the news wrong though)

[niteshade6]

The sad thing is that this served to reinforce Elorin's beliefs. We showed him evidence after evidence that he was wrong, none of which we ever able to refute. We also succesfuly shot down and took apart everything he said. At the end he was reduced to lying about how he was looking at imaginary numbers and calling well known facts lies without backing it up. And he calls the bush detractors close minded and set in their ways.

[Eiger]

This has turned into a religious thread? Wow...

[Essex]

sorry Eiger that is partly my fault. AoA if you would just pm your reply that way we don't keep this dragging on.

[Booms]

This has turned into a religious thread? Wow...

(Mentioning of Bush + Christianity) + (Atheist) + (AoA) = Religious Thread

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I may be way off here, but I think Essex's 'fear' comes from stuff like the rapture and things like that. How many times in the bible does it mention how the believers will be saved while others will suffer eternal torment?


Many times. Let's be frank.


How many times does the bible speak of a vengeful God that will strike all manner of people down?


This requires more extrapolation. Many times indeed, scripture presents, and indeed verbatim states, that God is not a "vengeful God". The old testament is fully understood in the new. Humanity's understanding evolves in each age.


As a homosexual person the judgements of Christianity naturally leaves a bitter taste, would it not for you?


No. I have a handful of homosexual friends who are staunch followers of Christ. They may be a misunderstood minority, but they've encountered the living Christ, not just a set of laws and rituals. This is what Essex needs to understand - move beyond the box of "systems".


Now, your comment on my 'less than elementary' understanding of Christianity: I come from a Christian family, church every Sunday and all that, I even suffered through some Sunday school as a child, and I assure you, all the points youve brought up I've heard thousands of times since I chose to renounce Christianity.


It don't mean shyt. Ironically, most atheists and agnostics come from Christian homes who nurture a textbook explainiation instead of a prayer life. Scripture says it plainly "many will call me Lord, Lord, but Jesus will say - I never knew you". Your "head" understanding means little.


So I find myself unable to believe that there is a God watching us and that things happen as God intends it to, that it is all a part of Gods master plan.


I also find it hard to believe that a God who created us would just sit back and watch. This was why I called your understanding elementary.


I believe there is no God, no creator God, we are alone. How can there be a benevolent all powerful God with all the misery and horror in the world?


As is the case with most (if not all) atheists, it comes down to a matter of the heart. We need to be loved. I asked the same questions you did. However, I was willing to suffer to discover the truth. How bad do you want it?


What kind of God would allow religion, 'his will and word' be spread by the tip of a sword?


The crusades were not of God. Not everything happens "according to plan". We have our free will. Many say that religion is corrupt - but we as human beings may choose to do things our way, or God's way. This includes the clergy.


IF there is a God, he either abandoned us long ago, or he is a sick twisted sadistical bastard I would be more inclined to fight than worship.


Good to be honest with yourself. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but the key is in the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ.


Religious people are free to believe what they will, but when they preach 'the word of God' and even claim that they are doing 'Gods will' I WILL speak up.


Indeed, your detractor's posting pissed me off more than you did. It's all about the depth of one's walk. When I first came to believe, I wanted to change the world. Yet, God wants "wholeness", as well as "holiness".


How many times in the past have we seen the maniacs that genuinely believe they are doing Gods will and use that as an excuse to commit all sorts of atrocoties?


Indeed, alot of nuts out there - heck, we have people cutting off heads who claim to be "God's hand". Indeed, scripture says "some will kill you, and claim to do my will". The problematic must be approached from all angles. But what it comes down to is relationship with God, and from that we get, with time, a holisitic understanding of our place in existence.


Religion in general invites hate and prejudice and brings conflict, pain and death.


I'd qualify that by adding "Gravv's understand of" as a prefix.


It has spilled so much blood and done more damage than it will ever do good and we would all be much better off without it.


How about easnestly seeking the answers and reading between the lines. Life isn't a puzzle to be solved, but a mystery to be lived. Blood will spill regardless. Writing it off because of poor choices on those who labeled themselves "christians" is inherently problematic. That merely demonstrates cynicism, not critical thinking.


"The Gospel was spread by the power of God" ?
It is not the power of God, it is the power of suggestion.
Did it ever occur to you that these people once believed as strongly in their religion as you do in Christianity? Pretty much same thing goes for Greek mythology. That religion was certainly spread by the 'power' of their Gods as well.


Sure, it's possible to be fanatically loyal to any belief system. What's salient in this case is the longevity of the message, and its method of dispersion. This is where we take the inquiry to the next level, examining the underpinnings of belief as such, and behavioral patterns, and of course, the stability of the message. In reference to the power of their Gods, please make a case for this.


Hell they might even have still believed it if Christianity had not been brought to the 'savages' by the sword.


So they gave up their previous beliefs because of the sword? What underlying power is this? If they converted out of fear, they did not convert because of experiencing Christ's love.


I also know that discussing religion with people set in their beliefs will take us nowhere, as it is all subjective opinion depending on how you interpret things.


That's entirely up to you. Why continue the discussion if this is futile?


It doesnt take much in the way of intelligence to realize you find my refusal to believe and my 'sweeping, foolish' statements as ridiculous as I find your belief and your equally sweeping foolish statements.


What are these sweeping, foolish statements?


It will inevitably degrade in to a shouting match going something like this: "There is no God!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Youre dumb" "Well youre dumber" "Youre dumber times infinity" "Well youre dumber times infinity plus one" and if we were standing face to face one would eventually take a swing at the other and we would have nosebleeds all around.
Catch my drift?


No, I dont catch it. If a conversation ensues of that tone, I will not reciprocate.


I will consider myself done with this subject as a religious discussion that started like this is almost as futile as bringing 'the will of God' into a discussion of war, torture and the firing of a government official.

Well if you're done, there's not much more that can be said. However, I best not see you posting your opinions on a religious thread - ever again.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

(Mentioning of Bush + Christianity) + (Atheist) + (AoA) = Religious Thread
LOL too funny :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

yeah graav pretty much pointed it out with my constant mentioning of hell. Everything I enjoy in life and most of the people I like, if the bible is accurate, is going to be punished.


In my experience of reading your posts over the last few months, this fixation with hell has been your predominant critique of Christianity. I'll offer you a scripture to chew on - "those who do not believe are condemned already". How does that make you feel? It's more a state of being than anything else. Ask yourself "what do I enjoy in life, what makes it enjoyable, and why do I seek enjoyment?" Sounds like simple questions, but a good place to start. Christianity is not against anything, it is only for something.


I'm from the south and there's a reason why Fire and Brimestone go hand and hand with Rocky Top :) so all my life that's been drilled into my head, not by my family thank goodness, but through all the other religious people I've known. I stopped going to church by the time I was in highschool, but that was still a long time of hearing the same thing about going to hell and yadda yadda yadda.


Well I guess that in part answers my previous question. I suppose in the south, especially your town as you mentioned earlier, it is very much a part of the culture, so it's easy to see all in terms of an "us and them" camp mentality. There are many denominations of Christianity - which one is the complete expression?


So yeah I have a major problem with the concept of hell and total, eternal, punishment for something I don't even belevie in.


The term "belief" could be better defined. From the ancient texts, belief was more akin to a state of being, or a position in regard to something. Also, your reference to "punishment" is not native to the Christian faith. Nobody can live up to God's expectations. There is no punishment - but rather an acceptance or rejection of Christ's truth and love - which will result in one's eternal positioning of being.


Of course I don't belive in it so I don't really care,


Yes, you most certainly care. Your position, and reactions in the forums, are strong.


but a lot of people do and they always defend the love part of the faith, they never mention it's evil cousin, the hell part.


Rather, hell is the lack of an existence of love. They are not two positive parts, as we see in zoroastarianism for instance. It is what is, and a lack thereof.


Maybe I was just preached a different version of christianity (the southern baptist version) than you got. either way it's turned me sour and I'm not going back.


Will you be willing to forget what you've learned, and take a fresh start?


Still AoA you never did answer me (least not that i could tell lol you always do speak in riddle and high philosphy so I do tend to get lost) do you figure that Muslims and Jews would go to heaven if the "christans" were right. Or vice versa, if the Muslims were right would the other two go in?


What you've said here would make assent to a certain system of doctrines a prerequisite for a state of eternal fulfillment. Is that what it's about? I'd say its more about trusting in someone. The text is merely a guide. You're looking to test the waters before jumping in. Forget the labels. I can't fortell the future. You need to know that everything will be ok before taking a step. Sometimes, you just have to dive in and take your chances. If I sound confusing, it's to slow you down and get you to reflect more on the text.


Basically AoA I just don't like people preaching the loving forgiveing side of Christanity when they always gloss over the bad part, which is hell. Since Rev Phelps keeps telling me I'm going to go to hell I like to bring it up just as a counter to the lovey dovey part lol.


I don't know who this Phelps guy is, but I can't make that call. In truth, my own placement there is only assured if I persevere.


I like the Islmaic idea of hell, it's not an eternal punishment, you sever a type of jail setence and when you have paid your pennence you get to heaven just like everyone else.


See, it's not about punishment for deeds. It's about relationship. Deeds merely are expressive of where you are as a person in relation to love, to God. So, all the punishment in the world would not be enough to change one's heart to the love of God. It's a state of being, that grows in this world, and is set in stone when you leave time and space.

As a note to the "religious thread" thing, I actually didn't start this one lol.. But I suppose that if it was brought up, I should make my contributions.

[Havard]

AoA, even if I don't agree with 100% of what you said, you amaze me. Now I know why I joined your guild.

