Posts by back2dafront

14

War or No War --- The Dispute

by hornetsnest in

jw
friends

i usually don't get involved in things like this, as i've long known the futility and uselessness of arguing with jello.

however, for the benefit of those looking on and wondering where the truth really lies, i figured i'd say a few things.. back2dafront made quite a spiel over on another thread about how terrible it is to serve in the armed forces, and i must say that the tears of purple koolade were just pouring down my cheeks in rivers.

he's such an abused little fellow ... personally, i'll bet my wife's been shot at more than he has.

back2dafront

Dakota,

Right on. I dunno though - I think USA = the entire class in the schoolyard bully scenario. We have the capabilities to destroy Iraq 10 times over - the support of other countries is totally unnecessary. The reason why USA should have world support is not because we need it but because it becomes a world issue and mandate, not a personal Bush vandetta as a lot of people in the world, justified or not, view it. Granted, the day the whole world can agree on ANYTHING will be a cold day in hell.... :-)

As far as the pouring out of chemicals into the desert - that's not cool at all. Just recently I read about how he is destroying the marshlands in southern Iraq. Definitely not good - I don't think the public is very aware of it, that's why no outcry as you mentioned.

By the way, it is France and Germany who armed him and purchase the bulk of his oil, not the US. Makes me really wonder what their true motives actually are.

Not sure. Good question. It does appear that they have something going on w/ Iraq that they're trying to keep secret.

Is there anyone from France or Germany on this board that could enlighten us on what political talk is going on in their countries? It would be interesting to get their input on the world scene, from the European side....do they know what their countries are really up to?

14

War or No War --- The Dispute

by hornetsnest in

jw
friends

i usually don't get involved in things like this, as i've long known the futility and uselessness of arguing with jello.

however, for the benefit of those looking on and wondering where the truth really lies, i figured i'd say a few things.. back2dafront made quite a spiel over on another thread about how terrible it is to serve in the armed forces, and i must say that the tears of purple koolade were just pouring down my cheeks in rivers.

he's such an abused little fellow ... personally, i'll bet my wife's been shot at more than he has.

back2dafront

Hey Dakota, can you expound on this a little more? I'm not sure I understand clearly.

Another point continually missed is that this coming war can be stopped before any shots are fired by all standing up to Saddam and demanding he disarm, as previously mandated, unarguably, by the UN back in 1991. Saddam can see the discord worldwide and just as general Giaap of the North Vietnamese Army long ago, uses that discord to continue arming and extending the inspections. If 12 years isn't enough time for him to disarm, what is?

So....the whole world says, "sadaam, DISARM - NOW!"

Then what? He shows everyone where the weapons are, we or he destroys them and problem solved?

Or he refuses to disarm (more likely) and the world gathers it's forces and invades?

Why doesn't he hide some weapons and then say he's disarming by giving the rest up, and then start rebuilding his arsenal again?

I'm just not sure I understand how you said the war could be stopped....if you could help me out there....

I think everything should be given a deadline personally. I believe it was a good move to step up the inspections - shoot, we never should of left. But I don't think it should last forever either. Anyways...

back2dafront

16

Does anyone TRULY die?

by anti-absolutism in

jw
friends

i have been reading the book, "the power of positive thinking" by norman vincent peale.

he is/was a christian minister, but his thoughts on god are somewhat different than what i thought a minister's thoughts would be.

in the second last chapter he expresses an interesting viewpoint.

back2dafront

Very interesting post...makes me think back to the days when I was a kid, and my parents would always emphasize the need to please God so that I can "LIVE FOREVER." The idea of living forever on a paradise earth is still pleasant, but I always thought to myself, "If I die, how will I regret not living forever? I won't be aware of anything so it's not like I'll be lying in the ground wishing I were still alive so I could help everyone rebuild the whole earth." I wasn't very fond of the idea of having to do yard work for a thousand years - it was hard enough to get me to cut the grass once a week.

I don't remember a damn thing before I was born, so who really knows what happens? Maybe we had previous existences, maybe we didn't. I don't think death is something to worry about though - so many people have died through the years, it's obvious to me it's a process we all will go through at some point. Enjoy every day of your life and learn all you can because I think if we do go on to another life when we die, we will be influenced by our current experiences.

