Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

No, the idea of Christianity isn't the organization, it's the personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, there are many morons and very bad people who parade what they do under a banner of Christianity, and that is wrong. But the teachings of Christ stay true and nobody is ever going to change that. Instead of throwing Christianity out the window, throw the morons out the window, and keep true to the beliefs.

And as for the war on terror: it is our country's duty to protect ourselves. Terrorism is currently the greatest threat to our well-being. Should we stand by and let these evildoers have their way? God commanded his people many times to go to war. War is ugly, but it is sometimes necessary.

It is interesting that you think that. I just want to point out that the leading cause of death in the United States is cardiovascular disease, accounting for over thirty-eight percent of all deaths.

In 2001, 1,408,000 US deaths were caused by cardiovascular disease.

In 2001, 2,689 US citizens were killed in terrorist attacks.

I'm talking about the security of the nation, not the health of its inhabitants.

Oh. Well then you should have avoided using the word "well-being".

And security from what? Death? Than cardiovascular disease is still what you would need security from. It still killed 523 times more United States citizens than terrorists did in 2001. And it would be over 40,000 times more deaths if one used any year other than 2001.

And remember, I'm just adding facts. I'm staying out of the whole religious thing.

Yikes!

I take full responsibility for the switch of subject. Perhaps we have bit off more than we could chew.

I am not saying that i want Jesus for Prez of the USA, but I would have a hard time seeing him bomb and kill other countries. The Jews were in the grips of the Roman Empire, perhaps the biggest terrorist organization ever, and Jesus NEVER called for the Jews to 'protect themselves.' God called the Jews to war (not what I personally believe, but anyway), but that is a distinction of the Old Testament. Jesus would try to understand the terrorists, wouldn't he?

War and Religion make good bedfellows, mayhaps?

/awaits a good skull thrashing

No, Jesus would understand the terrorists perfectly. They're fundamentalist radicals who will die for what they believe and will not be swayed.

And Jesus did not call for the Jews to protect themselves because Jesus was a teacher, not the incitor of a rebellion like many people believed the Messiah would be. The Bible teaches to submit to your captors. It's an entirely different thing than terrorists attacking your country.

I disagree -- I believe: Terrorists can be swayed! Anyone can be swayed! God can turn around the most hopeless case.

Jesus said: "Love your enemies" When a robber takes your cloak, give him also your tunic" "Love thy neighbor"

I see the average American not giving a darn about anyone in the Middle East except to bomb them or to make money off of them. Very far from Jesus' ideals.

Sorry I used that phrase, "The Average American" but it is the only way I can seem to get my point across.

I do believe Jesus loved everyone and taught his followers to do the same. However, I also do not believe he was/is a coward. He submitted to his captors because it was necessary for him to die to accomplish his atoning sacrifice. However, in the end he will come in his wrath to destroy the earth and re-create it.



And again...



If you created a batch of hammers, and none of them worked right, you would throw them out without a second look. If some were salvagable, you might melt them down to make new hammers.

All men are out to accomplish their own purposes (no matter how much any of us deny it, we are all selfish and sinful), but we will all one day realize that God created us to accomplish his purpose, and he is coming to do some quality assurance. If we are not living up to God's standards and if we refuse to accept his Son, we are good for nothing to him and he is perfectly just in destroying us.

If we instead admit that we have failed him and accept his Son, he can melt us down and make new creations out of us (cause us to be born again) by the power of his Spirit. I believe this is the only way we can escape destruction and accomplish God's purpose for our existence.

I don't believe God has called us to be cowards. He calls us to hate sin (but not sinners) and stand up against injustice.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying. We've expelled a fascist dictator and rebuilt the Iraqi government from the ground up to give them sovereignty and freedom. If that's "not giving a darn" then I'm a monkey's uncle.

In fact, wasn't this in Gore's democratic party platform, too?