[SaroDarksbane]

As a homosexual person the judgements of Christianity naturally leaves a bitter taste
I just wanted to chime in and say that I am a Christian, and I'm not convinced that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible. Or perhaps more appropriately, it's not considered a sin.

And I want to join AoA's guild too. I'm 100% sure WoW will be in my possession when it comes out. :clap:

[Havard]

Great, SaroDarksbane! "I Linte Macil", or ILM for short, is the guild AoA started.

Please take a look at the threads in ILM's forum, and if you're interested in the guild, introduce yourself on the thread entitled "ILM main thread/AoA's crow's nest."

If you have any questions, feel free to ask and any of the guild's leaders will be happy to help you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Saro - you're right that "homosexuality" per se is not condemned - a person is what he or she is. Yet, it's the living out of sodomy that is sinful - just as fornication is sinful. The reason for this is the replacement of God with a relationship dynamic that serves to fulfill one's needs outside of an ordered relationship. All sin can be understood in relation to the God-self-humanity dynamic.

As for Joining ILM, certainly. Please keep in mind though that we are an exclusive guild. This means, we do not allow dual membership with other guilds. So, if you're already in a guild, you would have to relinquish affiliation with them to wear I Linte Macil's tabard.
On a side note, ILM welcomes any who would abide by the charter - and we don't discuss religion ;).
***Ok, back to "off-topic" discussion, before "guild talk" gets deleted! :bow: ***

[Havard]

Regarding the homosexuality/sin issue, I just want to add that Christianity doesn't preach a "strict liability" standard. In other words, the act of the sin isn't judged without the surrounding circumstances: the motives of the sinner, the hardship of the temptation accompanying the sin, etc.

Christianity teaches that you have a duty to persevere, not to be perfect. In fact, Christianity teaches that you can't be perfect.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

True - context factors in totally. To qualify that last statement, our perfection resides in Christ alone.

[SaroDarksbane]

Yet, it's the living out of sodomy that is sinful
I'm not even certain of that, really.

Male-Male sex was prohibited in Leviticus not because it was sinful, but because it was forbidden in the culture. It's also listed among other prohibited things like rounding the edges of your beard. Is shaving your beard really sinful? of course not.

The purpose of the passage was not to comdemn these things as "immoral", it was to establish a rule base to prevent Israel from identifying with the surrounding unbelievers. For instance, the Egyptians rounded their beards, so the Israelites were forbidden to. The Caananites practiced Male-Male sex during fertility rituals, so that was forbidden too.

Much like Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, the point of such is rule is not about whether eating meat on Fridays is a sin, the point is that to eat meat on Fridays, you are implying that you are not a Catholic.

Same for male-male sex. (And as an interesting twist, the Bible never says anything about Female-Female sex, so I suppose that's "in" anyways, right? :D)

Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject. Feel free to comment/criticize.

[Havard]

Homosexuality is addressed in the Bible, and not just with respect to custom. Romans 1:24-27 speaks in detail about the immorality of giving in to homosexual desires.

"Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error."
(this is the Douay-Rheims translation)

Secondly, sodomy is contrary to the Christian view of natural law. It willfully closes the sexual act to the possibility of life. Sodomy does not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

[SaroDarksbane]

So then you're also against oral sex between spouses?

[Havard]

So then you're also against oral sex between spouses?

If your goal is sexually gratify anyone (yourself included) without being open to the possibility of procreation, then it would appear that you are going against the spirit of the Gospel, in that you are using your body to satisfy your own material desires.

[niteshade6]

Hmmm....if that's the case then wouldn't anything pleasurable to the body be sinful? That would include eating a rich chocolate cake, getting a backrub, or even taking aspirin to relieve a headache.

For that matter wouldn't playing a computer game also be giving in to material desires?

[SaroDarksbane]

Furthermore, sitting here and writing up this extremely sarcastic post makes me happy.

Next time, I promise to stab myself with rusty nails while I'm posting. Surely, such devotion would make God happy? I mean, obviously he made sex pleasurable to entrap us. He's so tricksy sometimes . . .

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove that sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin. Good luck, because I don't think it's in the Bible. Ever read Solomon's Song of Songs? Pretty racy for someone who, according to you, should be having sex joylessly.

Furthermore,
If your goal is sexually gratify anyone (yourself included) without being open to the possibility of procreation, then it would appear that you are going against the spirit of the Gospel, in that you are using your body to satisfy your own material desires.
If I sexually gratify my wife, I'm satisfying my own material desires?

o_O

EDIT:

An interesting link. (http://www.themarriagebed.com/whatisokay.shtml)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Saro and Niteshade reduced it to a technicality. These things are principles. There are many doctrines not written directly in scripture verbatim that are clearly seen when its pieces are put together - such as the "Holy Trinity" for instance. Augustine said "Love God and do what you want". As Havard correctly pointed out, relationships must be ordered to their respective ends - which in terms of spousal union - means being open to new life. In terms of sex, it's futile to get into technical details. Sex is electric and amazing with someone you truly love - even if you're just doing is missionary style. Fornicators see that position as boring, and experiment with everything under the sun - lotions, dildos, positions, roleplaying, etc in an attempt to make things more interesting. In truth, they are merely trying to emulate the sex of true love, and failing miserably. It's all about receiving God's love. Anything less than that will be seen in terms of technicalities, which, as scripture said "were foolishness to the Greeks". This true spousal love is only made possible if each is open to the love of God - who is their full sustainer. Now, to stem the tide of naysayers who will squeal "my gf/ b/f love each other, bla bla bla" - there are degrees of love. Sometimes it uses, other times, it gives. In the end though, we will use our loved ones to one degree or another, if we're not getting the primordial love that God has to offer us. When this is received, we can then "give" in the fullest manner.

[Essex]

damn that guy for bringing up the passion of the christ! look at what happens! I wish Rummy would read this get a shock to his system.

Ok lemme see I read a ton I can't really remember all of it so I'll try to answer what I can.

AoA for Phelps just do a yahoo or google search it won't take long. Umm ok lemme think..

Ok for me its almost to the point where I can't be a christian I'll tell you why. For one I really don't think all of the things that happened in the bible old and new testement happened. I don't think christ was the son of god I don't think he did any miracles, he may have been a relaxed and groovy guy who wanted everyone to get along but I don't think he was divine. Nor do I think there is a god who guided the jews to the promise land nor do I think there is a god who sent Gabriel to speak to Mohammad.

Secondly I couldn't be a christian because when I see people (no one here mind you) who are always pushing their religion, with the jesus fish on their car, and the wwjd bracelets, and this whole culture of religion it sickens me. Faith should be something personal you shouldn't wear it on your clothes and talk non-stop about it. You should not say grace over your big mac at McDonalds. Now I don't know about where you are AoA but there is a dominate culture of religion in the south where its not just a faith but almost a lifestyle.

Thirdly if I was to become a christian then I would have to accept the fact that what I do (although I haven't done anything in months... *grumble* is wrong. I don't think it is, in fact I really rather like it lol. Now i'll leave it to you guys to debate what is sin and what isn't because I honestly haven't looked at the bible except to find a good quote for my book. I'm also not capable of being one of those *** men who are so wrapped up in their faith that they just never have sex (because they feel its a sin)

I guess you could say I'm a headonist, or at least a watered down aesthetic so I can't really accept a life like your willing to accept AoA. Eh well I do thank you for your very frank answers and always keeping thing out of a "burn in hell" mentality. Because that is the response i'm use in religious debates I get into around here.

[Havard]

Furthermore, sitting here and writing up this extremely sarcastic post makes me happy.

Next time, I promise to stab myself with rusty nails while I'm posting. Surely, such devotion would make God happy? I mean, obviously he made sex pleasurable to entrap us. He's so tricksy sometimes . . .

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove that sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin. Good luck, because I don't think it's in the Bible. Ever read Solomon's Song of Songs? Pretty racy for someone who, according to you, should be having sex joylessly.

Furthermore,

If I sexually gratify my wife, I'm satisfying my own material desires?

o_O

EDIT:

An interesting link. (http://www.themarriagebed.com/whatisokay.shtml)

I never said anything about sex needing to be "joyless." IMO, few things could be more joyful than sex.

A large part of the message of Scripture is to live joyfully, but enjoying material pleasures can be done in many ways. For example, many people have a healthy attitude towards food. They can enjoy it for sure, but the primary purpose is to nourish, so they overeat only on occasion. Then take gluttons. Nourishment is an afterthought to them... they eat because it brings them pleasure. Strangely, I would argue that the person who has the healthy attitude experiences more joy in totality.

To the second part of your post, just because the object of sexual gratification is your spouse doesn't mean it's ok. What if you gave your spouse obscene amounts of money, or food, or catered to her vanity? Is it any better that you do it "in the name of love?"

[Essex]

our culture already does that with food don't you watch the news all they show are these strange shots of people walking along the side walk with huge stomachs.

If I ever see my stomach or *** on tv like that someone is getting so sued.

[Havard]

our culture already does that with food don't you watch the news all they show are these strange shots of people walking along the side walk with huge stomachs.

If I ever see my stomach or *** on tv like that someone is getting so sued.

