 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/15/2008 10:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/15/2008 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | More interesting stuff...
President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California
(Actual Transcript from the White House, May 2003)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. (Applause.)
Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.
...
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)
....
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.)
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got. (Applause.)
-------------------------------
God bless you, Tom.
See you in June. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/15/2008 10:50 AM (GMT -6) | | There's a biblical truth that keeps running through my head after reading that article...
Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Maybe one more...about the Reality of Christ...
Isaiah 2: 4
He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
If Jesus were saying "Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." to others then...
He'd HAVE to be saying "America, America..." to us now, I would think.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/1/2008 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Bush pays price for 'Mission Accomplished' sign
White House admits fault on banner seen to declare Iraq victory 5 years ago
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 5/1/2008 10:03:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2008 12:18 AM (GMT -6) | | D, what do you think "those who draw/live by the sword will die by the sword" really means?
It cannot offer a straight equivalence between going to war, or participating in an act of violence, on the one hand, and literally losing your life by an equal and/or porportionate act of violence on the other. Many who draw the sword never die by the sword. Many who spend their lives LIVING by the sword never die BY THE SWORD. They live long lives in safety and ease and die peacefully in their beds. And many others who never participate in violence but who are peacemakers nevertheless die by the sword. Yet many seem to take this phrase as a kind of law that forbids such a thing ever happening.
So, we have to be more specific, and once we get more specific and precise we can THEN ask ourselves how to apply it.
Like most proverbs, this likely expresses a tendency or probability. Perpetrators of violence TEND to suffer from what they dish out. So don't orient yourself violently or adopt violent ways of relating to the world. If violence is yoru default response to unpleasant events in your life, you'll tend to get violence in return. But that in itself doesn't mean there can NEVER be appropriate uses of violence. It doesn't even address the question. The intent, I think, is describe likely or probable outcomes of consistent patterns of behavior.
But to bring this back to Bush. I think history will judge him as a generally well-intentioned but marginally competent leader motivated by a submerged messiah-complex. And in that I don't think he's necessarily any more or less a liabilty than most other presidents. He's certainly no more off the mark in 'Kingdom' terms than was Clinton, so I guess I'm wondering why you focus on Bush (this makes several times now that you've posted on the 'Mission Accomplished' mistake of Bush's) but not on the blunders of other (Democratic?) presidents and leaders. I could post cartoons of Clinton smoking cirgars in the White House with his pants unzipped.
I guess I'm missing the point.
T
Post Edited (Tom) : 5/2/2008 6:10:36 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/2/2008 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Certainly Jesus knew that not all who take up the sword will die by the sword. I think Tom's interpretation, saying this expresses tendency rather than strict causality, is possible but not most likely. Is it the tendency for those who take up the sword to die by the sword? We know that the era of American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history, but even so, is violence the #1 killer for those who take up arms? I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Maybe that was the case in the ancient world, but even there I'm skeptical.
Jesus was talking to Peter, a disciple. In the Luke 22 reference to swords, the disciples completely miss the point, and Jesus silences them with "That's enough." The sword of the Spirit and the sword of the world are not physical objects in this usage, but mindsets. I don't think the sword in Jesus' usage is referring particularly to physical violence, but instead to a "violent spirit". And in that sense the saying can be applied to current US military operations.
Cornel West said...
The second prevailing dogma of our time is aggressive militarism, of which the new policy of preemptive strike against potential enemies is but an extension. This new doctrine of U.S. foreign policy goes far beyond our former doctrine of preventive war. It green-lights political elites to sacrifice U.S. soldiers—who are disproportionately working class and youth of color—in adventurous crusades. This dogma posits military might as salvific in a world in which he who has the most and biggest weapons is the most moral and masculine, hence worthy of policing others. In practice, this dogma takes the form of unilateral intervention, colonial invasion, and armed occupation abroad. It has fueled a foreign policy that shuns multilateral cooperation of nations and undermines international structures of deliberation. Fashioned out of the cowboy mythology of the American frontier fantasy, the dogma of aggressive militarism is a lone-ranger strategy that employs “spare-no-enemies” tactics. It guarantees a perennial resorting to the immoral and base manner of settling conflict, namely, the perpetration of the very sick and cowardly terrorism it claims to contain and eliminate. On the domestic front, this dogma expands police power, augments the prison-industrial complex, and legitimates unchecked male power (and violence) at home and in the workplace. It views crime as a monstrous enemy to crush (targeting poor people) rather than as an ugly behavior to change (by addressing the conditions that often encourage such behavior).
