Featherbop
Member
.?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Political party
- Thread starter Featherbop
- Start date
L
la verdad
Guest
i voted none..but democrats>republicans
simply because they give a damn about the pople of the world..and not their own interests (unlike bush)
simply because they give a damn about the pople of the world..and not their own interests (unlike bush)
Featherbop
Member
Democrats=teh givers away of everything
I don't like any, to be truthful though....
I don't like any, to be truthful though....
L
la verdad
Guest
all the amazing conversion stories involve giving away everything (ie st francis de assissi) ... didnt jesus preach to not care about worldly possesions
B
Blue-Lightning
Guest
No, that's not at all what Jesus preached. Did you know that more verses said by Jesus deal with the use of money than with anything else? Jesus said to put him first.
BTW, the mere fact that you are typing on a computer says to me that you haven't given all your money away. And it would be silly to do so unless there was a situation like some of the early churches had.
BL
BTW, the mere fact that you are typing on a computer says to me that you haven't given all your money away. And it would be silly to do so unless there was a situation like some of the early churches had.
BL
L
la verdad
Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
you seem to have misread my statement..did i ever say i was "tamim"? now my friend. and what did jesus say to the rich man that asked him how to get into heaven? to give away all earthly possesions and to follow him
B
Blue-Lightning
Guest
Tamim? Haven't come across that word before...
The rich man who was told to give up all his earthly posessions and follow Jesus was told to do so because he loved his posessions more than he loved Jesus. That was the problem. We must all be willing to give up everything we have for Him. If we aren't willing to give up our posessions then how can we possibly be ready to "give up" our lives?
But that doesn't necessarily mean that every single person should give up all their posessions. If that were true, Jesus wouldn't have went to Mary and Martha's house (a posession).
BL
The rich man who was told to give up all his earthly posessions and follow Jesus was told to do so because he loved his posessions more than he loved Jesus. That was the problem. We must all be willing to give up everything we have for Him. If we aren't willing to give up our posessions then how can we possibly be ready to "give up" our lives?
But that doesn't necessarily mean that every single person should give up all their posessions. If that were true, Jesus wouldn't have went to Mary and Martha's house (a posession).
BL
L
la verdad
Guest
of course i agree..but when possessions become something people will kill over, or go to war with other countries for.... those are the possessions you need to give up..and thus i tie my argument back into the reason the bush administration is a joke, and does injustices to the image of christianity
W
WiLdAtHeArT
Guest
la verdad: Please list three examples of why you think "the bush administration is a joke, and does injustices to the image of christianity"
Where do you get your information?
Where do you get your information?
B
Blue-Lightning
Guest
Your argument is illogical. You have absolutely no evidence, only opinion, that the United States (the Congress approved) went to war for posessions. :roll:
I suppose that's why Spain's previous PM was willing to gamble his position... for oil, right? The entire world and Saddam himself believed that Iraq had WMDs; the possiblity is still there that the weapons were either moved to another country or buried in a desert. Although I wouldn't be suprised if Saddam was just senile and still acted like he had them though he didn't.
Either way, they constantly did not comply with their agreements that they made after the Gulf War. As a result of constantly disregarding UN mandates that the US was dependent on for ensured safety, the United States government along with several allies, took action in removing Saddam Hussein from power.
There are people like you however, who wish we hadn't claiming that we did an immoral thing. So back to butchers go the Iraqi citizens, back come the evil sons of Saddam who tortured and killed, and returned to power is the ability to gas entire cities and town of ethnic groups.
¡Viva estupididad y la gente ilógica!
BL
C
cubedbee
Guest
DO the ends really justify the means? Yes, an evil dictator has been removed and atrocities have been stopped. But the fact is, the US went to war against another country based on unsubstantiated and falsified claims. If my country is going to act against the will of the UN, I want it to be for an ironclad reason. This was not the case. Either the CIA is absolutely worthless and knows nothing or the Bush administration willingly led the American public astray.
W
WiLdAtHeArT
Guest
The UN believed that Iraq had WMD's. You can blame the CIA if you want, but the CIA had the same information that everybody else did. The UN was not willing to do anything about it, however, except pass 17 resolutions, each one as worthless as the previous one. Diplomacy does NOT work against people who use diplomacy to hide their evil intentions and actions. Bush did not willingly lead the American public astray. Bush had the courage to actually do something - to call Saddam's bluff - knowing that mere talk without action is worthless and weak. Osama bin Laden himself, before Sept. 11th, said in one of his statements that he believed America talked tough, but lacked the courage to actually do something to stop his terrorism. Bush is the right president for such a time as this.
Today in Fallujah, you may have heard, Fallujahns shot and killed 4 foreigners (I don't know their nationalities). Then they torched their car. Then they dragged their bodies through the streets of Fallujah. Then they hung them from the Euphrates river. Then they dismembered and decapitated the bodies. Then they beat the bodies with sticks. Then they chanted something like, "to god be the glory!" Should the response be another resolution? Should we wag our finger at them and say, "Now Now. That's bad. Please don't do that anymore." NO! We should find those responsible and make sure they never see the light of day again. Such people should not be allowed to live with the same freedoms as law-abiding, peace-loving citizens should have.