If you mean cooking shows, the primary purpose is to give people new recipes, not to fulfill sensual fantasies. However, if you spend a lot of time watching shows and never plan on cooking... you may have a problem :lol:

[niteshade6]

Well I think it's sort of evading the question to say we are reducing it to a technicality. I mean certainly if the argument is that sex for pleasure is bad because it's giving in to worldly desires, then any time you give in to worldly desires it's equaly bad. And certainly there is perhaps some truth to that, I mean when you spend money and time on say a backrub or eating a piece of cake or playing WoW, that's money and time you could have spent on a greater good. But of course very few of us are moral paragons. You haven't really given any biblical justification for why say having oral sex with your wife would be any worse then any other activity done purely for pleasure.

[SaroDarksbane]

Saro and Niteshade reduced it to a technicality.
Reduced what to technicality?
These things are principles.
What things?
There are many doctrines not written directly in scripture verbatim that are clearly seen when its pieces are put together - such as the "Holy Trinity" for instance.
I'm not sure how to interpret this, because you didn't make clear what the subject was. -_-

If you're talking about oral sex, you might as well provide those scriptures now that form the "whole picture".
In terms of sex, it's futile to get into technical details. Sex is electric and amazing with someone you truly love - even if you're just doing is missionary style.
Looking to the future (21 year-old virgin here, woot), I would agree. However, that doesn't imply that other positions are wrong, or only for fornicators, or that sex is only to be used for procreation, and such.
In truth, they are merely trying to emulate the sex of true love, and failing miserably.
So missionary is the only sex of "true love"? :lol:

EDIT:
Is it any better that you do it "in the name of love?"
First, you'd have to prove that having sex regularly is wrong, which is what this is all about in the first place . . .

[Eiger]

Sex is electric and amazing with someone you truly love - even if you're just doing is missionary style. Fornicators see that position as boring, and experiment with everything under the sun - lotions, dildos, positions, roleplaying, etc in an attempt to make things more interesting. In truth, they are merely trying to emulate the sex of true love, and failing miserably. It's all about receiving God's love. Anything less than that will be seen in terms of technicalities, which, as scripture said "were foolishness to the Greeks". This true spousal love is only made possible if each is open to the love of God - who is their full sustainer. Now, to stem the tide of naysayers who will squeal "my gf/ b/f love each other, bla bla bla" - there are degrees of love. Sometimes it uses, other times, it gives. In the end though, we will use our loved ones to one degree or another, if we're not getting the primordial love that God has to offer us. When this is received, we can then "give" in the fullest manner.
That's your opinion. If that works for you, that's fine. However, I profoundly disagree with the concept that true spousal love is only made possible if each are open to the love of God. If religion's your thing and you and your spouse are both into that then sure, that could be one of many things which enhance your love for each other and by extension your sex life.

However, I'd surmise that there are many factors which go into a successful relationship and when it comes to love and great sex it's the ability to communicate with one another about your needs and desires, whether or not each partner is able/willing to experiment with the other's needs and desires - and to do so without judgment and negative feedback. Moreover, some couples have a sexual connection and some don't. You can truly love someone and have no sexual connection whatsoever for a variety of reasons. There are plenty of couples out there who share a love of God and who stifle each other in the sack and end up divorced.

As for sex toys, different positions, and whatnot - whatever works for the both of you is the way to go. Any activity needs some variety to keep it interesting and sex is no different. Just like riding a bike - if you do the exact same ride every day, it's a drag - no matter how much you like that route or your riding partner. Trying a different route with some hills will give you a new perspective on that old tried and true route and make it come alive in a different way.

[Sweetpea]

hmm, sounds like some guys around here are kinda prudish. :yawn: i'll bet they don't shave their legs. might want to think about it! :idea:

[Havard]

Quote:
Is it any better that you do it "in the name of love?"

First, you'd have to prove that having sex regularly is wrong, which is what this is all about in the first place . . .

Neither AoA nor I made the assertion that having sex regularly is wrong.

Regarding sex without the possibility of procreation, you are not going to find
a specific prohibition, but then, condoms didn't exist then.

It is apparent by other prohibitions (sodomy, masturbation, fornication) that scripture approves of one form of sex and not another. Couple these prohibitions with the many passages on the union of man and woman and you have quite a body of scripture that reinforces the precept that the procreative aspect is fundamental to moral sex.

Now, you could ignore all of this because "oral sex" or "condoms" weren't mentioned in the Bible, but that would be intellectually dishonest. The teaching is on a category of behavior, and they both fall into that category.

[niteshade6]

It is apparent by other prohibitions (sodomy, masturbation, fornication) that scripture approves of one form of sex and not another. Couple these prohibitions with the many passages on the union of man and woman and you have quite a body of scripture that reinforces the precept that the procreative aspect is fundamental to moral sex.


Hmm....I'd like to comment more on this, but I must admit I find myself ignorant on the particular passages in the bible. Would you be able to point my attention to them? Preferably in the new testement since it's often difficult to seperate cultural things from religious things in the old testement.

What exactly is the official definition of fornication by the way?

[Essex]

that all sounds very cultural to me but I'm not going to argue. However if you go by everything the bible said slavery would be ok so would revenge killings. I mean why is it that most christians seem to pick the things they like from the bible to adhere too and just disregard the rest? Christians disregard the stuff about being cosher but lock on to Levitcus's part about men lying with men.

Plus I wouldn't mind one bit if you hold these believes if christians didn't make up so much of the governmental policy. We should allow teenagers to have condoms because they are going to have sex no matter what you say, but God says condoms are wrong so kids get pregnaunt or stds.

God says gays are wrong so lets deny them marraige. I'm sure God would say a lot of things about a lot of the modern worlds problems but he's went strangely slilent the last 2000 years. convient.

So we're stuck with the outdated view of society that so many people adhere to that everyone is punished (or controlled or whatever) by it.

The reason I'm so stuck on hell (I don't think I said this) is because so many people are convinced I'm going there. That's why I harp on it all the time because that's what Falwell and the like harp on. Ugh anyway I don't see how have sex is a bad thing. It is fun for both people, most of the time it is harmless.

There's nothing wrong with toys, or new postions, or hell multipe people involved. It's just our Puritan brothers who have put this taboo view on it and everyone is effected by it. For every sob story of someone who feels hollow after that kind of sexual adventure there are many many more people who enjoy it for what it is.

I swear sex and religion are the two things in the world that piss people off the most, and yet they are so intertwined it's pathetic. Why did God have to stick his nose into our sex lives? Doesn't he have a universe to run.

Most of this post was made in jest/non-serious mood so please don't pick it apart AoA.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, this is what I get for a 12 hour workday - a list of posts to reply to. I'll go down the line, but don't have time for my usual "pick apart" style. looks my "traditional foes" have popped up, nothing like a little controversy :lol:

Ok for me its almost to the point where I can't be a christian I'll tell you why.


Rather, I'll tell you why. Simply put, to truly believe, one needs the "infusion of the holy spirit". Belief in the Lord is not a natural disposition. Your continuing theme of "doing what's wrong" is only a natural predisposition of your human nature. If you have a problem with this concept of "wrong", plz don't complain of the "atrocities" in the world. Christianity is not a belief system in its truest sense, it is "becoming a new creation".

[Essex]

so then the holy spirt hasn't picked me?

Damnit it's just like P.E. all over again always picked last.

:)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well I think it's sort of evading the question to say we are reducing it to a technicality.


No, that is exactly what you have done. What I meant by technicality is the understanding of the Christian faith. It's not rules and regulations. Rather, the "rules" we see in scripture will be a natural side effect of recieving the Holy Spirit. I suppose I could have used a better example, as the sex thing has caused a firestorm. The essential point is - sin is essentially an activity (or lack thereof) that can serve to emulate God. Recreational sex is one of these activities. But make no mistake, sex is meant for pleasure. What you and the others react against is the ordering of relationships. This is certainly understandable, as if you have no knowledge of objective ordering, you would not see relationships in terms of order and disorder.


You haven't really given any biblical justification for why say having oral sex with your wife would be any worse then any other activity done purely for pleasure.

I did however state that there were alot of things gleaned from the scriptures that are not "verbatim". I'm sure that we can do more with a sacred text than simply repeat it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Saro, I see you have adapted my Socratic questioning style, but there must be form to accompany the function.


Reduced what to technicality?


Refer to my reply to Nightshade.


What things?


Umm.. try reading my post? This is what I mean. Read your posts better.
Morality is a principle, not a technicality.


I'm not sure how to interpret this, because you didn't make clear what the subject was. -_-


Reread my posts. I for one take time to write what I do.


If you're talking about oral sex, you might as well provide those scriptures now that form the "whole picture".


Galatians, chapter 5 for some groundwork. Then "impurity" must be defined. A good text that can extrapolate this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church - it's in the index.


Looking to the future (21 year-old virgin here, woot), I would agree. However, that doesn't imply that other positions are wrong, or only for fornicators, or that sex is only to be used for procreation, and such.


LOL - you missed my point entirely. Must I lead my readers by the hand? I used it as an example. If you love someone, the missionary position should be more stimulating than what you'd see in porn. Other positions are fine - you see? You're getting technical about something that's merely an example.



First, you'd have to prove that having sex regularly is wrong, which is what this is all about in the first place . . .

Well you made a whole lot out of nothing. Couples should have regular sex. I preach natural law in the other threads - God made sex what it is, and it is to relax and be as a unitive activity. The only problematic I addressed was the ordering of relationships.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's your opinion. If that works for you, that's fine.


Wether it "works for me" or not is irrelevant. I am addressing the Christian position, which you are free to disagree with.


However, I profoundly disagree with the concept that true spousal love is only made possible if each are open to the love of God.

I also mentioned in earlier posts that there is "degrees of love". I used to sell audio cables - most of my customers thought they were getting quality sound out of their cheap lampwire cable - till they tried our stuff. It's like that with love - you think you know its limits - but you'll never know it fully outside God.