As with the bully on the block, one’s own interests and aims define what is moral and one’s own anxieties and insecurities dictate what is masculine. Yet the use of naked force to resolve conflict often backfires. The arrogant hubris that usually accompanies this use of force tends to lead toward instability—and even destruction—in the regions where we have sought to impose our will. Violence is readily deployed by those who cloak themselves in innocence—those unwilling to examine themselves and uninterested in counting the number of innocent victims they kill. Note the Bush administration’s callous disregard for both the U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis killed in our recent adventurous invasion. The barbaric abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is a flagrant example.
"Well-intentioned"? He waged a war of aggression. They executed people at Nuremberg for that. And none of this, by the way, is meant to give the impression that I'm a Bill Clinton fan.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/2/2008 7:55:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/2/2008 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
We know that the era of American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history,
Wow, this is quite an unsubstantiated claim to make. Could you back it up with some data please?
"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."
The Story of Civilization - Will Durant
as rain falls on your feet
you stop and stare and it's so clear that i want you
i don't know your name
it's all the same, you've got a place in my heart | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/2/2008 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I'm pretty sure I would have made several of the same major decisions that Bush made, given the circumstances and information available at the time.
Knowing you the way that I believe I do from our interactions on this board and elsewhere, I can't even imagine you making such a surreal gaffe as the "Mission Accomplished" thing (Brash sign, presumptuous declaration, coming with a flight suit) I can't even SEE someone as deliberative and careful as you doing such a thing.
Just being honest.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/2/2008 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Thought it was common knowledge. Guess not. Ignore it then; it's not the main point. Neither is it "common knowlege", nor have you made your point yet that "American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history".
Inflating war casualties with famine and other causes doesn't make your point either.
World War II was not started by the US (and was very reluctant to join the fight) and they didn't have military dominance at the time.
Best stick to facts in the future.
as rain falls on your feet
you stop and stare and it's so clear that i want you
i don't know your name
it's all the same, you've got a place in my heart | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 5/2/2008 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Knowing you the way that I believe I do from our interactions on this board and elsewhere, I can't even imagine you making such a surreal gaffe as the "Mission Accomplished" thing (Brash sign, presumptuous declaration, coming with a flight suit) I can't even SEE someone as deliberative and careful as you doing such a thing.
Corey: Thanks for that vote of confidence. I'm not saying I would have done the flight-suit promenade, but I guess I just don't categorized this as one of his major decisions. I think we all agree he's pretty bad at PR. And if one were to split hairs, I suppose one could point out that he was quite explicit in not declaring the war itself to be over, but only the mission of the major operations. I do think those went pretty well from a military standpoint. It's the subsequent day-to-day on-the-ground stuff that I think was poorly planned.
But as for the the overall decision to go into Iraq, I'm honestly not sure I wouldn't have done that as well, given the intelligence of the time.
---
Just thinking of what I've learned from SK, about how love covers a multitude of sins, so love expects and looks for a mitigating explanation. It seems that love (for our enemy? -- Bush) would require us as Christians to not "dis-cover" hidden sinful motivations and evil or stupid intent in the man. It's not how I would want to be treated if I were President.
So I'll presume that the flight-suit decision was just his (ill-advised) way of trying to build rapport with the troops he was addressing.
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.Post Edited (Corey) : 5/2/2008 12:52:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/2/2008 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
But as for the the overall decision to go into Iraq, I'm honestly not sure I wouldn't have done that as well, given the intelligence of the time.
Fighting al-qaida in Iraq, instead of New York
Ending Saddam's funding of suicide bombings in Israel
Those are a couple reasons I find pragmatic.
as rain falls on your feet
you stop and stare and it's so clear that i want you
i don't know your name
it's all the same, you've got a place in my heart | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/2/2008 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Laika said...
