An Evolving Faith
Does the president believe he has a divine mandate?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12112.html
NOW I am scared. seriously.
Ravyn
Does the president believe he has a divine mandate
by Ravyn 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Ravyn
-
figureheaduk
What puzzles me is how this half witted, hillbilly cowboy bozo idiot (who is deluded enough to think he was picked by his chosen deity), became the most powerful man on the planet. Having a pillock like him in charge worries me, and his ass-kissing poodle sidekick Blair makes me feel ashamed to be british. So, mr Bush - if you're the God-loving Christian you say you are, how does killing innocent Iraqi women and children fit in with the commandment "thou shalt not kill?". As evil as Saddam Hussein is, i don't think blowing innocent people to bits will help things. And one more question, Georgie boy, are you sure that this "war" is about peace, and not oil?
-
Texas Apostate
Once again, the over-simplified responce from the left (aka Bush Haters).
"This war is about oil"
I would have thought that by now even the most liberal peaceniks would have used some logical reasoning. I have been proven wrong once again.
Edited by - Texas Apostate on 11 February 2003 18:56:48
-
L_A_Big_Dawg
What puzzles me is how this half witted, hillbilly cowboy bozo idiot ...and his ass-kissing poodle sidekick Blair
This makes me laugh. When a person is unable to respond to an arguement, the person usually takes the low road of ad-hominem attack.
how does killing innocent Iraqi women and children fit in with the commandment "thou shalt not kill?".
Secondly, your misquotation of Exodus 20:13 needs to be addressed. The Hebrew word is consistently translated "murder" in most modern translations. The King James is incorrect in its mistranslation of the word "murder" to "kill."
Thirdly, no one that I have heard on the radio or television wants a war. In fact it is not President Bush, and Prime Minister Blair that are gung-ho towards war. They are merely stating that Saddam must disarm. Saddam has two options to disarm, peacefully by choice though the force of worldwide opinion, or militantly by force.
The road to a peaceful disarming of Saddam, is dependent on the dissenters of the world rallying around President Bush and PM Blair, be stating that you support the voluntary disarming of Iraq. Perhaps, once France, Germany, Russia, and Belgium realize thus, and treat Saddam as the outcast of the world's community then this conflict could be resolved peacefully.
Lastly,
Georgie boy, are you sure that this "war" is about peace, and not oil?
If it was only about oil, then why doesn't the US, with its troops in Kuwait merely overthrough the government there? The US hasn't therefore the conflict is not about the oil.
-
Ravyn
ok--well I was misunderstood about why I am scared---my fault that I did not explain.
I am scared becoz there is fundy in charge. politically I don't see that we had a choice back with the elections. however, I don't want anyone in the white house telling me that I am a terrorist if I choose to not be a fundy xtian--which is the next step here. a little hard for me to feel any sympathy or pity for either side in a religious war of whacked out zealots. and I am sure that if I am sitting in the USA thinking what a dangerous moron we have in charge, then I am equally sure there are some Iraqis thinking the same thing. But when this country becomes a 'xtian country' and denies separation of church and state will be the time the whole lot of us nonconformists need to buy tickets on the next shuttle out of here. this is a dangerous situation and I dont know what can be done to stop it.
Ravyn
-
peacefulpete
Ravyn... why as the U.S. not already attacked Iraq? Some say it was simply to give time to enable him to mobilize the militery build up in the region. Others prefer to believe that the public opinion needed to be rallied in support first, not because they cared what the people think but so that at reelection time people remember them as good guys and not despots. So then this is the one thing we can do. By keeping the public informed about other options and the hidden agendas of politicians they can make better judgements about who to elect and who to reject. That the world is largely opposed to a hasty militery slaughter on grounds of suspected "breaking of the rules" by Iraqi leaders is evidence that humans are making progress. Some not all.
-
L_A_Big_Dawg
Ravyn,
Before we go further what exactly does the first amendment state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Has the government established Christianity as the state religion? Has the government legislated the restriction of any religious practices? Has the government said that you have no right to not have a religion?
Has any government official decreed that any non-Christian is a terrorist? To the contrary, Pres. Bush has gone out of his way to promote a distinction between the Muslim whackos, and the mainstream Mohamadists (though the "main stream" Muslims are notably silent in their condemnation of the terrorist attacks on Israel and the US).
Secondly, your freedom from religion is a guaranteed right. If yoiu want to know how it is to truly live under a "fundamental" religious contry, please read "Honour Crimes." It is the story of a young woman murdered by her father in a Muslim honor killing. Funny, I have yet to see this happen now in the American Christian community.
What the first amendment has come to is this, freedom from religion. Well, this is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. In fact, some of the signers of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) were men of the cloth. The purpose of this amendment was to prohibit a state religion, i.e. the Church of England. It was not to prohibit men of faith from occupying seats of power.
Lastly, the United States is a Christian country. It's founders were men of faith. Here are just a few quotations from some of them.
Samuel Adams, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. From the rising to the setting of the sun may His kingdom come."
The Reverand Doctor John Witherspoon was called the man that shaped the men who shaped America said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable . . ."
Benjamin Franklin said, "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Alex de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America said, "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ravyn, you do live in a Christian country. However, this country affords to each of it's citizens the right to either profess or not a religious creed. Has this freedom been abused? Absolutely! But no matter how this may have been abused in the past it stands today.
Let me say this in closing, Ravyn, as a Christian I would fight for your freedom to not have a religion. Why? Because your rights are inalienable, and given to us by someone higher than the government. I would consider it a just war to fight a country that would try and remove an inalienable right.
-
Xander
They are merely stating that Saddam must disarm. Saddam has two options to disarm, peacefully by choice though the force of worldwide opinion, or militantly by force.
Actually, as an aside, the 'not kill' comandment is hardly the best argument against violence. Assuming you believe that the whole bible is not bunk, then.....
What did jesus say? 'Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword'? Did he not say to turn the other cheek?
Did his true followers not all go to their graves not lifting a hand against their oppressors? Certainly not defending themselves through violence. And, DEFINATELY not attacking someone else in case they MIGHT attack you first?
Does christianity not REQUIRE a martyr's death for its followers under persecution?
How can you claim to be CHRISTIAN and follow CHRIST and still believe violence is ever an acceptable means to an end? Jesus certainly commanded over and over that it is not ever acceptable under any circumstances.
So, one must conclude, if you support war or warfare, you are not really christian.
-
detective
So, one must conclude, if you support war or warfare, you are not really christian. -Xander
Well, I'm not so sure about that. What would Jesus do?
Take this quiz:
-
badwillie
Ravyn,
Good thread. Did you see this from yesterday?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=46580&site=3