If religion's your thing and you and your spouse are both into that then sure, that could be one of many things which enhance your love for each other and by extension your sex life.
Where does this language of "my thing, your thing" come from?

[QUOTE]
However, I'd surmise that there are many factors which go into a successful relationship and when it comes to love and great sex it's the ability to communicate with one another about your needs and desires, whether or not each partner is able/willing to experiment with the other's needs and desires - and to do so without judgment and negative feedback.


Most certainly.


Moreover, some couples have a sexual connection and some don't. You can truly love someone and have no sexual connection whatsoever for a variety of reasons.


This is also true - I know a girl who is a wonderful friend to me, yet I feel no sexual attraction.


There are plenty of couples out there who share a love of God and who stifle each other in the sack and end up divorced.



Than it is up to the couple to seek healing in the matter. I don't know about you, but I'd NEVER date a girl who I wasn't physically attracted to.


As for sex toys, different positions, and whatnot - whatever works for the both of you is the way to go. Any activity needs some variety to keep it interesting and sex is no different. Just like riding a bike - if you do the exact same ride every day, it's a drag - no matter how much you like that route or your riding partner. Trying a different route with some hills will give you a new perspective on that old tried and true route and make it come alive in a different way.

As I remarked earlier, I'm not discounting the plethora of positions. What I am discounting is attempting to use dildos, and experimentation to SUBSTITUTE for the love in a relationship. Tell you one thing, I've been somewhat promiscuous in earlier years, and to those I don't care about, it can be dry and mechanical. Yet, when I was with someone I loved, even being within 3 feet of that person gave me euphoria.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hmm, sounds like some guys around here are kinda prudish. :yawn: i'll bet they don't shave their legs. might want to think about it! :idea:

Call it what you will, but the way I live my life now brings me much more fulfillment than the way it was before. I've got a good 9 years on you, and I hope the next 9 years of your life will be as enlightening.

[Havard]

Essex: you changed your avatar!

Niteshade:

1) "Official definition?", there isn't one official Christian body to make official definitions, but you are free to use the official definition of any denomination. Here is one:

"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman."

2) As far as New Testament passages are concerned, check out these: Romans 1:16-32, Romans 8 (all of it), 1 Corinthians 6:9-18, and Ephesians 5:3.

[Essex]

i should say that parts of that post was joking, but a lot of it was true, the christians picking what they follow from the old testatment and what not I meant

[AgeOfAbnegation]

that all sounds very cultural to me but I'm not going to argue. However if you go by everything the bible said slavery would be ok so would revenge killings.


This is where things can get fun. I'm glad you brought up the culture aspect. Would you agree that you see reality through the culture you grew from? If you're fond of reference to scripture, you may wish to read the text fully, not just single out references that anger your own persona. The old testament is seen in light of the new. Humanity evolves over time, and God deals with humanity in the state it is in. "guidelines", not "laws".


I mean why is it that most christians seem to pick the things they like from the bible to adhere too and just disregard the rest? Christians disregard the stuff about being cosher but lock on to Levitcus's part about men lying with men.


Who are "most christians"? I don't know of this collective. I can only be mindful of my own position, and help others as I am able. What the rest of the world chooses to do is outside my influence.


Plus I wouldn't mind one bit if you hold these believes if christians didn't make up so much of the governmental policy. We should allow teenagers to have condoms because they are going to have sex no matter what you say, but God says condoms are wrong so kids get pregnaunt or stds.


"traditional" laws were wrought from a people who were raised with christianity. These norms are changing, as post-modernism has taken hold. Sometimes I think it would be neat to see what would happen over the next few centuries to humanity if this trend coninues unabated. There will always be problems Essex. The key is personal fulfillment - not social structires. Indeed, the individual creates culture.


God says gays are wrong so lets deny them marraige. I'm sure God would say a lot of things about a lot of the modern worlds problems but he's went strangely slilent the last 2000 years. convient.


Gays are wrong? I think I mentioned before to you and GB (which GB agreed with) that "***" is merely a self induced label on the continuum of preferential desire. If God is silent, is it God? Or your lack of hearing?


So we're stuck with the outdated view of society that so many people adhere to that everyone is punished (or controlled or whatever) by it.


What is the new-dated view?


The reason I'm so stuck on hell (I don't think I said this) is because so many people are convinced I'm going there.


Well I'm not convinced till I have proof you're actually there. I sincerely hope that you find some good friends who can help you see God's love - once you see that, you will return it.


That's why I harp on it all the time because that's what Falwell and the like harp on. Ugh anyway I don't see how have sex is a bad thing. It is fun for both people, most of the time it is harmless.


Sex is most fun in a spousal union, as I made the case for earlier. Sex today is dangerous. I've been to the clinic more than a few times, worried about this or that after an encounter. Even in steady relationships, it's just about fulfilling needs. For those of you who are active with your b/f or g/f, try taking sex out of it, and see how harmonious things get? Even if your personalities are well disposed to each other, something's got to give. God has a plan, and we're most happy if we coincide with it.


There's nothing wrong with toys, or new postions, or hell multipe people involved. It's just our Puritan brothers who have put this taboo view on it and everyone is effected by it. For every sob story of someone who feels hollow after that kind of sexual adventure there are many many more people who enjoy it for what it is.


Sure, these provide some relaxation and pleasure - I've used oils and experimented. But there's real love, and synthetic love. Take your pick.


I swear sex and religion are the two things in the world that piss people off the most, and yet they are so intertwined it's pathetic. Why did God have to stick his nose into our sex lives? Doesn't he have a universe to run.


Why did he create it to begin with. If you deny God, you lean on something else. What will happen when that security dissipates. You've mentioned how you sobbed for hours after bidding goodbye to your Taiwaneze B/F. Is there not a void that needs to be filled? As was the case with ancient Israel, they only repented when things got bad - like being attacked by the amalekites, or some plage, W/E. Sometimes, that's what it takes. Will that be what it takes in your life?


Most of this post was made in jest/non-serious mood so please don't pick it apart AoA.

LOL sry Essex, after I started replying, I just got dragged into it :p.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

so then the holy spirt hasn't picked me?

Damnit it's just like P.E. all over again always picked last.

:)

This may be your time - and the same goes for the rest of you readers. In time and space, things happen in progression, and as the parable of the workers in the field suggests, some come to knowledge of the truth early, some in mid years, and others at their last hours. Now you have an opportunity to hear the message. I hope you don't disregard it.

[Essex]

trust me my boyfriend leaving is the last thing that will turn me to God. I blame the fact he had to leave on "most christians"

Let me clairfy some things... I don't mean you when I refer to most christians. In fact I probably don't mean of you people when I say that. What I mean is the typical christian your average one you pick out of a random crowd, or better yet the ones that most right wing politicans pander too. I don't know who they are but they sure do seem to have a very strong voice in this country do they not?

So no the void in my life would not be filled with God. I doubt that if I went to some church meeting and told them why I'm upset they'd really understand or be able to help, unless converting, or trying to get me in an ex-*** group is help which trust me it isn't.

Again AoA in everything I've ever stated I'm not really talking about you, you seem to be beyond the things that "most christians" are stuck on. You can actually hear someone talk about a different view without throwing a bible at them.

Granted you throw a two ton philosphy book at them, but at least it's a new book lol

[Havard]

So no the void in my life would not be filled with God. I doubt that if I went to some church meeting and told them why I'm upset they'd really understand or be able to help, unless converting, or trying to get me in an ex-*** group is help which trust me it isn't.


I've messed up quite a bit, friend. So have most Christians. I highly doubt that there is a problem that no Christian can relate to.

[Essex]

yes but my problem would be that they wouldn't suggest "oh just call each other when possible" or "use MSN it's cheaper than the phone and you can use a webcam to see each other" or "use a credit card with FF miles and try to see each other once every six months"

no they would tell me that my relationship was an abomination and I don't quite find that appealing.

EDIT: in fact I find most Christians always do have an answer it may be the same answer over and over again to every problem but finding a christian who keeps his mouth shut is quite an acomplishment. (I'm not talking about anyone on here I'm talking about the people I know here in my tiny southern town)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

trust me my boyfriend leaving is the last thing that will turn me to God. I blame the fact he had to leave on "most christians"


Well, people do one of two things when they encounter loss to the extent that they feel helpless - they turn to God in humility, or the shake their fist. You choose to do that latter, but trust me, you're not going anywhere. You will relive the same hardships time and again. Take stock of your life, and start asking the big questions - live the big questions.


Let me clairfy some things... I don't mean you when I refer to most christians. In fact I probably don't mean of you people when I say that. What I mean is the typical christian your average one you pick out of a random crowd, or better yet the ones that most right wing politicans pander too. I don't know who they are but they sure do seem to have a very strong voice in this country do they not?


Well to be honest, many people who label themselves Christians are fakes, or have a superficial understanding, with next to no prayer life. Indeed, they piss me off, but I am not to judge where they're at in life. They may have more in them than I realize.


So no the void in my life would not be filled with God. I doubt that if I went to some church meeting and told them why I'm upset they'd really understand or be able to help, unless converting, or trying to get me in an ex-*** group is help which trust me it isn't.


churches can be tough - thats why I hope you'll somehow find people who you can relate with - and that may involve leaving your town. But if there is one thing you could do, you could swallow pride and just start reading scripture, and focusing on the "good stuff" for a bit. Then look at the dynamic between what you see as good, and the stuff u hate. Play with it - and try asking God in humility to come into your life.