OK, I'm goping to get the apology over now: Sorry for whatever rampage I go off on in the following paragraphs. With that said:



Love, ...then wrath? If I am not mistaken, wrath is very final (That's it, you're damned) and love is very infinite. I find it very hard to believe that God would punish me forever in a petty, dismissing way if I don't by chance choose the same dogma that he chose. (I'm sorry, the correct answer was... Methodism! You lose this round, see ya in hell!) It is very tricky and dangerous business to think that you are the chosen people. It has created more wars thatn you can think of.



Well, then, maybe I disagree with Jesus.

I looked in the Bible for some contradictory smartaleck quote, but there are very little mentions of the word 'peace.' There was the one you chose, and another where Jesus says, "My peace I leave with you, " where he is leaving. There is very little, if any, outrage against war at all.

But he is the prince of peace, and he has called us to be peacemakers, and I don't think a single Iraqi child deserved to die at our clumsy, vengeful fingers.



Another division between our lines of thought: You are not a hammer, and I am not a hammer, and the people of the Middle East are not hammers. None of us should ever be "thrown out."



It is the least cowardly act to be on the side of peace.

...and the injustices that America has committed is a subject that no one ever wants to talk about. There are a lot of rich Americans out there who have profited from the poor of so called "third world nations." As an American You/I are responsible for that.[/quote]

As opposed to Saddam's?

The fact that Saddam was a total jerk does not warrant the fact that we overstepped our bounds in a part of the world that we have no place being in.

There are countless injustices in the world -- Haiti, the Sudan...This particular injustice has been exploited by the current administration so we could have control over a certain region.

I split this topic. I hope there are no hard feelings. I don't mind it when a thread goes off-subject (that's why we have the ability to split things in the first place). I'm enjoying this discussion -- I just didn't want to intimidate anyone interested in talking about their religious affiliation in the other thread.

Carry on.

Joey Day,

And I appreciate the fact that you changed the thread.

It is rare that I talk to seminryites about religion.

I apologize if I sound so anti-dogma that I indeed spout dogma.

Okay, hockeyjackman, lemme get this straight.

If you saw a girl getting raped in a dark alley at night, would you not interfere to defend the girl? Because you don't know her? Because it wouldn't be your place to get in the middle of things?

Or would you try to break it up peacefully? Perhaps try to explain to the man why rape is wrong, and ask him to please stop? Perhaps you would quietly wait until the man is done, then help the girl put her clothes on and get back on her feet?

Of course not. You would probably call the cops, and if you were drastic enough you might try to defend the lady yourself.

The way I see it, the U.S. (and many other nations) looked and noticed that the Iraqi people were getting raped by a fascist dictator, realized we had the manpower to do something about it, and intervened the most effective way we knew how.

To quote Star Wars Episode 1, "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!"

Hockeyjackman? Would that be any relation to Hugh?

I feel that this particular unfortunate situation in the world (namely, Saddam's regime) was exploited by oil profiteers. We had been sanctioning and bombing Iraq for the last 12 years; this means starving and killing their people. It makes it difficult to take the high road, doesn't it? 67% or so of the Iraqis want us out of the region, do you really think they see us as liberators?

I don't think a bunch of millionares who made their booty by selling oil has the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind. Not a single Iraqi corporation has made a cent off of the oil -- only Halliburton, and you know who is a major player in that corp.

Starting a democracy is near-impossible work: We have tried 19 or so times since WWII, and have failed every time. They might end up with something WORSE than Saddam when all is said and done -- who knows? Vietnam and North Korea sure haven't been helped by our meddling.

In regards to the rape comment -- I believe it is a false analogy. There are countless problems in the world where we are sticking our heads in the sand, and since you quoted Gore's campaign stance, let me remind you that GWB said we were not to be "the world's policeman" in his. We let a democracy fall apart just off the shores of Florida (Haiti) so I don't buy this do-gooder stance of the President's.

It is interesting to argue these points with you -- all my friends are bleeding heart liberals, and they agree with me. I need a nice debate.

Wow. lots of long posts here.

