Reply With Quote
For the 1st time on this forum, someone has agreed that this is true.
Makes sense to me. Those who kill will have to face judgement on it in the end. You will be judged not only on your actions but on your heart and mind. No one will escape their true nature. So do not support the killing of others or you will have to answer to it.
For the 1st time on this forum, someone has agreed that this is true.
All I want to know is: Where the is xray?
I take it then we are not to defend ourselves. But be slaughtered like
sheep. Like the two young men were a few days ago.
I be here. But not for long. Have a life other than this computer...LOL
so when God commanded the Jews to Kill God violated his own commandment?
Technically, your understanding is incorrect. "Thou shalt not kill" is from the King James Bible. In the 17th century, "kill" connoted what we today call murder, and "put to death" connoted what we today call killing.
The original Hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments was "ratsah," which is better translated as "murder."
According to Romans 13, civil governments are meant to be God's ministers to execute wrath against evildoers, by "bearing the sword."
Lethal force, then, biblically is within the valid purview of the state.
From this and other passages comes the Augustinian doctrinal theory of just war.
XI. Thou shalt not pimp 30 year-old degraded mus gas canisters when thou art 18 points behind in the polls.
You don't have a disease, you are litterally s
Where's mouse when you need him?
You republicans really need to get your story straight. Did America go to war to protect itself from a terrorist attack? did it go to war because Iraq has a WMD program capable of posing an immediate threat to the US, or are you spreading democracy??it seems the story changes to "fit the bill" doesn't it?
Just.
Stop.
The.
WMD.
Bull .
Jesus- ing-Christ! Thats not why we went in, ok? That may be what the President and Co. said, but it wasnt true then and it certainly isnt now.
Real reason? I have no idea, but I am sure we all have our opinions. I bet there is no sole, penultimate reason. I believe it was multi-faceted gains with minimal loss.
1. Revenge for Daddy - Dont doubt the power of family honor.
2. Unfinished business - Wrapping up a situation that should have been 15 years ago.
3. Oil - Dont know how, dont care about specifics. Fact is, Iraq's borders contain one of the largest oil deposits in all the world.
4. Benefit campaign supporters - what better way to reward former companies you personally held stock in than to destroy large portions of a country ($$ for arms makers) and then turn around and hand out the rebuilding contracts to your pargest campaign donors (Haliburton, etc). Reeeeeal coincidence.
Bla, bla, bla...the list goes on.
What does it tell you about some people when they use transparent rhetoric and non-sequiturs to accuse dissenters of being "un-American"?
some of them are unamerican.
This link is just for you.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Why would limited airstrikes five years before an invasion and occupation be relevant?
Had Clinton changed the regime and stayed in Iraq for three years, maybe the comparison could be drawn, but there's no telling what changed between 98 and 03, if anything.
Exactly. The ways of man are not the ways of God. If someone wants to kill you, you should not kill in defense. That is what you should do but it is very difficult to do.
I'm sure I would fight an attacker back because I am weak (contradictory isn't it, because most would think your weak if you don't fight back ) but that is not what I should do. these are the teachings of Jesus. And don't get me wrong I am not a bible touting preacher, don't even read the bible at all but I have heard the major messages from it and have done much thinking on it and developed my own theories on what seems most logical to me.
Hard to understand but again the ways of man are not the ways of God. Jesus was an example of how you should react and he was killed. Don't you think Jesus could have destroyed the entire Roman army if he wanted to?
It all doesn't matter anyways. Living or dying that is because in the end we all die. Life is short for all when compared to eternity and nobody will get away with anything in the end. Its all kind of a test. Justice will be served for everyone. Nobody gets away with anything. Somehow everything is being recorded and will be played back on judgement. There is no denying anything.
If someone kills another, the one who kills will have to face up to it. I don't know what will happen but I'm sure he will be more than sorry when confronted with his deed.
Its going to be great that everything will be fair and just because life on Earth is not fair.
We now know life on earth is real because we are on this side of death and experiencing life but reality also exsists after death. death is, just a transistion into another dimension which is beyond 3d. The body can't go there, it is trapped in a 3rd dimensional world. Upon death separation happens and another dimension is entered. You may say this is all far fetched but I say there is too much balance and order in the world for it all to happen by just chance. That makes no sense at all to me. There is much beyond our known 3rd dimensional world.
