All Comments (28)

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

hello iam mehdi iam from iran sheraz iam mecking u.sarmy persin man megham dar artesh america alayhe terorist dar afganstan war bgngam can you help me? 29 yers old

hello iam mehdi iam from iran sheraz iam mecking u.sarmy persin man megham dar artesh america alayhe terorist dar afganstan war bgngam can you help me? 29 yers old

hello iam mehdi iam from iran sheraz iam mecking u.sarmy persin man megham dar artesh america alayhe terorist dar afganstan war bgngam can you help me? 29 yers old

hello iam mehdi iam from iran sheraz iam mecking u.sarmy persin man megham dar artesh america alayhe terorist dar afganstan war bgngam can you help me? 29 yers old

hello i am mehdi 27 yersold az enke farsi tayp shod ecxcuzme man metvanm u.sarmy artesh america
ozv bshavam can you help me?

It is always ironically twisted when non-believers think they are better equipped to explain to Christians Christian theology than Christians themselves. Part of the reason why believers continue to be believers is because they have not only grappled with the APPARENT contradictions but realized through patient study and critical examination that no contradiction is actually present. Of course, the nuanced logical discussion inherent in such endeavor is precisely that which non-believers accuse believers of being incapable. So, which is it... are we shrewd manipulators twisting scripture to our own benefit or simpletons who couldn't see a lie if it hit us in the face? Are we to be feared for our shrewdness or idiocy? Apparently, the contradictions are to be found also among the non-believers.

"On the matter of war, this means we have a presumption for peace. And it means that the burden of proof rests with President Bush and any of us who would make war."

Well, THERE YOU GO! You see - the POTUS believes GOD TOLD HIM TO GO TO WAR. NOW whatya do?

Now, HOW do you argue with an obviously mentally unstable person in the position of POTUS when he states GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT? HE'S RIGHT because GOD TOLD HIM HE WAS - and WHO are YOU to say otherwise? (THAT is the mess we are in at this moment.)

There's that GOD thing again. Big albatross and scares people into doing reallyreally idiotic things. Like not holding ANYONE in the BUSH ADMINSTRATION ACCOUNTABLE for their INEPTITUDE.

Where's the righteous anger? And the free will?

I would suggest this constant ENABLING of "sinners who have seeeeeen da light" has gone a LONG way in allowing such weak-willed people to grab power and wield it for their own personal goals.

BA'AL, it's hard to argue they weren't inspired when they allow owing slaves. Ever chop any cotton? That's an inspiration generator de luxe. If Jesus didn't want people to own slaves then why did God put so much crab grass in the cotton patch?

Bgone

I am continually amazed at the content of texts that many people still regard as either sacred or inspired. Aquinas is one of only 33 Doctors of the Church is regarded as a teacher of "eminent learning" and "great sanctity". Taken on their own terms they are often completely horrifying -- or completely absurd, as in Leviticus (which taken literally at the present time would allow you to own either Canadians or Mexicans as slaves).

BA'AL, if they were going to burn someone at the stake and do it in public how much could a scalper get for the last seat? How about one close enough to hear the condemned one's crys for mercy and see the charred flesh fall off the bone?

Robert B.

The following is from Aquinas' Summa Theologica - Vol. 3 - The Second Part Of The Second Part, Part I.

"Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

and

"After that, if he [a heretic or apostate] is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death".

These passages had unhappy consequences. With all due respect, I think you and your co-religionists would be better advised to find someone a bit more modern to use as an authority for when it is reasonable to use force!!!!!

To Norrie Hoyt:

True, Christ siad that we ought to "turn the other cheek." However, he also used a whip to drive moneychangers out of the temple and did not fault his disciples for carrying weapons. In the end, the just war theory developed by Augustine and Aquinas is really the only way to deal with these seeming contradictions within Scripture.

You are right that Christians have a mixed history of war and peace. But Jesus did not. Or did he? We know so very little about most of his life.