Here's an interesting problem: national governments can and should work to defend the safety and security of their own people. As Scripture says, the state does not bear the sword in vain. Do not confuse the responsibility of Christians with the responsibility of governments. If a nation attacks us or threatens to do so, the United States government has every right to take action to prevent it, or failing to do so, to exact retribution from the offending party.

However, I do agree that the situation in Iraq is difficult for a number of reasons:

1) the intelligence information that led to the invasion was faulty. The intelligence agencies involved have already admitted this. It was an honest mistake.

2) the majority of Iraq's population is Shiite. Shiites are notorious for establishing despotic, tyrannical regimes. Just look at Iran circa 1980. The power vacuum left by Saddam's overthrow will very likely lead to a Shiite extremist government. Unless the US is willing to continue to sacrifice people and resources to occupy Iraq for the next several years. It will be interesting to see what happens come June 30.

The problem is we cannot simply ignore the problem either. We destroyed Iraq and removed its government, resulting in chaos. We would be negligent in our duty if we did not do everything within our power to restore order to their nation. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish this is to continue the occupation. But therein lies the real problem: how do we do that without making things even worse?

As for the whole oil issue: do you want to put a real crimp in America's oil interests? Simple. Quit driving. Don't use electricity. Stop spending your money on petroleum products of any kind. Seriously. The United States uses more petroleum per capita than any nation in the world. We seriously need some alternative fuel sources, and we seriously need to cut down on petroleum consumption.

This next statement will probably offend people, but I'll say it anyway. Islam is a bloody religion. The Crusades started because the Turks invaded Jerusalem, and the Christians sent armies to protect their own people.

Both Europe and the Middle Eastern cultures of those times were warrior cultures, and oddly enough, both cultures had codes of honor that dictated what was to be considered fair and honorable in combat.

Modern radical Muslims have no such code. It was Muslims who attacked the World Trade Center. I'd like to see anyone defend them for doing so.

Not all Muslims are barbarians like those terrorists; in the same way, not all Christians condone the Crusades (in fact, most of us repudiate them). But no Muslim has the right to cry "Crusade" every time the US takes action in the Near East. When we invaded Iraq the first time, we did so to defend our ally, Kuwait (a Muslim nation invaded by a neighboring Muslim nation). As their ally, we were morally obligated to aid them, and we did so very well.

We invaded Afghanistan to exact eliminate the Al Qaida group that attacked us.

How many acts of barbarism and atrocity are they allowed to commit before we are allowed to act and defend ourselves?

Keep in mind, the first Gentile followers of Jesus were Roman soldiers (Mark 15:39, Acts 10).

Let the state bear the sword God has given to it.

_________________

Nice post, Didymus. However, I'm confused by part of it. What do you mean by this:

Honestly, that sounds like something out of a Bernard Lewis book. I always thought that the basis for Islam was prayer and understanding, and that a few radicals take several of the lesser and outdated teachings to the extreme when they do things like kill people in terrorist attacks. Like they use the term "jihad", a subjective and psychological term, to defend objective and political acts. Can we really blame the entire religion for a few individuals that misinterpret some teachings?

Oh, and I just wanted to add that I wasn't at all offended by the statement, but it was good of you to preface it like that.

Let's go a bit further and stop confusing the United States with a Christian nation. We are not a Christian nation, and that the majority of American citizens are Christians does not make us one. In fact, the framers of the Constitution (though predominantly Christian) went to great lengths to ensure that this nation would not be a Christian one, but a democratic one.

The actions of the state should not be dictated by any person's perceived obligation to any Lord-with-a-capital-L. The administration's only official obligation is to its constituents, by which I mean all of its constituents, not just the wealthy-white-male-Christian-heterosexual (think I'm just trolling? have you read the Texas Republican Party Platform, for example?), and not just the ones who agree with it. However, that is not how this administration has been conducting itself.

Okay, I'm straying off topic, and I'm running out of steam, but it needed to be said.

_________________

Interruptor Jones:

Yes!

Calling someone "evil," which George W has done repeatedly, in a religious term, not an American one. The American sense of justice has no place as designating people as evil.