11

board post I found amusing - the title reads "PRO IRAQ WAR PARTY!!!"

by back2dafront in

jw
friends

thanks for clicking, you great big patriot you!

i noticed a lot of hubbub around the need for such a gathering, to counter all the fuss kicked up by all the tree-hugging pussies in this area!right on!

well, here's how it works.

back2dafront

you're too sweet robyn. :-)

All I can say is I call it like I see it.

18

IN THE NAVY

by josephus in

jw
friends

this week i did what ive allways wanted to do and joined the navy,,, well nany reserve is the best i can do right now.. im waiting for all the tests now, but i just wanted your thoughts on the "moral rightness" of joining the military.. im still gonna do it though!.

cheers bigears.

josephus

back2dafront

One of my favorite records (I'm a house dj) is entitled "Do What You Feel."

Everyone should pursue their dreams, that's my motto. If that's what you feel is right for you, then go for it. Personally if I had to choose I'd choose the Army because I'm not a big fan of being on boats for an extended period of time. :-P

As for the "moral rightness"....well...if you've decided already then hopefully you've thought it through several times over and are comfortable with the idea. My morality would make it hard for me to serve in the Armed Forces or to be a politician for that matter because I know the chances would be high that I would have to resort to doing something that I may not feel would be the appropriate thing to do, and in positions like those often times your opinion on a matter doesn't mean anything.

The armed forces protect our country and are very necessary, especially in these times. No doubt you will ALWAYS be appreciated for your efforts and bravery. Good luck my friend!!

11

board post I found amusing - the title reads "PRO IRAQ WAR PARTY!!!"

by back2dafront in

jw
friends

thanks for clicking, you great big patriot you!

i noticed a lot of hubbub around the need for such a gathering, to counter all the fuss kicked up by all the tree-hugging pussies in this area!right on!

well, here's how it works.

back2dafront

let me clarify something - I did not write what I posted.

It was a post on a local community board. I posted it here just for the heck of it - I found it amusing in a way. Not in a way to disrespect those in the Armed services at all. I just think it's easier to say you're for this war from the sideline than if you were on a carrier in the Gulf right now. You could never convince me that that is where I need to be right now, however that only stands for THIS WAR. Like I've said before, if this country was being invaded I'd have no problem whatsoever defending it.

We've got a LOT of young men and women out there ready to go to war any second now. I can imagine the things that must be going through their minds right now. Do you think they're wondering if they made the right decision? Do you think any of them are having second thoughts? Once you've gone this far it's probably too late to change your mind now. How many casualties do you think we will suffer after this is all over with? Will it all have been worth it? All we can do is speculate now and pray for the safety of all the troops and the innocent civilians. I sincerely hope things go smoothly, but I'm deeply concerned because there is extremely high risks involved in this war. I doubt he's going to go down without taking as many as possible with him.

If you are for this war without question, can you HONESTLY say you are willing to risk your life to go fight for the cause?

If you respect the need to get Sadaam out of office but question if this is the right time and the correct manner of going about it, are you troubled when others label you as "un-patriotic", "liberalist", "peacenik" or "tree-hugger?"

The person that made the post above was merely illustrating how he/she feels it's easy to sit back from the comforts of your home and say you're pro-war w/ Iraq. If you were actually part of it you might feel a tad bit different.

My take at least. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hornetsnest, I read your other post before I read your comments here. Now your other post makes more sense, however I fail to see how your post makes any points or dissputes anything. Your article did not prove one bit that oil is not involved either. If you really don't think oil is an underlying motive in this war, please read the following article and then prove to me that it's all conspiracy BS:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/15/feature1.shtml

nney’s comment about increased profit margins for friends of the Bush administration also has been backed up. A two-part series in the Hong Kong-based Asia Times in January noted that the United States is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit. The law firm Baker & Botts represents the pipeline consortium set to build the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline that would link Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia. The firm’s principle attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign during the Florida vote controversy.
And none other than the disgraced Enron Corp.—once one of Bush’s biggest financial backers—conducted a feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel and General Electric. “Enron, together with Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, Unocal and British Petroleum, were all spending billions of dollars to pump the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan,” the Asia Times reported, adding that Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former presidential Chief of Staff John Sununu and Vice President Dick Cheney “have all closed major deals directly and indirectly on behalf of the oil companies.”
And current National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice served on Chevron’s board of directors for nearly 10 years before being scooped up by the Bush administration. Chevron (now Chevron Texaco) is the largest shareholder in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, the group that completed an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, Russia, and is planning more pipelines in the region.
It certainly can be argued that the economic benefits for close Bush associates are only indirectly attributable to the war on terrorism. But consider the argument of Uri Averney, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, noted peace activist and keen international observer. “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war,” Averney wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv in February, “one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.”
Deployments of U.S. troops do largely coincide with existing and projected pipeline routes. The United States already has troops in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Georgia and Afghanistan; Bush reportedly is negotiating to place U.S. forces in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

I'm waiting.