Neither is it "common knowlege", nor have you made your point yet that "American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history". Quote the entire sentence. I never said the US started WWII. Sheesh. It's not even the point. Is it my fault? Is the way I write confusing? Why is it so common that people on this board keep responding to claims I haven't made?
You made an unsubstantiated claim, were called on it and have nothing to back that claim up.
That's my point.
Is it "so common" that people on this board keep responding to claims you haven't made?
Can you prove this?
I detect a pattern.....
as rain falls on your feet you stop and stare and it's so clear that i want you i don't know your name it's all the same, you've got a place in my heart Post Edited (Laika) : 5/2/2008 3:12:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/2/2008 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
... And none of this, by the way, is meant to give the impression that I'm a Bill Clinton fan. "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair
"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/2/2008 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...Yeah, but my claim was never that "American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history."
"We know that the era of American military dominance has been the bloodiest in the world's history"
The US did not have military dominance during Stalin's reign:
"Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags."
"Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives."
Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime. p. 139 Dmitri Volkogonov
The US did not have military dominance during Mao's reign:
People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000
- Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
- Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
- Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
- Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
- Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
- Labor Camps: 20M
- Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
- TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M
During the cold war, there was a balance of power among the USSR/US/China axis, MAD assured that no one had a clear advantage. The US fought proxy wars with the Soviet and Chinese all over the planet, in Angola, Vietnam, Korea, Congo, El Salvador, Nicaraugua....
It's common knowlege that the US did not enjoy military dominance until the end of the cold war.
as rain falls on your feet you stop and stare and it's so clear that i want you i don't know your name it's all the same, you've got a place in my heart Post Edited (Laika) : 5/2/2008 9:41:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/3/2008 2:00 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
But as for the the overall decision to go into Iraq, I'm honestly not sure I wouldn't have done that as well, given the intelligence of the time.
Saddam Hussein's profound interrogation, performed by FBI/CIA agent George Piro, should be viewed intently so one can clearly reflect on the consequences of this convoluted mess. United States Intelligence experts calls this one of the most important interrogation in our history.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
Excerpt: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KDKTqD9_jhM
There’s no doubt Hussein was hostile towards our Israeli allies, however he did bring some level of stability to Iraq and the region. After listing to Saddam’s confession, it becomes unequivocally clear that it was a terrible mistake to authorize and wage a war on Iraq. The interview confirms Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but it also showed that he shared America’s fight against Iran and Al Qaeda. In retrospect, the greatest threat to our National Security was not Iraq, what we discover is the sobering fact that the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 5/3/2008 2:17:45 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/3/2008 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | Wickipedia says:
"Live by the sword, die by the sword" is a metaphorical expression meaning that living one's life in a certain way will, in the end, affect one's destiny. The proverb comes from the Book of Matthew, verse 26:52, which describes the apostle Peter drawing a sword to defend Jesus against Roman soldiers, but is told to sheath the weapon:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
—Matthew 26:52
While the expression strictly-interpreted means “those who live by violence will die by violence”, it is also used for a variety of situations which contain an element of poetic justice. For instance the proverb could be used to describe a person who regularly drives under the influence and is ultimately killed in a vehicle accident caused by their intoxication. A deeper meaning aludes to "those who judge will be judged" in reference to Mathew 7:2 and Luke 6:37 which can also be interpreted as poetic justice for those observed to be wrongfully condemning others. Other variants on this phrase are also commonly used.
Assuming this was a proverb that was generated by a human society, the idea of poetic justice makes a lot of sense to me. And as such, it was probably not used negatively of the use of force by civil government except in those cases where its agents were needlessly brutal and abusive of power. For example, can you imagine any society deeming any and all self-defense as evil? There never has been such a society.
Moreover, it is not without significance that the same idea is in the OT and the Revelation. In those cases, it has to do with times of violent struggle where God warns those who take up the sword or take into captivity that they will be treated likewise. The OT prophets even told the remnant that they were to passively submit to their conquerors without forceful resistance. So again, Christ is not necessarily teaching a new ethic, here. See, e.g., Jer. 43:11 & Jer 15:2.
