posted on February 9, 2003 01:14:19 PM new
snowyegret
Love your socialist rhetoric and posters. I looked at it, read the tripe and have to say.
I'm now more then ever behind Bush one hundred percent. When the 4th Reich comes about. I may have an important position as a commandant of one of the camps.
We'll be going into Iraq shortly. I hope and pray we don't lose any of our men and women. I feel very bad for those that will be killed and maimed by our bombs and missiles because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I wonder now, what asinine excuses many of you will have when the EVIDENCE is found.
I for one enjoy my freedom and safety. Love living and being an American. I'm not a member of the WORLD COMMUNITY. I'm an American, Born and brought up here. I have Christian values because I was born to a Christian family. All the values I hold sacred are the ones I have chosen, learned and nurtured. Honesty, Integrity, Compassion and all the rest.
Many of you hide behind computers flicking your anti American rhetoric because it makes you feel important. That's annoying
Many of you who disagree with the way the country is run, have posted excellent messages that are put out for debate. That's fine.
There's nothing I love more then an Argument (debate)
It's the morons with the one line of miss spelled, miss quoted snot. (remember the Flicking above) They bother me a lot. Don't they have a spell checker?
I believe they may be militant Moslem Fundamentalist.
posted on February 12, 2003 02:30:17 PM new
Colin
"I for one enjoy my freedom and safety. Love living and being an American. I'm not a member of the WORLD COMMUNITY. I'm an American,"
As I said in another post,---admissions of self interest, and its past the point of telling LIES about wishing to Liberate the people of Iraq, and it’s a straight up admission of greed but with a claim of patriotism.
As an Australian, I know that I am a member of the world community.
‘Patriotic’ is a nice way to describe the self-interest of one Nation, in opposition to, & at the expense of others.
‘Parasitic’ is another way to describe the self-interest of one Nation, in opposition to, & at the expense of others.
posted on February 12, 2003 04:05:40 PM new
austbounty,
The idea of a world community is a joke. You just have to look at the United Nations. Tell me how many thing's they agreed on in the last 20 years. Saturday Night Live did a nice Parody on them the other night.
I don't care if we Liberate the people of Iraq or just stop a Tyranny that may destroy us. Either way it works for me.
Patriotic, Parasitic, whatever makes you happy. We've done a lot for the world. I wish we would stop all aid to other countries for a year and then see what happens.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 12, 2003 04:22:39 PM new
The World Would Starve.
Oil is nice we have our own,we trade food+ for theirs.There still starving.
Food , Food , FOOD! we have it all,we feed the world.Oil is a means to the end.No Nation can feed their own,Nope not a one.
Even the UK could not head off Mad Cow,before it became out of hand.We baled them out.Agriculture is what America has.NO ONE COMES CLOSE.Food.
posted on February 13, 2003 03:33:29 AM new
Actually Borillar, I'm a member of the Eagles, Born to Run and BBMC. I was once an Elk and was in a couple outlaw type motorcycle clubs. In some of the Bike clubs we wore Nazi paraphernalia. It was just to P*ss off the civilians.
posted on February 13, 2003 05:45:55 AM new
Stop and consider a more basic question for a moment.
If it is a basic need for the security of the US to deny other countries weapons of mass destruction where does it end?
I mean that's just what sovereign nations DO.
There is a whole world of countries out there that are going to require preemptive strikes to eliminate their threat to the US. Enemies become friends and friends become enemies over the years. The only thing that will serve is to disarm all of them.
Does anybody really think the US can do that?
Don't you think after the third or fourth such premptive strike, Korea, Iran, and Syria say, they will all see the US as set on dominating the entire globe and ban together?
posted on February 13, 2003 12:33:58 PM new
>If it is a basic need for the security of the US to deny other countries weapons of mass destruction where does it end?
You strike to the heart of the matter, gravid.
Put aside for a moment the fact that any country has a sovereign right to arm themselves for defensive purposes with any weapon(s) that they can get a hold of. Who will we deny that ancient right to and who will we not deny it to?
Clearly, the smaller countries will be outlawed from weapons. The larger countries like Russia, China, Britian, and the USA will likely be the only ones to end up with them.
Or will they?