GWB has made it clear what his religious beliefs are: refer to the Bob Woodward interviews and book for a description of his own personal "crusade."

A word on Islam -- any religion that is mixed with power politics becomes very dangerous.

This is why I fear for the future of my country. Throughout the world, The War on Terror is seen as a religious, racial divide, whereas it should be us finding the specific perpetrators of the injustices we were served. We have no right to be in a country that has not been shown to have hurt us.

As for the idea of democracy in Iraq: if the majority of the people there want a theocracy run by a fundamental (by our standards) religious leader, will the Americans let them have it? Probably not, right? Does this not conflict with giving over full sovereignty?

I am so confused as to what we should do now in that country: I hope that this is the last time we get ourselves in this situation. There is no "quick fix" to the problems of the world, yet politicians seem to think that war will cure all of our ills.

Actually, you might want to remember back to the time immediately following the 9-11 incident. In a public speech, Mr. Bush clearly stated that not all Muslims are evil. He commended Muslims who were hard-working, peace-loving people who just wanted to live their lives according to their faith. The people Mr. Bush calls evil are specifically those who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks and those who support them, like the Taliban.

If we ever want to be able to call a man like--you know that famous German dictator that you're not supposed to name in forums--then we must also apply that term to men like Saddam and Osama. Such men are evil. Let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended).

But this does not mean that all Muslims are evil. I've known Muslims who were just good people. I may not agree with all their theology, but I certainly do not plan to attack them. I certainly hope that cooler heads prevail all around. But that remains to be seen.

I do believe it is a valid fear that this "War on Terror" will become just an excuse to impose American interests in foreign lands. I do not dismiss that. Just realize that there are just as many people--more, in fact--who believe that our safety is at stake. Furthermore, both of the current main presidential candidates support the "War on Terror", so don't base your decisions mainly on that.

_________________

Personally, I'm sure no one really cares what I think...
So I'll say it anyway.

I wish the war would end soon. I don't feel like gettin' deployed.

Three people from my squadron are heading out to Iraq...


josh.

A good point, but the comparison is not entirely accurate. This is going to sound harsh, but here goes. If you saw a woman getting raped, would you destroy the rapist's home and kill his friends and family, and people who lived near him? Because that's closer to what the US is doing to Iraq. I know Saddam and his regime is their target, but the end result is the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, on both sides.



I think it already is. If the reason is to liberate the Iraqi people, then will the US also invade the dozens of other countries with despotic leaders? Probably not. Also remember that the original reason for the invasion was the supposed WMDs. Now that we know there weren't any, Bush needs another excuse to stay in Iraq.



I agree with you fully, LV. One of the major problems of the war is that people still see it as a war against the Iraqi people, or against Muslims, instead of against Saddam and the extremists.

_________________

Why can't you say Hitler in forums?

Oops!

_________________
"Hey Dudes, thanks for rescuing me. Let's go for a burger... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

I agree with AgentSeethroo. I don't want us in Iraq. I didn't really want us there to start with. If we had concrete evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to our security, it would have been a different story. But you can't just start invading countries just because we perceive that they might be a threat.

And keep in mind, it's the men and women of our armed forces who end up having to bear the greater part of the burden on our end. They are the ones who have to suffer perhaps even die. They are the ones who have to fear for their safety in a foreign land surrounded by people who, for the most part, hate them. We get to stay home, eat ice cream, and watch baseball. AgentSeethroo, I'm there with you, dude. I was in your shoes during the first Gulf War. Thankfully I didn't have to go.

_________________

DeadGuyPerez:

Supposedly, there is some rule that if you meantion Hitler or Nazis, then the thread is considered closed, and whoever makes the reference automatically loses the debate. I don't know who made up that stupid rule.

Maybe if you say his name in a mirror at midnight or something, he'll jump out and get you or something.

_________________

It's not a rule, it's a law (as in Newton's Laws, not traffic laws). It's called Godwin's Law [1] [2], and the bit about you "losing" the argument only applies if the Hitler/Nazi reference is in a poor context, e.g. comparing another poster to Hitler.

_________________