14

War or No War --- The Dispute

by hornetsnest in

jw
friends

i usually don't get involved in things like this, as i've long known the futility and uselessness of arguing with jello.

however, for the benefit of those looking on and wondering where the truth really lies, i figured i'd say a few things.. back2dafront made quite a spiel over on another thread about how terrible it is to serve in the armed forces, and i must say that the tears of purple koolade were just pouring down my cheeks in rivers.

he's such an abused little fellow ... personally, i'll bet my wife's been shot at more than he has.

back2dafront

Hornetsnest,

okay newbie. first off you know NOTHING about me so don't even try to pretend.

Your words were a little insulting, but whatever....it's all good.

Yeah, I've never been shot at and hopefully never will be. Being shot at is nothing to be proud of in my book. You've either been to war (which is understandable and part of the package) or you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or you were doing something you had no business doing. I lived in NYC for 5 years and never even got mugged. I know how to handle myself. I'm a smart "little boy."

It really burns me up to have someone make rash statements about me when they know NOTHING about me, but due to the rules of this board I will hold my tongue back.

if you're going to slam my posts, at least quote them so all can see what total bs i'm saying and how your ideas prove them wrong. without the quotes your jibberish doesn't mean a darn thing.

But one of the eternal vexations of that life has been the 10s of thousands of times that someone would come to me and I would explain what the problem was, how to avoid it, and what would happen if it was not handled in the correct manner, only to have them laugh at, scorn, or condemn me for suggesting it. That in itself wasn't bad, as I've always felt that we should all have the freedom to make our own decisions, though I did resent their ridicule, endless accusations of evil motives, and complete refusal to face any reality, even their own.

So evidently with all your age and wisdom you know without question this war is the right thing to do and that everything will be okay after we go in there, find Sadaam and either kill him or arrest him. We'll set up a democracy and then we can all go back to our lives like nothing ever happened. The world will be rid of evil, the USA will not even benefit from the oil, and we will reside peacefully with the Arabs over there. Since Sadaam is secretly supplying them with weapons, they will not be able to get this weapons any longer, therefore the USA will be safe from further terror attacks. The USA will stay positioned in Iraq and will make sure the person that runs the democracy for that country will not participate in the same horrible crimes that Sadaam has inflicted on his country for all these years. If somehow this new president is evil as well, we will quickly remove him and find another to run the system. Nobody in Iraq will mind, in fact they are welcoming this change with arms wide open. The neighboring countries see no problem with this either, or if they do they're too afraid to say anything about it, so they'll just sit back and let the imperialistic western civilization they all hate take over a fellow muslim country and just try to pretend it never happened. Meanwhile Bush will call off the construction of the pipeline to Asia for too many people are findind out about it and he doesn't want anyone to think that had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. He will also dismantle all the army bases that have been built close to this pipeline for the Middle East will be at peace and there will be no threat by anyone to disrupt the progress of this pipeline.

Once again the "peaceniks" will have been proven wrong (as usual), Bush's approval ratings will soar sky high, the whole country will turn Republican and vote him back into office (yes, he'll REALLY win this time), the economy will make a turn around and there will be more jobs than you can shake a stick at. My stock portfolio will read + 10K like 2 years ago instead of -10K like it is currently. He'll still not sign the Kyoto treaty and we will continue to lead the world in polluting the environment, but that's okay because terror alerts will be a thing of the past.

Yeah, you guys have everything all figured out. Well, this whole thing will be going down really soon now, and if things go your way, feel free to rub my face in it, but realize when they don't I'm gonna slam you really hard. For the others that I've had discussions with on this board, I'll merely say "I told you so!" or vice versa, and it'll be all good cuz we're cool like that, but you I will take personal satisfaction in picking apart every part of your lame post and blowing it wide open.