I think Jesus concentrated on improving people's dispositions. He pointedly avoided becoming involved in 'worldly' matters, such as war.

I was reading Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" yesterday. King was facing a moral situation in Birmingham, Alabama, a town that wasn't his town, but where evil existed. It’s fairly long, but it’s very much worth reading. The language is eloquent & beautiful. The ideas are both idealistic & down-to-earth.

King said one group asked him to come in response to the failure of local whites to negotiate civil rights. But several local people said he had no right to be in Birmingham. Martin Luther King said he felt "compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town." King, sitting for a long period in jail, replied with a moral argument: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

The Gospels say Jesus wanted people to love, not hate, to help, not hurt. King was a preacher of the Jesus gospel of love & perseverance. But King was also an advocate of nonviolence as the only way to gain rights. King realized that his people were acting from a position of weakness. They had to persuade, not attack. The hate-mongers would fight hate with hate, but they could not fight love with hate. King recognized the power of passive resistance.

I can’t help but think of Birmingham when I hear Bush/Cheney saying they had a moral imperative to invade Iraq, when Republicans now in the light of the lies that were told about Iraq still try to support their invasion. How different Bush is from King; how different their work.

King was not all passivity. He was not afraid of causing what he called "tension":
"I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

Bush has used religious language to justify his military invasion of Iraq, his use of American boys & girls to forcibly invade and conquer another country. But has Bush seen the abilities of the Iraqi people, as King saw the abilities of not only his people, but the white power mongers who refused to share power? From his failure to handle the peace, I think he has not.

I'm afraid Bush has done a General Custer - he has followed the wrong intelligence. Unless of course he is deliberately creating an Arab crisis in the hopes of forcing the Arab radicals to the negotiating table as King was attempting to do in the 1960's South. King said, "The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."

If negotiation is what Bush is attempting - and I do say if because he has pointedly said he is not - I have mixed feelings about his methods. Compared to King, Bush is incredibly clumsy. And arrogant. King was working with his own group of people, of whom he was one. Bush is attempting to force a change in an entire foreign region, invading 2 countries at the same time. I don't admire the Cheney/Rumsfeld strategizing. And I certainly don't approve of their use of lies to the American people.

There are a lot of issues here. Nonviolence vs violence. Home vs abroad. Self-protection vs preemptive strikes. Hate vs love.

Bush would do worse than to read M L King, Jr on this holiday if he really wants to go down in history as a moral man.

Totally agree with the panelist on this issue.

M Stratus: The war in Iraq was planned "beyond the point of no return" prior to 9-11-2001. Why is the question. Oil? Haliburton needed the work? Study long study wrong, guess long same same.

Afnanstan may be the attack on Russia Hitler did that cost him the war with England, you know, drawing off resources needed to "conquer" Iraq. Was Colin Powell always against the Iraq war or only after 9-11? Did he think we were too weak for Iraq and Afganstan at the same time?

I like to think my government never sets out to conquer. But then there are a couple of wars that are clearly conquests like the war with Mexico and that Texas thing. John Wayne had to die in the movie to save Texas from the Mexcans. Acording to Pat Buchanan the Mexicans are taking Texas back and throwing in Tennessee for the insult.

The Iraq war is immoral because Saddam did not attack America and had not harmed Americans. Bin Laden attacked America, Saddam & Bin Laden were not allies. Bush had no justification for Iraq. The Iraqis were oppressed, and therefore, they alone had the right to rise up and fight against their oppressor. The US could have provided logistics & military advisors, etc.; however, invasion and occupation were not the solutions. We've been in Iraq for 3-1/2 years, we've created chaos, destruction and bloody tribal killings instead of democracy and justice. Some Iraqs want to kill Americans based on "just war".

Have you noticed that all of the Christian panelists and posters accept that some wars are justified? Did Jesus the Christ say that? Whatever happened to "Turn the other cheek?"