Again AoA in everything I've ever stated I'm not really talking about you, you seem to be beyond the things that "most christians" are stuck on. You can actually hear someone talk about a different view without throwing a bible at them.


Ok then, I hope at least that my small part in your life will encourage you to move beyond the negativity that you've picked up - I'd be the same way if I were in your shoes, as would anyone. One thing I've learned in life is you can't really depend on others to do your work for you - you've got to bite the bullet and do it yourself. I hope you take up the challenge.

[Havard]

no they would tell me that my relationship was an abomination and I don't quite find that appealing.


If Christians did condemn you in your time of pain, that would be wrong. But you'll never know unless you talk to someone. Right now you are expressing doubts, but what if they turn out to be wrong? You could meet some intolerant boobs or you could meet some awesome people.

AoA: Umm... are you the reincarnation of Aquinas? You are a machine.

[Essex]

trust me the intolerant boob to awesome person ratio in my state is 99-1 so I'm not even going to waste my time.

i was rather upset tonight but I just read that the supreme court denied the appeal to block *** marraiges in Mass. So on monday they should begining issuing same sex liscenses. I don't meant to turn this into another *** marraige debate but it did brighten my night a bit.

and yes aoa is a machine clearly.... a rightous machine of God

[Havard]

Well, I hate to join in and stereotype, but I believe you when you say that Tennessee isn't queer-friendly. Do you plan on settling there?

[Essex]

well unless something drastic changes I don't see any other way. It's expensive to move, but I'd love to some day. Hell if I could live in Canada (go Canucks) I'd do it in a heart beat.

If I can ever finish this book i'm working on and get it sold I'm out of here faster than you can say best selllers list :)

[Havard]

What are you writing about?

[Graav Wolfsong]

If you have a problem with this concept of "wrong", plz don't complain of the "atrocities" in the world.

And to a lesser extent "sry" and "u", wich I could have let pass.
But "Plz"?
And thus, the illusion of wisdom shatters and the sms talking, leet speaking online gamer makes a break for freedom. :lol:


Just making fun, sorry. :scared:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh, I speak i33t all the time :p.

[niteshade6]

No, that is exactly what you have done. What I meant by technicality is the understanding of the Christian faith. It's not rules and regulations. Rather, the "rules" we see in scripture will be a natural side effect of recieving the Holy Spirit. I suppose I could have used a better example, as the sex thing has caused a firestorm. The essential point is - sin is essentially an activity (or lack thereof) that can serve to emulate God. Recreational sex is one of these activities. But make no mistake, sex is meant for pleasure. What you and the others react against is the ordering of relationships. This is certainly understandable, as if you have no knowledge of objective ordering, you would not see relationships in terms of order and disorder.

I did however state that there were alot of things gleaned from the scriptures that are not "verbatim". I'm sure that we can do more with a sacred text than simply repeat it.

Hmm....I can't help thinking that you have still not adressed my original point at all. I don't see how any of this relates to what I originaly asked, which is assuming physical pleasure is a sin, why is one form of physical pleasure more sinful then others? I'm not even sure what your trying to say in your first paragraph here.

As for now wanting to give scripture verbatim, it's fine to simply refer to passages in the bible without quoting them. I was just looking to get any idea of what your justification is.

Finally I should caution you about saying that your viewpoints are the Christian way of thinking. It would be more apropriate to say they are the Catholic way of thinking. Most other branches of Christianity would disagree to some extent.

[niteshade6]

"1) "Official definition?", there isn't one official Christian body to make official definitions, but you are free to use the official definition of any denomination. Here is one:

"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman." "

Ah yes, it's certainly common knowledge that premarital sex is considered a bad thing in the bible. Although it's a bit of a stretch to infer anything about sex among married couples from this.

"2) As far as New Testament passages are concerned, check out these: Romans 1:16-32, Romans 8 (all of it), 1 Corinthians 6:9-18, and Ephesians 5:3."

Hmmm....I read through them all, and while there is plenty of scripture denouncing homosexuality and fornication, I couldn't find anything denouncing sodomy or masterbation. Given that those are the rather key examples to your point that for example oral sex between married couples is against the bible, I'd be interested to see the passages of the bibles that address that.

[Essex]

What are you writing about?
ironically enough its about Angels. One in paticualr who was friends with Lucifer prior to the fall. The fall was brought about because Luicfer fell in love with Eve and gave her the fruit. When called before God he rebelled and half of hevan joined him. However Lucien (the main character) didn't join either side. He wasn't punished but after the fall he was orded by god to protect the various reincarnations of eve. He's done that ever since and of course there's all sorts of intersting plot twists and turns :)

[Havard]

"1) "Official definition?", there isn't one official Christian body to make official definitions, but you are free to use the official definition of any denomination. Here is one:

"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman." "

Ah yes, it's certainly common knowledge that premarital sex is considered a bad thing in the bible. Although it's a bit of a stretch to infer anything about sex among married couples from this.

"2) As far as New Testament passages are concerned, check out these: Romans 1:16-32, Romans 8 (all of it), 1 Corinthians 6:9-18, and Ephesians 5:3."

Hmmm....I read through them all, and while there is plenty of scripture denouncing homosexuality and fornication, I couldn't find anything denouncing sodomy or masterbation. Given that those are the rather key examples to your point that for example oral sex between married couples is against the bible, I'd be interested to see the passages of the bibles that address that.

I did talk about those issues up the thread, (see post #95), but I'll add to it.

Genesis 38:8-10

"And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and was slain by him. Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: "Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother." He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing."

Scripture here is referring to coitus interruptus. This is the contraceptive method in which a man engages in full intercourse but withdraws the instant ejaculation becomes inevitable, a form of contraception. The inference here is that sex is not be done without being open to procreation, in accordance and addition to the passages I have mentioned already.

[Havard]

ironically enough its about Angels. One in paticualr who was friends with Lucifer prior to the fall. The fall was brought about because Luicfer fell in love with Eve and gave her the fruit. When called before God he rebelled and half of hevan joined him. However Lucien (the main character) didn't join either side. He wasn't punished but after the fall he was orded by god to protect the various reincarnations of eve. He's done that ever since and of course there's all sorts of intersting plot twists and turns :)

Sounds interesting. Have you ever read the book "Good Omens?" It's a humourous book, about an angel and a fallen angel who were present at the fall of man. They go on living in the world until the day that the antichrist is born. When they each get their orders about the child, they decide to work together against both heaven and hell because they don't want the end of the world to come yet. The book isn't exactly Christian, but it's not overtly anti-Christian either. Also, I'd recommend "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis, a witty yet honest illustration about the business of demons. It is definitely a "Christian" work, but I am sure you would find it interesting.

[SaroDarksbane]

I hate going to work when I want to stay and debate: >.<

I think perhaps AoA and I agree, then. Different "positions" and "methods" are not inherently wrong, but can (and are) be used as a substitute by people.

But since I don't know for a fact your views on sex that isn't used solely for procreation, I'll continue the debate:


Refer to my reply to Nightshade.

Umm.. try reading my post? This is what I mean. Read your posts better.
Morality is a principle, not a technicality.

Reread my posts. I for one take time to write what I do.

I must have missed your post to Niteshade, sorry.

But armed with this new knowledge, I can continue thus:

Galatians, chapter 5 for some groundwork. Then "impurity" must be defined. A good text that can extrapolate this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church - it's in the index.
The interpretation of "sexual impurity" is at the very heart of this debate. You can't define sexual impurity to mean oral sex among spouses, and then use that as a groundwork to prove that oral sex among spouses is sexual impurity.
If you love someone, the missionary position should be more stimulating than what you'd see in porn.
1. I tend to agree with you; Or at least I see how you could come to this conclusion. Still I must ask: Can you prove this?

But since your point is not to argue technicalities, we can leave this one alone if you wish.

However, I do have a problem with you accusing me of following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it. Frankly, this is exactly what I think people who comdemn the aformentioned acts between married couples.

The "principle" of the issue is this:
1. Sex is an expression of love.
2. Love is a commitment to a person.
[For all of you out there that think love is a feeling or emotion, watch out. That's a lie brought to you by popular culture and it will destroy your relationships if you're not careful.]
3. Therefore, sex is the physical expression of a commitment to a person.

And here we are debating whether or not certain body parts are acceptable forms of that expression.

That's the real legalism here.

EDIT:

Scripture here is referring to coitus interruptus.
That's one interpretation. Or it could be that he simply didn't fufill his brotherly duty of knocking up his brothers wife as he was supposed to. That doesn't mean that all sex without the intent of procreation is inherently wrong.

[niteshade6]

Yes I certainly read post 95, in fact you may remember that was what I was responding to in request for passages in the bible prohibiting sodomy and masterbation. And none of the passages you gave me in the post before your last one say anything that would make one think that sex without procreation is bad, only that fornication and homosexual sex are bad.

The genesis passage could certainly be used as an argument, but it's a tricky one. Throughout the old testiment, especialy in the earlier parts, god has a tendency to curse or kill anyone who disobeyed him. So it's really not clear if god slays Onan because he felt the act of sex without procreation was bad, or simply because Onan disobeyed gods direct order to father a child. Based on what we have seen in the bible, the simple act of disobedience would be enough.

On a slightly unrelated note, I've felt it odd how so many people in the book of Genesis disobey and ignore gods orders, when in that book he appears to actualy be taking physical form to give them. One would think that having god himself manifest himself in front of you and tell you to do something would inspire you to take him somewhat seriously. Especialy given his tendency to do horrible things to those who don't do what he says.