What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet conveniently forget some of Christianity's most basic tenets, such as: "Judge not lest you be judged"; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?" and so on and so forth...?
For such a good Christian, you seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone else what bad Christians they are.
It's actually a question I've been asking, because I have seen many throw around the Christian le and religion and God and "Republicans are Christians" and so on, and at the same time, they support war, the death penalty, not helping the poor, ongoing lies, etc.
So I posed a question that either gets purposely ignored or someone makes up an excuse and pretends as if war is actually ok for Christians to support.
Nice try judging me though.
I see you completely avoided the fact that so many so called Christians support war when Jesus clearly tells us to turn the other cheek.
Nice try though, but it doesn't make war ok in anyway to Jesus.
Where did I judge you in the post? All I did, which you seem to like to avoid, is post Scriptures.
I don't believe Jesus' message of "turning the other cheek" equates to there being absolutely no justification for war. A back-handed slap to the face was an act of shaming, not of aggression. Furthermore, turning the other cheek to someone who struck you meant they either had to use their "unclean" (left) hand to strike you again, or punch you, treating you as an equal and someone worthy of respect (which defeats the whole purpose).
And I think either you missed or purposely ignore Extra_Stout's quote. How do you respond to:
Well in first place, I don't recall anyone saying "Republicans are Christians",
which I think you imply they claim to be the only "Christians".
We don't support war. No one supports war, as you term it. No Republican
or any-other American that I know of wanted a war. If I remember correctly
on 9/11 the only war we were engaged in was in Bosnia. One Bill Clinton
started or got us involved in, and where are still today.
I support the death penalty. Many Republicans and others do not, you
among them. I support it because once dead, killers cannot do it again.
Kill people. It has been proven time and time again that killers do kill
again when released from prison, which they all are. Because some feel
it is unfair to keep them there.
You always bring up the so called fact, Republicans don't want to help
the poor. No one wants to put poor people in jail. No one wants to see
people starve. But people do object to the fact that people stay on
welfare for many years and their off springs go on to the same system.
Welfare has broken up more families and contributed to the breakup of
the black community more than anything else. Those are facts as
stated by some well educated, knowledgeable people. I have stated,
and state again. There is nothing wrong with giving someone a helping
hand. There is nothing wrong with helping the sick, disabled and others
that are unable to earn a decent living. But, people like you, who want
to keep their hands in everyones hip pocket are a little irritating.
Want a shock, go around the neighborhood and tell everyone that you
want their money so you can give it away to who you see fit. They will
tell you to go back home and leave them alone. But the government
does this all the time. Except they take it, whether you can afford it
or not, and give it to those they see fit. See the picture. And you
cheer them on.
Now about lies. My goodness, how many people do you need to tell
you that Bush was not the only one saying there was WMD in Iraq.
He didn't cherry pick, as you folks are so fond of saying. Clinton,
Kerry, Reid the whole bunch on your side said the same. Russian said
the same. France said the same, Germany said the same, England said
the same. WMD has been found. Much of what he had has not been
found, where did it go. Good fairy haul it off? For goodness sakes, he
used it....remember!
Ties to Al Qaeda have been shown with Iraq.
None of this you will accept. But that is because you, who claim to be
such a Christian, show your hate in so many ways for those you disagree
with.
You claim to be a man. Well grow up and act like one.
Actually, murderers are the least likely to be repeat offenders according to just about every study I've seen. Rapists being the most likely.
The death penalty should not be applied to first time offenders. Everyone deserves a second chance, and there's always the chance of someone being convicted wrongly. Requiring a repeat offense shows they cannot function properly in society and it's highly unlikely someone would be wrongly convicted twice.
But that's just my opinion.
Not really. It was shown there was some communication between Al Qaeda and Saddam, mostly Al Qaeda asking to set up bases in Iraq and Saddam saying no. There is no solid, reliable evidence that Saddam ever collaborated with Al Qaeda.Ties to Al Qaeda have been shown with Iraq.
There is concrete proof that Saddam did support some terrorist groups, but not Al Qaeda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