What seems perfectly plausible, to me, given the similar reference to the sword in Rev. 13:10, is that Christ is using the occasion to allude to the OT on the subject to emphasize, again, that unlike those times prior to Daniel's prophecies of gentile dominion, the people of Israel were not to be used as agents of God in establishing the kingdom. Only the messiah would do that--and in God's own time. The disciples still didn't get the 2-coming idea, so they assumed they must fight if necessary to help Christ attain ascendance to the throne of David. They were interpreting what ought to be done based on the superficial appearances of their environment instead of the sure word of God.
But I don't see how we can get a call to pacifism out of this, either. Earlier, Jesus had said:
He said to them, "When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?" "No, nothing," they replied. He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked'; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment." Then they said, "Lord, look, there are two swords here." But he replied, "It is enough!"
What is relevant, here, is that Christ gives the reason for the change of policy. It is that there will be a change of attitude toward Christ. And this would necessarily cause a change of attitude towards his disciples. Things are going to get nasty for the disciples just as they were to get for him. Some argue that Christ's advice to obtain a sword is figurative. But what could it mean figuratively, that wouldn't have been the case prior to this change? Was there no need for spiritual warfare prior to Christ's death?
In any case, to assume Christ is trying to teach them that he didn't mean physical swords by saying "It is enough" is not at all clear from the passage. It is a difficult passage to be sure. As such, it makes just as much sense to me that Christ was truly advising them to have a couple of swords for certain circumstances that might arise due to the change in attitude towards them. But insomuch as two was sufficient, he was clearly NOT suggesting that the swords were necessary to wage any kind of messianic war--even defensively.
There was also the obvious fact that Christ did not mean to imply that there would henceforth be no cases where they would be able to get support from their converts ("worthy is the workmen of the hire"). So in that sense, Christ is not even suggesting that the change of policy will be absolute. Rather, there would be a change. The change would result in new conditions and circumstances. They were to be wise as serpents and adjust to these new conditions.
But I see nothing in the passage that could be used to defend the thesis that they weren't to help women being raped (which help the OT seems to sanction), even it required some use of force. And I see nothing in the passage that could be used to defend the thesis that fighting the government is consistent with the will of God. Our country fought for its independence from Britain. A mere 80 years later, this country was in a war against itself which resulted in the destruction of the economy, over half-a-million dead, and countless wounded, widows, and orphans.
There ARE no just wars. Politicians always use the rhetoric of freedom, justice, and defense to justify wars. But their on-going actions always prove that none of those issues were the real motives. It is not there is no such THING as a conceivable just war rationale. It's that there are no politicians that are constrained by such a rationale. Granted, there are rare exceptions like Ron Paul. But they couldn't get a position of power and keep it in a world like our own.
And because of this, there is not even a pragmatic basis for VOLITIONALLY taking up the sword against our own state or against another state on our own steam. Nothing good (for the COMMUNITY; I'm not talking about my own personal good, here) would likely come of it that we could foresee with any clarity. Yet nothing but the greatest of clarity could EVER justify the use of extreme force.
What is unique about Christ's teaching is not that it is contrary to the OT. Rather, it is unique in that he showed just how extreme our duty to our neighbor really is when post-mortem consequences are taken into account as part of the over-all motivating factors. There really are cases where saving our own hide can only be accomplished at the expense of our neighbor.
Resisting the state by force is one such case. It is rarely profitable for individuals or small numbers of the community to provoke the ire of the state. They're NOT nice people. And it is therefore unwise to provoke their wrath since it is not regulated by reasonable notions of justice. We saw how the state rallied to defend the burning of children for people exercising their 2nd amendment rights. They had to come up with an un-proveable (at the time) claim of unconsentual sex to justify the slaughter.
The point is, this is the SAME state that wants to provide condoms to virtual children in the schools. Reno even defended some radical porno stuff during her time in office. So don't believe these people. They appeal to OUR values when they want to justify their own ends. But there actions are not motivated by OUR values. If they were, MUCH would be done different than it actually is by these people.
Innocent people get hurt when the state responds to those who resist it. That's why Christ's extreme teaching about just how much we are to suffer to love our neighbor as ourself seems so unique. But it was in the Torah all along. Christ said as much: the two great commandments which were to be used to adjudicate all others (down to the care of lowly oxen) were the two LOVE commandments.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 5/3/2008 8:17:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|