[SaroDarksbane]

On a slightly unrelated note, I've felt it odd how so many people in the book of Genesis disobey and ignore gods orders, when in that book he appears to actualy be taking physical form to give them. One would think that having god himself manifest himself in front of you and tell you to do something would inspire you to take him somewhat seriously. Especialy given his tendency to do horrible things to those who don't do what he says.
In the same boat with the "Why did the Israelites keep getting thrown in captivity because they disobeyed God?" You'd think after the first or second time, they'd wise up and knock it off.

Perhaps one of my favorite quotes applies here:

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

EDIT:

And while we're on the subject of sex without procreation, how about an older married couple who can no longer have children? Is it okay for them to have sex?

And why do Catholics practice the Natural Family Plannning method? Are they trying to get sex without having children? Those heathens . . . :rolleyes:

[Havard]

The Genesis passage was interpreted the same way for 20 centuries, all Christians accepted this principle. Even the various Protestant reformers all agreed with the Catholic Church on the issue. Intellectually, it is very suspect that these contemporary theological defenses of contraception have followed cultural norms, and not the other way around.

St. Augustine: "Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it."

Martin Luther: "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. . . . We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin: "Besides, he [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother’s name… The voluntary spilling of semen outside intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous."

John Wesley (founder of Methodism): "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."

St. Thomas Aquinas: "Nor, in fact, should it be considered a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of begetting and bringing up children….the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good of preserving the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human life already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is impeded."

[Havard]

And while we're on the subject of sex without procreation, how about an older married couple who can no longer have children? Is it okay for them to have sex?

And why do Catholics practice the Natural Family Plannning method? Are they trying to get sex without having children? Those heathens . . . :rolleyes:

Good question. In both cases, the woman is supposedly infertile (though for the latter it's only temporary.) Having sex with a naturally infertile spouse is completely fine, because natural infertility falls under God's plan, not the spouses. Remember Abraham? His wife Sarah was barren for decades, but he still had sex with her. Isaac eventually was born, but not until after countless non-procreative attempts.

[niteshade6]

Ah but see your not really addressing my point, you are simply giving me numerous opinions from various religious leaders from long ago, none of whom address my point either. I realize that throughout the ages there have been a many high ranking religious figures, particularly in the catholic church, who have the same opinion that you do. There have also been numerous high ranking religious figures who claimed that slavery and racial genecide were the will of god. The important thing to remember is that while your branch of Christianity may consider these people to be speaking with the words of god, many branches of Christianity consider them to be just regular people who were just as likely to sin and make mistakes as anyone else. As a result, it's probably best to confine our discussion to the one area which all denominations have in common, which is the bible. Of course many denominations disagree about the bible as well, some consider it to be verbatim the word of god, others consider it to be inspired by god but still written by men and containing many of their words as well, while others consider it to be written purely by men about their experiences with god, and think it contains numerous inaccuracies. But still all agree that it's rather important.

As for your suspcion about people changing their opinion about birth control only (relatively speaking) recently, realize that for most of the past 2000 years religions didn't exactly encourage people to question the words of their leaders. Even the most minor of difference in opinion could get people put to death, or at the very least branded a heretic and shunned by society. So it shouldn't be a big surprise that people are more likely to question the words of some of the men who used to be in positions of power today, now that they can do so without fear of losing their life or livliehood.

[Havard]

Ah but see your not really addressing my point, you are simply giving me numerous opinions from various religious leaders from long ago, none of whom address my point either. I realize that throughout the ages there have been a many high ranking religious figures, particularly in the catholic church, who have the same opinion that you do. There have also been numerous high ranking religious figures who claimed that slavery and racial genecide were the will of god. The important thing to remember is that while your branch of Christianity may consider these people to be speaking with the words of god, many branches of Christianity consider them to be just regular people who were just as likely to sin and make mistakes as anyone else. As a result, it's probably best to confine our discussion to the one area which all denominations have in common, which is the bible. Of course many denominations disagree about the bible as well, some consider it to be verbatim the word of god, others consider it to be inspired by god but still written by men and containing many of their words as well, while others consider it to be written purely by men about their experiences with god, and think it contains numerous inaccuracies. But still all agree that it's rather important.

As for your suspcion about people changing their opinion about birth control only (relatively speaking) recently, realize that for most of the past 2000 years religions didn't exactly encourage people to question the words of their leaders. Even the most minor of difference in opinion could get people put to death, or at the very least branded a heretic and shunned by society. So it shouldn't be a big surprise that people are more likely to question the words of some of the men who used to be in positions of power today, now that they can do so without fear of losing their life or livliehood.

The Reformation happened over 400 years ago. Luther, Calvin and Wesley were perhaps the most influential Protestant leaders of the Reformation, and they DID take MANY positions that were considered heretical by the Church. They all went off in different denominational directions (Calvinism, Lutheranism, Methodism) exploring theology their own way. I'm sorry, but these men were not restrained by fear of pain, death, or the label of heretic, they openly ENCOURAGED dissent from church authority. Yet none of them disagreed on the point at hand, and neither did the founders of the Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc., etc.

[SaroDarksbane]

Yet none of them disagreed on the point at hand, and neither did the founders of the Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc., etc.
Good for them. What does this have to do with me? They interpreted is differently, wonderful. But I'm not simply content to put on blinders and wander wherever religious leaders tell me to.

So in this discussion, let's keep it to the Bible, shall we?

One quote of yours I found interesting:
Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human life already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place
For such a supposedly heinous sin, there doesn't seem to be much support for it in the Bible other than that one passage with multiple interpretations.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hmm....I can't help thinking that you have still not adressed my original point at all. I don't see how any of this relates to what I originaly asked, which is assuming physical pleasure is a sin, why is one form of physical pleasure more sinful then others? I'm not even sure what your trying to say in your first paragraph here.


Ok. This is probably because I was trying to get the point across that the motive and meaning of the action is what is important. Sex, and most other kinds of pleasure is fine - we need it in our lives. But where sin is concerned - it's all about where your heart is in proximity to God, others, and self.


Finally I should caution you about saying that your viewpoints are the Christian way of thinking. It would be more apropriate to say they are the Catholic way of thinking. Most other branches of Christianity would disagree to some extent.

Well, I've been involved in both circles, and my replies are generic in terms of doctrine. There are only a few issues that separate Catholicism from mainstream evangelcial protestantism. If you want a text from scripture, I'll try to look it up.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But since I don't know for a fact your views on sex that isn't used solely for procreation, I'll continue the debate:


Well you should know it for a fact, as I've bluntly stated it. Sex is unitive, as well as pro-creative. Anyway, I've gotta head to work - don't have time to dissect everything lol.

[Ulkieab]

Holy cow my thread exploded.

[Havard]

Good for them. What does this have to do with me? They interpreted is differently, wonderful. But I'm not simply content to put on blinders and wander wherever religious leaders tell me to.

So in this discussion, let's keep it to the Bible, shall we?


Sure, I have no problems with that, but this was a response to niteshade6, and he and I were discussing interpretation of a passage (Genesis 38:8-10.)

By the way, what do you think of the passage? You could argue that it means that God struck Onan down for disobeying his father (not for the substantive offense), but that would have been highly unusual given the normal punishment of disobedience according to Levitic law. By ignoring the substantive offense and reducing it to simple parable of disobedience, you are engaging in what is known as "probablism." So maybe God only intended this message, and not that. You can make that interpretation, but I'd advise against it.

Futher, I am by no means a proponent of blindly following anyone. That being said, I think it is also a mistake to simply ignore the theological writings on the subject.

[Mastgrr]

This thread is way off topic. Let's get back to the original discussion:

Sodomizing a prisoner with a chemical light and forcing people to masturbate is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation. It’s No Big Deal. They were just having a good time.

[Graav Wolfsong]

This thread is way off topic. Let's get back to the original discussion:

Sodomizing a prisoner with a chemical light and forcing people to masturbate is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation. It’s No Big Deal. They were just having a good time.

Well thats a twisted view if I ever saw one. :(
How one could say it was not torture is beyond me.
And didnt you catch the part where Rumsfeld himself said the worst is yet to come?
The government has around 1600 pictures and videos that have yet to be made public.
Besides what we have seen there are constant whispers of murder, American soldiers raping Iraqi women and even American soldiers watching Iraqis **** boys.

"No Big Deal. They were just having a good time." ?
I really hope you are just trying to provoke people and dont actually believe this as that is truly a sickening comment.

[Mastgrr]

I really hope you are just trying to provoke people and dont actually believe this as that is truly a sickening comment.I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.

The reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.

I really hope you are just trying to provoke peopleYup. What I said above were not words of my own, they're from the american right wing. It's tragic, isn't it? It depresses me. I can't believe there are people out there right now who are not condemning these acts, but rather encouraging them and dismissing them for being justified.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Well, thats good to know Mastgrr.
But you would do well with a /sarcasm or something before a post like that as I was preparing to pop my claws and tear you a new one but restrained myself because I found it hard to believe you actually meant that.


It is indeed tragic that people do think that way. I would think they are not bad people tho', they just dont know any better and can be convinced to change their horrific opinions if they were to be educated a little.
I'd blame ignorance and misinformation for views like that. *looks in the direction of FOX News*
I find it hard to believe any decent human being would defend the actions of the guards without being severely misinformed and miseducated.
Like most cases of hate and prejudice, education is the answer to such problematic views.
In my opinion at least.

[Eiger]

Wether it "works for me" or not is irrelevant. I am addressing the Christian position, which you are free to disagree with.