Notice how this coalition to go get Saddam is made up primarily of English-speaking countries? I doubt that in the end, that China and Russia will be on that list. In the end, it will be only White, Anglo-Saxon, Simon-Pure, English-speaking countries of stature that will be allowed to have them. The rest of the world will be enslaved.
posted on February 13, 2003 12:51:49 PM new
>f it is a basic need for the security of the US to deny other countries weapons of mass destruction where does it end?
An Elk? Like, in the Elks Club, the social group?
Colin, it has been obvious to that you are seeking your path as your goal. You may say that you are on it now, but the point is, is that you have made some serious changes in your life in recent years.
Right now, you need two things: Knowledge and you need Experience. I'm not trying to be asinine here, Colin, I know that you are old enough to have plenty of knowledge and experiences of all sorts. But you are now on a more spiritual path, an enlightened path, and you are still only two feet from the doorstep from which you left.
I can not say that the Round Table is the appropriate place to further you along; it's entertainment at best for you. Yes, if you stay on here long enough, you'll learn a *LOT*! Heck, I've learned a lot on here so far that it makes me sound like a lunatic to most people when I speak out about it. Certainly, what we discuss is far from that, but I think that you need - at this point, to hear a few things before you can move on.
The answer to that riddle: Wisdom is not transferable, only the knowledge that it contains, and even then, poorly. A Wise Man can not impart Wisdom to a student, only the knowledge to send him on his way towards Wisdom. The experiences that teach us Wisdom must be an individual experience and each of us may come to different conclusions based upon them and ourselves from what has been taught by the Wise Man.
Therefore, Wisdom from the Holy Bible is also not transferable. To mimic the wise words is not Wisdom from your mouth. You must couple experience with those words in order to fully understand it's meaning, and even then, that interpretation might be just your very own. That is why in Divinity schools, ministers are taught that during sermons to preach the wise words and try to couple them with experiences that everyone has had, so that they can see a glimmer of what Wisdom that they are being shown.
So, it is not enough to mealy read those words in the Holy Bible. You have to ask yourself, "If I'm only getting one-half of the equation, then is this half Pure?" Stick around here and you might very well discover the mountain of translational mistakes in the Holy Bible and so much more that our members know, but have not shared with us just yet.
You gain the experience by questing after it. By keeping it in your mind and to focus on it in all that you do, you will eventually receive them. And once you have those experiences, you'll need a lifetime to fully understand them, such is the nature of experience and Wisdom.
posted on February 13, 2003 04:04:52 PM new
Your eloquent essay on the meaning of life is touching to say the least.
I learn from all I meet. Your wisdom is not mine nor is that what I look for in life. Any wisdom I have is learned from my life. The people I've meant, places I've been and the trials and tribulations of MY life.
Yes, I've read the Bible. I've read lots of books. You'll very seldom find me quote the bible. It's a great book but only one of several I've taken comfort from. It's not the end all of end all.
I don't want, won't ever be a holy man. It's not what I'm looking for in life. A wiser man I strive to be.
You talk as if I've stumbled in the an enclave of Buddhist monks that were ready to save humanity. Nope, I don't think so.
I found a place that I can talk to others on issues of the day, Important and unimportant topics. Debate with, agree and disagree on several subjects. Gain insight on things I didn't know. Add some knowledge that someone else may not have known.
Borilla, I think your a good person but you can be a pain in the a** too. Of course you know that and I think you enjoy it.
BTW I'll like to know who for and when you were a columnist.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 13, 2003 04:21:54 PM new
Years ago I was, and I'll leave it at that. What little anonimity that I still enjoy I wish to keep for myself, knowing full well that my archieeved articles can still be tracked down and read. Of course, you'd also have to know the pen name that I wrote under.
I wouldn't be too quick to shove aside the Holy Bible as a source of Wisdom. Most of the translational errors occured first when the Old Testament went from ancient Hebrew to Greek. It then went from Greek to Latin and then Latin to German and Swiss and then to English not too badly from the Greek version. Because of the often hideous translational errors, scholars have gone to the roots of the Bible and have retranslated it much more accurately and wisely from Hebrew to English. Believe me, it reads a lot of the sme, but if you have a good memory for written words, you'll be surprized at the differences, maybe even appaled in places.
Christ may have given His political opinion. But for those who follow in His Footsteps should not connect any personal political beliefs with Jesus or God; other than to repeat what has already been recorded to have been said by Jesus. One gets the feeling that Jesus may have felt that War was an abomnible act and against His wishes. Therefore, to say that one is a Christain (one who follows in Jesus' Path) and come out to support any War or millitary action is likely to be held as a hypocrite. If you are, as you say, not trying to be a Holy Man, then I wish that you'd drop at least the title of "reverand" part in your political statements. To me, a reverand speaks God's Words and is revered because of that, not for any personal glory or recognition.
