|
|
Post by audioalone on Dec 7, 2007 17:27:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by airburst on Dec 8, 2007 2:53:48 GMT -5
[rant]IMO, changing the "War on Terrorism" to the "Struggle Against Terrorism" just so you don't provoke terrorist attacks is stupid. If you don't want to provoke terrorist attacks against your country, then maybe your country should re-evaluate it's foreign policy. [/rant]
|
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Dec 11, 2007 5:49:18 GMT -5
[rant]IMO, changing the "War on Terrorism" to the "Struggle Against Terrorism" just so you don't provoke terrorist attacks is stupid. If you don't want to provoke terrorist attacks against your country, then maybe your country should re-evaluate it's foreign policy. [/rant] true. it would hardly be enough. but if you try to put yourself in the place of other people in other countries for a moment...for years all they've heard from the most powerful (and to them scary) military force in the world is WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR!!!! personally, i think it would be good to lose that word.  You're refferring to the Soviet Union, right? Or maybe China? Japan? Hmmm, you can't possibly be refferring to that huge plateau of Iran that gave birth to that most ancient power called the Persian Empire, can you? How about those wierd little horse riders from the Gobi desert. What are they called? Moungers? Mongols? Something like that, i think. Or maybe those camel riding zealots called Arabens? No! Arabs! That's it, Arabs!   Hmmm, seems to me that i'd be much more concerned with what the crazy people on the crazy continent of Asia were doing, given all that they've pulled throughout history. ;D Asia has produced a lot of headless people, seems to me. Looks like they're the ones that need to keep an eye on each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Dec 11, 2007 15:28:10 GMT -5
You're refferring to the Soviet Union, right? Or maybe China? Japan? Hmmm, you can't possibly be refferring to that huge plateau of Iran that gave birth to that most ancient power called the Persian Empire, can you? How about those wierd little horse riders from the Gobi desert. What are they called? Moungers? Mongols? Something like that, i think. Or maybe those camel riding zealots called Arabens? No! Arabs! That's it, Arabs! Hmmm, seems to me that i'd be much more concerned with what the crazy people on the crazy continent of Asia were doing, given all that they've pulled throughout history. ;D Asia has produced a lot of headless people, seems to me. Looks like they're the ones that need to keep an eye on each other. don't be silly. you know very well we can't dredge everytime anybody's ancestors ever committed a violent act out of pandora's box or we'll never have a peaceful world. we have to answer for the warmongering we are doing TODAY. stocking up on nuclear weapons and then running around screaming WAR all the time doesn't seem to be working...gee, i wonder why?  I'm not necessarily talking about ancestors. The remnants of those imperials groups and their issues are left behind with their descendants. On the issue of nuclear weaponry, i agree with you. Nukes are very dangerous and should be dismantled. The problem is that many of these former imperial societies, such as the Persians and Chinese, see nuclear possession as a quick and relatively cheap way to become internationally recognized and respected. With two exceptions, the two entities that developed nuclear arms have not used them. And with those two exceptions, the horrific powers demonstrated quickly taught the two developers that their weapons were nothing to sneeze at. However, most third world countries do not recognize this, and see nuclear possession simply as another bargaining ploy to gain power. And it works, that what's bad.  Prolific countries with nukes? Yikes! I pray that we never find out the reality of these dangers.  History has shown that the most dangerous and unstable of societies lies with the Eastern hemispheric regions, because they are so prolificly unstable. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 8:20:41 GMT -5
On november 4th 2008, blacks voted 70% for proposition 8, therby banning gay marriage, again, in California. And where do gays go protest? Any Church, except a black Church. They don't want to be 'politically incorrect'. White pastors are fair game, but protesting at black churches, even when it doesn't have anything to do with racism, would indeed flash "racism" in the far-left mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Dec 5, 2008 19:52:30 GMT -5
Naptaq --------------
On november 4th 2008, blacks voted 70% for proposition 8, therby banning gay marriage, again, in California.
And where do gays go protest? Any Church, except a black Church.
They don't want to be 'politically incorrect'. White pastors are fair game, but protesting at black churches, even when it doesn't have anything to do with racism, would indeed flash "racism" in the far-left mind. Did you watch the video? People are protesting at the MAJOR churches that supported Proposition 8. It's not "any church," it's churches that were vocal or influential in regard to passing the marriage ban. Mainly that includes the Mormon church, but there are other big supporters of the ban, apparently including Saddleback Church, the one mentioned in the video--a church that Wikipedia refers to as a Megachurch, a church that has more than two thousand or more people attending services weekly. Are there any particular black megachurches who were vocal about supporting Proposition 8 that you think are being passed over as protest locations? I mean, it's possible they would purposefully shy away from all-black churches, not because it would be "racist," but to avoid turning gay marriage into a racial issue; however, I think it's even more practical than that. Also, and of course you couldn't know this, but the left has been talking plenty about the high numbers of blacks voting for Proposition 8. The thing is, a high percentage of blacks are very religious, and religious people voted in very high numbers for the marriage ban. But people aren't protesting at every one of the many, many churches out there; most of them are quite small, after all. Protesters are going for the most high-profile supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 20:04:54 GMT -5
Criticizing black communities is deemed racist by some liberals apperently. But here criticizm has nothing to do with 'color of their skin', but everything to do with 'content of their character'. Or in this case, their voting record. ;D
And by the way, the Bible isn't exactly in favor of gay marriage so, I think, it's only natural that most Christians would vote against gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 21:48:14 GMT -5
I think Jesus was also preaching religious tolerence, it's unfortunate that Christians interpret the passage: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). As meaning that Jesus is the only way. I guess Buddhist, Hindus and good decent people who've never heard of Jesus go to hell, eh? ;D This is a whole thread in itself, but I just want to touch on the subject, with my view on the matter. As someone who was raised Catholic I was never really into the whole "Christ is the only way" mentality. It's unfortunate that good people like Billy Graham and Oprah get a lot of flack from Christians for thinking there's many different ways to get to God. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAE5yagnadMwww.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 5, 2008 21:56:05 GMT -5
you can't have it both ways Naptaq - either you believe in christ - in which case he is the only way to get to god, or you don't in which case anything else. Religious tolerance means that you don't try to force other people to share your belief, that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 22:20:55 GMT -5
Yes I can have it both ways man. I believe every Avatar is the way to God. Let's take the Hindu's Krishna. He said: "I am the way, come to Me…Neither the multitude of gods, nor great sages know my origin, for I am the source of all the gods and great sages."Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are basicly the same in their core teaching of Truth with a capital T. Gandhi knew that. He said "In heaven there is no religion, thank God." ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 5, 2008 22:27:02 GMT -5
so what does krishna think of gay marriage?
or even simpler
if you chose to ignore that insignificant part of the bible that says jesus is the only way maybe homosexuality is ok too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 22:39:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 5, 2008 22:49:24 GMT -5
you do realize that your point of view is pretty much sinful according to christianity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 22:52:15 GMT -5
you do realize that your point of view is pretty much sinful according to christianity? Maybe, as a religion view, but I'm more interested in what Jesus thought. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 5, 2008 23:01:33 GMT -5
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6). "For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).
So you basically disagree?
|
|