I also mentioned in earlier posts that there is "degrees of love". I used to sell audio cables - most of my customers thought they were getting quality sound out of their cheap lampwire cable - till they tried our stuff. It's like that with love - you think you know its limits - but you'll never know it fully outside God.


Yup, I'll disagree with the Christian position wholeheartedly. It's rather stifling. Very unfortunate.

Impossible to prove or disprove your second point. Let's just say we disagree.

[Ulkieab]

OMG OMG I'm sooo not commenting to Mastgrr.. I don't believe in God and I think I'm still a HUMAN... omg.. *twitches*

Is he kidding or not?

[Eiger]

OMG OMG I'm sooo not commenting to Mastgrr.. I don't believe in God and I think I'm still a HUMAN... omg.. *twitches*

Is he kidding or not?
It appears he's quoting the right wing. Doesn't sound like a typical Mastgrr comment.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yup, I'll disagree with the Christian position wholeheartedly. It's rather stifling. Very unfortunate.


Indeed, scrpture does say that the Gospel was "foolishness to the Greeks, and a stumbling block to the Jews". But just out of curiousity, I wonder what problematic(s) you find in particular.



Impossible to prove or disprove your second point. Let's just say we disagree.

Ironically, I agree. Impossible to prove or disprove, as this rests on subjective experience.

[SaroDarksbane]

You could argue that it means that God struck Onan down for disobeying his father (not for the substantive offense), but that would have been highly unusual given the normal punishment of disobedience according to Levitic law.
I'm arguing that God struck Onan down because he failed to fufill his duty to his brother under the law of that time.

Now, it's true that the punishment for refusing to marry your dead brother's wife and have a child through her was only public humiliation, but there's a difference in this case.

Onan did marry his brothers wife! So, publicly, he saved face and avoided the prescribed punishment by marrying the woman, but in private, he reverted to his selfish ways and refused to give her a child.

So God struck him dead.

That's my interpretation of that passage, anyway.

[Mastgrr]

It appears he's quoting the right wing. Doesn't sound like a typical Mastgrr comment.I was hoping that people would think my comments would be so outrageous they'd understand my sarcasm.

I guess I need to be more clear the next time.

[Essex]

well it'd be damn near impossible for anyone to take that comment of yours seriously with the ever so lovely Conan avatar Mast.

Besides it doesn't mesh with anything you've ever said.

[Graav Wolfsong]

OMG OMG I'm sooo not commenting to Mastgrr.. I don't believe in God and I think I'm still a HUMAN... omg.. *twitches*

Is he kidding or not?

I cant resist pointing out that even tho' you dont believe in God you are still exclaiming "Oh My God, Oh My God I'm sooo not commenting to Mastgrr.. I don't believe in God and I think I'm still a HUMAN... Oh My God.. *twitches*".
:lol: :buddies: :drink:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I cant resist pointing out that even tho' you dont believe in God you are still exclaiming "Oh My God, Oh My God I'm sooo not commenting to Mastgrr.. I don't believe in God and I think I'm still a HUMAN... Oh My God.. *twitches*".
:lol: :buddies: :drink:

LMAO!! That was the funniest thing I've read all week :lol:

[Essex]

well in Ulkieab's defense. There a tons of people who say oh my god and have no faith. In fact.. I'm one of them. It's clearly more a catch phrase than an actual exclimation about their God but... i'm sure you all knew that lol.

Just didn't want her picked on. besides OMG is almost a word by itself without the words it abbrevates it still is a shocked expression. Just like wtf is a questioning one and lol means "that was funny"

[Eiger]

well in Ulkieab's defense. There a tons of people who say oh my god and have no faith. In fact.. I'm one of them. It's clearly more a catch phrase than an actual exclimation about their God but... i'm sure you all knew that lol.

Just didn't want her picked on. besides OMG is almost a word by itself without the words it abbrevates it still is a shocked expression. Just like wtf is a questioning one and lol means "that was funny"
Yup. Duh. That was an overly picky and silly criticism that had me ROFL. Jesus Christ!!! Hehe.

[Essex]

Eiger!!! you said Jesus Christ!! and clearly!!! your!!! the!!! Anti-Christ!!!!!!!!

(lol just playing around not making fun of Graav, ya know I love ya buddy)

[Eiger]

Please allow me to introduce myself...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger, I hope one day before you die something happens that changes your attitudes. You still have not replied to my earlier question. Although I don't expect you to respect the sacred name of Jesus, you could at least refrain from blasphemy on the forums for the sake of those who do respect it.

[Bhs Crew]

Eiger, I hope one day before you die something happens that changes your attitudes. You still have not replied to my earlier question. Although I don't expect you to respect the sacred name of Jesus, you could at least refrain from blasphemy on the forums for the sake of those who do respect it.

I have a question. Why is saying 'Jesus Christ' as an exclamation considered blasphemy? How is that any different from 'Oh my God'?

[Eiger]

Eiger, I hope one day before you die something happens that changes your attitudes. You still have not replied to my earlier question. Although I don't expect you to respect the sacred name of Jesus, you could at least refrain from blasphemy on the forums for the sake of those who do respect it.
I suspect there's not a single person on this forum who's not said "God damn", OMG, etc. etc. So please spare me the righteous bs.

I didn't answer your previous question, because I wasn't particularly interesting in debating the sexually stifling attributes of Christianity. They're pretty obvious for the most part. Start with "guilt". But, otherwise, I'll let someone else duke that one out with you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I suspect there's not a single person on this forum who's not said "God damn", OMG, etc. etc. So please spare me the righteous bs.


BS to you, but not to me. This must be your "liberal tolerance" kicking in :uhhuh:. Directly stating the name of Jesus in a way other than worship or praise is offensive to most Christians, myself included. I don't take offense to any other like reference, as the notion of God needs further definition.



I didn't answer your previous question, because I wasn't particularly interesting in debating the sexually stifling attributes of Christianity. They're pretty obvious for the most part.


Still haven't learned to read I see. My question referred to the problematics you see with Christianity "in general". Your understanding of the aforementioned is less than a modicum in substance, and your desire to learn is less than even that. If that's the case, keep your lips sealed when voicing your "knowledge" of doctrine, in this case regarding sexuality.


Start with "guilt". But, otherwise, I'll let someone else duke that one out with you.

Naw, I'm picking YOU out of the crowd. Funny, I feel no guilt now, and it could well be the case that I've laid more pipeline in my 27 years than you have in your 43. Regardless, I offered you a chance to expand on your "strongly opposed" opinions. Yet, I can't force you to continue discussion. I only hope that you're able to give substance to your strong views.

[Essex]

I told you Eiger is the Anti-christ.

I think BHS asked a very important question how can Jesus Christ and Oh my god be considered blasphemy? I understand God Damn being blasphemy but even then its more like a request ya know lol.

Lets not turn this into a pissing contest over who's gotten laid more... don't really think that would be a very christian arguement... You know I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with people saying. Oh my Buddha, or Vishnu Krisna! as an exclimation. People are far too damn uptight when it comes to religion.

I feel that liberal tolerance shouldn't be extended to Christians. its the same with rich people and tax cuts they don't need them. Christians are in power, they control so much in this country, and yet they want more... like censoring ourselves on fourms and what not. The only place in the world that Christians can complain about persecution is in the middle east, and then maybe they should learn that missionary work in hostile lands probably ain't the best idea.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh.. Essex, you should really move to Canada.. Sections of the bible have already been outlawed as hate literature. But you demonstrated my point a few weeks back - tolerance isn't really tolerance for all. It's assent to a particular position. Liberal tolerance is humanism's velvet-covered hammer.

[Graav Wolfsong]

well in Ulkieab's defense. There a tons of people who say oh my god and have no faith. In fact.. I'm one of them. It's clearly more a catch phrase than an actual exclimation about their God but... i'm sure you all knew that lol.

Just didn't want her picked on. besides OMG is almost a word by itself without the words it abbrevates it still is a shocked expression. Just like wtf is a questioning one and lol means "that was funny"

Ulkieab did set herself up for that one, way to tempting to pass up on.
I think you picked up on it but in case you didnt, I didnt mean it as serious critisism, it was pretty obvious that it was all in good humour. :)

Friendly hazing if you will. :thumbsup: :buddies:

[Eiger]

heh.. Essex, you should really move to Canada.. Sections of the bible have already been outlawed as hate literature. But you demonstrated my point a few weeks back - tolerance isn't really tolerance for all. It's assent to a particular position. Liberal tolerance is humanism's velvet-covered hammer.
Sections of the bible outlawed as hate literature? I find that really hard to believe.

And tolerance only goes so far...

Still haven't learned to read? nice....

[Eiger]

Ulkieab did set herself up for that one, way to tempting to pass up on.
I think you picked up on it but in case you didnt, I didnt mean it as serious critisism, it was pretty obvious that it was all in good humour. :)

Friendly hazing if you will. :thumbsup: :buddies:
I understood that, hence my comments in a similar vein. :lol:

[Graav Wolfsong]

AoA, I know I said I was done with this subject for now but just a word of advice:
You should maybe make a concious effort to tone down the 'holier than thou' attitude when youre explaining your views as that is a sure way to make all your detractors react negatively to anything you say and (rightfully so imo) dismiss you statements as 'righteous BS'.

You come off sounding almost exactly like I do whenever I have to talk my little brother out of jumping from the third story balcony because he thinks he can fly like Superman.
In other words, the 'I'm right and youre wrong' approach rarely works in a situation like this.