Today in Fallujah, you may have heard, Fallujahns shot and killed 4 foreigners (I don't know their nationalities). Then they torched their car. Then they dragged their bodies through the streets of Fallujah. Then they hung them from the Euphrates river. Then they dismembered and decapitated the bodies. Then they beat the bodies with sticks. Then they chanted something like, "to god be the glory!" Should the response be another resolution? Should we wag our finger at them and say, "Now Now. That's bad. Please don't do that anymore." NO! We should find those responsible and make sure they never see the light of day again. Such people should not be allowed to live with the same freedoms as law-abiding, peace-loving citizens should have.
C
cubedbee
Guest
WiLdAtHeArT said:
We rule Iraq now, so of course we should respond accordingly and punish these people. This has nothing to do with us going to war though. Is the US the ruler of the world? Are we somehow above the other nations? Do we not have to respect the sovereignty of other countries? It is not appropriate for the US to use force to invade countries where wrongdoing is taking place. War should be a last resort option for the protection of our country, not a way for the US to gets its own way. Delude yourself all you want--we both know that Iraq never posed a threat to the safety of the United States.
B
Blue-Lightning
Guest
You are correct in stating that we went to Iraq for incorrect reasons... but that is looking back with 20/20 vision and not acknowledging that we also had correct reasons at the same time. At the time, many different nations believed there were WMD's and knew (and still know) that Saddam Hussein did not comply with the resolutions and he knew what the punishment for not complying was supposed to be. Simply because we were willing to comply with the resolutions does not mean that we went against the UN - we didn't... we simply went against France, Germany, Russia, and other minor countries. It was an unpopular war, but so would have been taking down the Taliban before 9/11.
So no, the ends do not justify the means. But we had justification in the broken resolutions. However, we were incorrect about the WMD's as it appears now. And we can be proud of what we did... we have begun the process of liberating lives in Iraq, though there will be many who will seek to impede that process.
And that is a good thing.
And yes, war should be the last resort... I think 17 broken resolutions in which many specifically spell out that removal from power is the consequence of ignoring it is enough. Maybe you don't think 17 is enough, but that's opinion, there's no wrongdoing in feeling that 1, 5, 17, or 100 is the right number of broken resolutions is the last one that can be allowed. The US chose 17.
Did Iraq pose a threat to the United States? I still don't know where those WMD's that Saddam had are right now. For all we know, they are in the hands of terrorists seeking to detonate a dirty bomb inside the states. We just don't know. Maybe they are in the desert. But we do know that Saddam had the weapons and that they are not there and that we went to war because he would not specify their current location and/or whether or not they were destroyed. That's a thread to our safety - WMDs that are unaccounted for, having been in the hand's of a tyrant who at one time attempted to assassinate our former-president.
BL
BL[/color]
So no, the ends do not justify the means. But we had justification in the broken resolutions. However, we were incorrect about the WMD's as it appears now. And we can be proud of what we did... we have begun the process of liberating lives in Iraq, though there will be many who will seek to impede that process.
And that is a good thing.
And yes, war should be the last resort... I think 17 broken resolutions in which many specifically spell out that removal from power is the consequence of ignoring it is enough. Maybe you don't think 17 is enough, but that's opinion, there's no wrongdoing in feeling that 1, 5, 17, or 100 is the right number of broken resolutions is the last one that can be allowed. The US chose 17.
Did Iraq pose a threat to the United States? I still don't know where those WMD's that Saddam had are right now. For all we know, they are in the hands of terrorists seeking to detonate a dirty bomb inside the states. We just don't know. Maybe they are in the desert. But we do know that Saddam had the weapons and that they are not there and that we went to war because he would not specify their current location and/or whether or not they were destroyed. That's a thread to our safety - WMDs that are unaccounted for, having been in the hand's of a tyrant who at one time attempted to assassinate our former-president.
BL
BL[/color]
W
WiLdAtHeArT
Guest
cubedbee wrote:
No, the US is not the 'ruler' of the world - it is, however, the sole 'superpower'. . And with that status come responsibilities. Was the US wrong in 'invading' Normandy, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq? Only if you think freedom or valuing life is wrong.
Normandy- to stop the Nazis from taking over Europe.
Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua- to stop the spread of communism.
Somallia- a humanitartian operation (I can't defend this one - we shouldn't have gone here)
Afghanistan- to obliterate the Taliban.
Iraq- to obliterate Saddam's regime.
Each of these instances, crimes against humanity were being committed on such a scale that NOT to act would have been bad for the world. (In order for that sentence to make sense, communism would have to be a crime against humanity, which, perhaps, I could make a case...)
People who say that 'Peace is the answer' don't know the question. There are BAD GUYS in the world. We are the GOOD GUYS. (most of the time)
No, the US is not the 'ruler' of the world - it is, however, the sole 'superpower'. . And with that status come responsibilities. Was the US wrong in 'invading' Normandy, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq? Only if you think freedom or valuing life is wrong.
Normandy- to stop the Nazis from taking over Europe.
Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua- to stop the spread of communism.
Somallia- a humanitartian operation (I can't defend this one - we shouldn't have gone here)
Afghanistan- to obliterate the Taliban.
Iraq- to obliterate Saddam's regime.
Each of these instances, crimes against humanity were being committed on such a scale that NOT to act would have been bad for the world. (In order for that sentence to make sense, communism would have to be a crime against humanity, which, perhaps, I could make a case...)
People who say that 'Peace is the answer' don't know the question. There are BAD GUYS in the world. We are the GOOD GUYS. (most of the time)