If these "Christians" really believed in Christian doctrine they would oppose all wars including "defensive" wars.

And if they really believed in life after death and the Christian Heaven, they'd advise others and themselves that it's better to simply accept death in war than to advocate or participate in a defensive or other war.

The inescapable conclusion is that these "Christian" panelists and posters don't really hold Christian beliefs, particularly concerning the hereafter.

Have you noticed that all of the Christian panelists and posters accept that some wars are justified? Did Jesus the Christ say that? Whatever happened to "Turn the other cheek?"

If these "Christians" really believed in Christian doctrine they would oppose all wars including "defensive" wars.

And if they really believed in life after death and the Christian Heaven, they'd advise others and themselves that it's better to simply accept death in war than to advocate or participate in a defensive or other war.

The inescapable conclusion is that these "Christian" panelists and posters don't really hold Christian beliefs, particularly concerning the hereafter.

sorry the last comment is mine about religions zionism is mine.

I am fully in accord with the your ultimate conclusion, but I have quibbles about how you get there, especially when you write "We get them from the accumulated Biblical narrative, and from human experience and reflection by reason".

Part of that biblical narrative includes repeated celebrations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, as in the books Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc. Mere fraternization with outsiders was a grievous sin, instead Canaanites were to be killed on sight.

These same texts are used by extreme religious zealots to argue that the Jewish people have a permanent and inalienable right to a region that extends from the "River of Egypt" to the Euphrates. This would comprise all of modern Israel and the West Bank, as well as the Gaza Strip and parts of modern-day Syria and Lebanon. It would also include the Sinai Peninsula and much of Jordan. These ideas are part of why Israeli settlements in occupied territories remain a burning political issue in that country.

Of course, Christian Zionists here, such as a group of fanatics called Christians United for Israel - CUFI - believe that supporting expansionist policies of the Israeli government is "a biblical imperative."

To an atheist (even one whose parents and grandparents are Jewish), these claims are not rational and it is outrageous how many people are willing to die and kill for these sorts of claims. -- and other claims based on other religious texts.

You can derive almost any crazy conclusion you want from the accumulated Biblical narrative (and, I am sure, from the Koran as well). It all depends on what you pick and choose, and maybe we should leave it alone when we try to find solutions to modern problems.

When someone shoots at us we have the duty and obligation to shoot back. So hold the aim and squeeze the trigger. Natural law says meet violence with violence else the shooting will never end. The other option chosen by Jews during another shooting event leads to the gas chamber for them then and us now.

It's perfectly clear. We have a problem identifying the shooter. It's a God named Allah. Therefore I say we have the duty and obligation to the whole human ract to shoot Allah.

There's a problem, as usual. Trinity God stands between us and Allah. Either Trinity God steps aside or takes the first bullet. What'll it be? Got faith?

Get faith at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that Allah can be shot. Just one or two questions for you to answer. If angels can't be shot then why do they have shields? If angels shouldn't be shot then why do they have weapons? Without angels Gods die in a whimper.

Note: those pictures of angels are official.

War other than for defense is imorral, what the US & Britan was without doubt imorral, but let's no drag religon into it and start quoting GOD through the bible. After all as I know it GOD didn't write the Bible man did and choose what HE wanted in it and disregarded what HE didn't want in it!

War should only be fought in self defense not preemptively. Also all political leaders should be required to have thier children on active duty in the military during thier tenor in office to make sure when war is called for itis out of neccessity not arogance!!

If the Arab-Isreali issue was handled in a seriously honest manor instead of giving Isreal whatever it wants almost all of the middleeast issues would be resolved.

Think about what us Americans would do if some other country came to the USA and raided, stole, and split it into tiny fragmented pieces like was done to Palistine. I think us Americans would be loading up our shotguns and making homemade bombs, I guess we would then be considered terrorist & extremists. I assume then that the rest of the world would have to wage a war on terrorism against us.