You consider yourself enlightened and would very much like to help the 'unbelievers' see the light, while the 'unbelievers' consider you delusional. :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sections of the bible outlawed as hate literature? I find that really hard to believe.


It's true. Canadian politics can be even more interesting than American. There was legislation passed called "Bill C-250". This outlaws, any text that seems to persecute interest groups. As I'm sure you'd agree, there are texts in the Bible that appear "unkind" to those who prefer a certain lifestyle.



And tolerance only goes so far...


Without reference to "tolerance.org" or whatever, what is your definition of tolerance?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA, I know I said I was done with this subject for now but just a word of advice:
You should maybe make a concious effort to tone down the 'holier than thou' attitude when youre explaining your views as that is a sure way to make all your detractors react negatively to anything you say and (rightfully so imo) dismiss you statements as 'righteous BS'.


If you consider my tone a righteous judgmental tone, than I suppose any Christian who stuck to his/her guns and spoke with authority on the position would be considered "holier than thou". It's a common label, and you're not used to meeting people like me.


You consider yourself enlightened and would very much like to help the 'unbelievers' see the light, while the 'unbelievers' consider you delusional. :thumbsup:

Do you consider me delusional? I've been posting in these threads for a few months now, and I offer reasoned arguments, not fiery dogma.

[Havard]

It's true. Canadian politics can be even more interesting than American. There was legislation passed called "Bill C-250". This outlaws, any text that seems to persecute interest groups. As I'm sure you'd agree, there are texts in the Bible that appear "unkind" to those who prefer a certain lifestyle.


Wow, censorship of religion?!?! When you say the bill "outlaws" sections of the Bible, in what sense are these sections "outlawed?"

Please don't tell me that you can't even see a full copy of the Bible in a public library?!?!?!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The bill's implementation is still being deliberated. I'll have more info later. Basically, some of the bible is being denounced as "hate literature". Mainly, the texts on sodomy.

[Bhs Crew]

Well I think the problem is the idea that hate literature should be banned. There's no reason to ban books because everyone can choose what they want to read. It comes down to freedom of speech. I can write a book and say whatever horrible evil things I want and I can publish it. Of course that's only allowed here thanks to the good old Bill of Rights (still alive and kicking despite the best efforts of John Ashcroft). After all if Mein Kampf can be published here then anything can be published. I'm sorry it's not the same up in our northern neighbor.

Anyway, AOA, while you may be right, it doesn't matter what the truth is when you're talking to people. It only matters what people percieve is the truth as that sets their first impression. If you come accross as rightious and judgemental it doesn't matter if you actually aren't because people will stop reading long before they discover the truth. Or they'll form an idea of you in their mind that will color everything that they read of yours after that. The whole thing is regrettable but it's true.

I've found that the best tone to have when trying to convince people is one that convinces people that you aren't their enemy but that you do have an opinion different from them. The idea is to convince the other person that they made the best choice with the information they had but that they missed something important. If you give them the info that they don't have they will obviously make the right choice. It doesn't matter if they make the right choice or not, but as long as the other person views you as a reasonable person then they will listen. As soon as a person feels they are getting attacked they go to meet the fight or they leave. This keeps them from being reasonable and ends all possibility of them taking your information to heart.

That's just my two cents. I'm going to go get a burrito.

[Havard]

Wow, I just did some reading on it... it looks like they really would outlaw some sections of the Bible.

Bill sponsor & MP Svend Robinson called the religious argument "a handy excuse for those who would unjustly refuse equal protections to homosexuals."

:surprise: You gotta be kidding me

[Bhs Crew]

Wow, I just did some reading on it... it looks like they really would outlaw some sections of the Bible.

Bill sponsor & MP Svend Robinson called the religious argument "a handy excuse for those who would unjustly refuse equal protections to homosexuals."

:surprise: You gotta be kidding me

I'm sorry to hear that. Free speech is the foundation of all freedom. It's past time Canada got themselves a Bill of Rights. Not nessicarily the same rights as ours, but it's important that some rights and freedoms are untouchable in a country.

[Essex]

while I can't say I support making parts of the bible hate literature I can see where they are coming from.

I know that my life would be a hell of a lot eaiser if I could take out a few lines from the bible. If I had that power to go back in time your damn sure I would do that because so many people have had their lives ruined because of those lines. Is it hate speech... I dunno... it can eaisly be read that way. Then again so can a lot of the Koran. Actually all religions have a bit of hate speech in them, because that's what religions do they seperate people based on a belief system.

If it stops some *** hole like Rev Phelps going to funerals with signs that say "God hates Fags" then I'm all for it. If it also allows for laws to be made that disregard the bible I'm all for that too. I'm not however in favor of editings the bible... hell its far too late to do that now. Those words are there people are going to belive them and be backwater hicks (I'm so not talking about anyone on this fourm just so you know) as long as they want to be.

Its not just gays that get flack from the bible its also Jews, I've heard some parts of the bible used to say awful things about black people (then again I'm in the south) I've heard it used for just about everthing imagined.

[Havard]

Essex, I am personally sorry (and really pissed off) that Christians persecute you, but I think those people would be doing it regardless of whether or not they have the Bible.

Gandhi said "I like Jesus, but I don't like Christians" (paraphrase.) I think he said that because the people who assume the label "Christian" often bear little or no resemblance to Jesus' teaching.

[Essex]

yeah but if not for those few phrases then people would have less of a foot hold I think. Meh I could be wrong too

Ghandi is a smart man. I have nothing against Jesus he's rather relaxed and groovy.

[Havard]

yeah but if not for those few phrases then people would have less of a foot hold I think. Meh I could be wrong too


I think it may easily backfire. It will just give the haters one more excuse to bash gays.

[Bhs Crew]

Well I couldn't really care whether its considered hate literature or not just as long as hate literature, or any book for that matter, isn't banned.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well I think the problem is the idea that hate literature should be banned. There's no reason to ban books because everyone can choose what they want to read. It comes down to freedom of speech. I can write a book and say whatever horrible evil things I want and I can publish it. Of course that's only allowed here thanks to the good old Bill of Rights (still alive and kicking despite the best efforts of John Ashcroft). After all if Mein Kampf can be published here then anything can be published. I'm sorry it's not the same up in our northern neighbor.


Excellent Bhs. Indeed, no books should be banned, even if considered hate literature. There will always be opposition, whatever stand one takes.


Anyway, AOA, while you may be right, it doesn't matter what the truth is when you're talking to people. It only matters what people percieve is the truth as that sets their first impression. If you come accross as rightious and judgemental it doesn't matter if you actually aren't because people will stop reading long before they discover the truth. Or they'll form an idea of you in their mind that will color everything that they read of yours after that. The whole thing is regrettable but it's true.


Yes, it is regrettable, but true for most people. The good thing about this forum is that we can usually go the distance with our arguments. Everyone has a position, and should be honest about it to the core. Be open and honest, and don't be afraid to step on a few toes - at least you speak your heart. Then we can argue our points out at length. Posters must realize that the content being discussed is not a strike against them as people, but we are to call into question the subject matter we propose as worthy of accepting. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty. While tone is important, persistence and consistency in reason is the most meritorious.

[Bhs Crew]

Excellent Bhs. Indeed, no books should be banned, even if considered hate literature. There will always be opposition, whatever stand one takes.

Yes, it is regrettable, but true for most people. The good thing about this forum is that we can usually go the distance with our arguments. Everyone has a position, and should be honest about it to the core. Be open and honest, and don't be afraid to step on a few toes - at least you speak your heart. Then we can argue our points out at length. Posters must realize that the content being discussed is not a strike against them as people, but we are to call into question the subject matter we propose as worthy of accepting. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty. While tone is important, persistence and consistency in reason is the most meritorious.

Good times. You added a hood on your avatar since I was last here. Nice touch.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yea, It's more RPG-Esque :p. Don't worry, you didnt miss much since you left - it was quiet for a few weeks :lol:.

[Eiger]

I think Rumsfeld should be fired.

*WHACK*

:lol:

[Essex]

ok lets take this back in the area it was intended. I haven't hear much about the prisoner scandal lately... but do you guys think that the pictues that haven't been shown yet should be released to the media? I for one think that they should out of curiosity... also if there is video of people being *****/murdered then that whould silence the "not torture" crowd.

[Bhs Crew]

Its a funny mix. You have to balance the privacy of the victems with the release of information. Imagine if you live in Iraq and there's some national paper with a picture of you getting ***** in it. That would seriously mess up your life.

[Essex]

well they have always been quick to hide the faces of the prisoners.... of course the pricks who abused them had them hooded most of the tiem.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I cant believe how much this torture thing pisses me off.
That Lynndie England skank said and I quote "We thought it looked funny so we took pictures".

And the soldiers charged are all saying they were following orders while the American government is saying "We have found no proof of any high ranking officer consenting to these methods".

I still think this goes deeper than a few sadistic guards.
If this was just an isolated event, isnt it a little strange that every soldier assigned to that prison turned out to be sadistic maniacs?
It just doesnt smell right.

[Essex]

graav check out my roots of torture post very interstingt.

[Bhs Crew]

well they have always been quick to hide the faces of the prisoners.... of course the pricks who abused them had them hooded most of the tiem.

Yeah I say release the pictures. Apperently the victims are already known in Iraq. Just today in the paper the families of them were calling for the death penalty. So I can see no good reason not to release them.

[Eiger]

You should check out the article in this thread: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=190791

It may have you re-thinking your views on whether Rumsfeld should be fired (as well as some others).