Oh...one more thing....all this comparison of Sadaam and Hitler...you know...it's two totally different scenarios. Does Sadaam want to eliminate all Christians? Maybe he does, but do you really think he'd be able to pull something like that off??? He knows his country is under tight survelliance and the second he gets out of line he's history. So his best bet is to do what he's been doing - horde all the money he can and build immense palaces for himself so that he can make himself look all big and mighty. Maybe he really does have some scheme to leave his mark on the world or on the USA but he's not the only one. If Bush wants to go after all of our potential threats one by one, so be it. It's just not going to be a pretty picture and it's definitely not going to go smoothly. If this war is the best thing to do I guess all of us will be convinced of that in a few short weeks.

If you are as wise as you claim to be and you want to challenge me, feel free to pick any statement and provide your argument, but please refrain from making further personal attacks on my character. I'm a man of reason but refuse to converse with anyone that talks in circles, is overly-critical and never establishes one vital point.

20

NEW WORLD TRANSLATIO. WAS IT INSPIRED BY JEHOVAH.

by nightwarrior in

who wrote the new world translation.?????????????

as it has no author,no one is brave enough to claim responsibility for this particular interpretation of the bible.

whom is responsible for all the changes of scripture, no one will put there name to doing this.therfore if no one from the society claims to being the author ,is it because they have invalidated the word of jehovah and are scared that they will receive the plagues as mentioned in revelation.for adding to the scriptures or taking things away.

back2dafront

So who is correct, the JW's?:

Violating a Rule?

SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."—Joseph Henry Thayer, Bible scholar

Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

Or the scholars:

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):

"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):

"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:

"This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:

"I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:

"I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):

"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:

"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:

"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:

"The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:

"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:

"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):

"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

43

Misogyny----anyone here guilty?

by Tatiana in

after reading the post on how to "treat your husband," i'd like to know if any men here actually feel this way about women.

everyone jokes around about male/female relationships, but how many really think women are inferior?

i know from some serious posts i've read here, that a few of the men must have really been hurt by someone.

back2dafront

I'm not a misogynist. I just don't care much for women, because they're not as smart as men.

Someone PLEASE tell me he was joking.

Only thing I have to say is that men tend to be physically stronger than women. That doesn't make man superior by any means. Women have a higher tolerance for pain, therefore they could be labeled "tougher" than men.

There's no superiority issues in my relationship. She's my friend, lover and partner, not a slave. She's just as intelligent as I am so she can obviously make competent decisions and give wholesome advice.

We both give - we're both happy.

11

board post I found amusing - the title reads "PRO IRAQ WAR PARTY!!!"

by back2dafront in

jw
friends

thanks for clicking, you great big patriot you!

i noticed a lot of hubbub around the need for such a gathering, to counter all the fuss kicked up by all the tree-hugging pussies in this area!right on!

well, here's how it works.

back2dafront

Hi! Thanks for clicking, you great big patriot you! I noticed a lot of hubbub around the need for such a gathering, to counter all the fuss kicked up by all the tree-hugging pussies in this area!Right on!
Well, here's how it works. First, go down to # 670 Davis Street in San Francisco and tell the nice clean cut young man behind the desk that you're a hundred percent behind the upcoming war in Iraq, and you want to sign up for the party NOW! He'll fix you up PRONTO! They handle all the arrangements down there for patriotic folks like you, and the more enthusiastic you are, the better the deal they cut you to get you right in the thick of things.
A week or so later you will find yourself in Fort Benning, Georgia, the home of the US Army infantry, to prep you for the big BASH! Thats it! And if there isnt enough room left in Benning-God knows there are lots of people ahead of you ready to rock, but "stick to your guns" and go combat arms-then dont turn your nose up at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, home of the Field Artillery! Take it from me personally, now there's a hot spot where the fun NEVER stops!
And for heaven's sake, dont let the deprivation and hardship get you down. Getting deployed to a war zone is something every hard core pro-interventionist should experience, at least once. You have the character to never question why, when your ass is thousands of miles away from family and you're out on point somewhere with just your buddy and a 60 cal at 3 in the morning, just what in the hell your leaders where thinking to start an elective war. After all, you will recieve as an enlisted member an ADDITIONAL $155 dollars a month in danger pay. Oh, and sorry, alchohol is strictly forbidden for safety issues, but there'll be plenty of time for that later, when you eventually get back home!
So if you're under 35 years of age, get your patriotic ass down to the recruiter today, or shut the hell up. All of those who have such a big woody for sending others to fight a bullshit conflict either drop what they're doing and join the clam bake, or recognise that your patriotism is as cheap as a 5 dollar nylon flag from K Mart.