BTW: Jesus was also a Bleeding Heart Liberal. Those who sneer at Bleeding Heart Liberals are also sneering at Jesus as well, in my opinion!
posted on February 13, 2003 04:38:12 PM new
"in my opinion! "
Thank you for the last statement. That was all it took for me to see you in a more respectful way. Not that you would or should care.
No, I will not drop the Reverend. For reasons that are mine alone.
I don't believe that Jesus was a Bleeding Heart or Sword of the Lord during his life. I (my) belief is he was somewhere in the middle.
That's it for religion. I don't preach or want to convert. I don't care what religion anyone is or if they don't believe at all. That's there choice. I just ask they treat others as you would want to be treated.
Don't throw up Iraq. I hope we don't go to war. I hope he abdicates his evil throne. I hope that the Presidents Cowboy power play is enough to make him back down. If he doesn't I believe we must stop him now.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 13, 2003 04:52:19 PM new Therefore, to say that one is a Christain (one who follows in Jesus' Path) and come out to support any War or millitary action is likely to be held as a hypocrite.
The majority of Southern Baptists are pro-war. Therefore, they are hypocrits.
posted on February 13, 2003 07:48:57 PM new
War does not serve God's Purpose, only Satan's in my belief.
I, also, am not here to change anyone's mind. But I do believe in a kind and rational God.
As far as Saddam backing down, I wouldn't count on it. Bush is a small-minded greedy elitist jackass; whereas, Saddam is a monsterous evil. It's going to take more than threats to get Saddam to back down. The re only a few ways to get rid of that kind monster. In this case, the very best thing that we can do is NOT to go to War with Iraq, but to convert our economy away from Oil-based fuels and heating. Since Cnada supplies most of our Oil, we can all that industry needs from them alone. Oil becomes near worthless, Saddam has just a bunch of desert sand to chew on from his tent.
Of course, there's no Glory for Satan that way, so Bush won't do it.
posted on February 13, 2003 08:09:45 PM new
>The majority of Southern Baptists are pro-war. Therefore, they are hypocrits.
Yes, that's right. jesus did not teach hatred, murder, killing, suffering, death of innocent people, taking advantage of people, being cruel to each other, and so forth. He taught to love one another, even your neighbors, to forgive and to love your enemies. He taught that we should give and to share all that we have; that those who do not share their wealth are not allowed into the Kingdm of Heaven. Only Satan likes that idea.
I still say that Jesus was a Bleeding Heart Liberal. he cared for the least of us, the helpless, the hated, the underdog. "If a man were to steal your hat, what would you do?" "I would give him my cloak as well," Jesus replied othe question. To share all that you have, to not gather together the riches of the earth, to live life morally and virteously, to give that which is more than you need to live. To heal the sick. I ask you, anyone, did Jesus ever say: "To HELL with the POOR! They're LAZY! If they want ME to heal them, then they had better go get a job and pay for health insurance!" No. Jesus gave all that he had and all that he was. It is an example of how we all should be.
When so-called Christians run around and do the opposite of what Jesus taught, or to rail at those who do as Jesus taught - those are not Christians! You can not both be "saved" and then give Jesus the Kiss Off! and backstab Him whenever you get the chance!
That's all I'm likely to say about religion. Sorry. Those who are for War instead of the alternative that does not cause harm to others should NEVER call themselves Christians!
posted on February 13, 2003 08:32:31 PM newI still say that Jesus was a Bleeding Heart Liberal
I would say he would be more conservative. I don't think he would be 'Pro Choice'. I believe he would be 'Pro Life' if anything, but hey that was Him
Isn't there scripture (obviously I am not well versed in Scripture ) that reads something like; 'Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers, Give unto God what is his'. 'Obey the laws of the land' and so forth. (those can apply to today, such as taxes, laws of your country etc )
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 14, 2003 12:13:41 AM new
>Isn't there scripture (obviously I am not well versed in Scripture
NTS, this is your answer then. There is a question of Faith which is causing a great schism in Christianity right now. They both focus on trying to obey Jesus and through Jesus, God. The problem comes from the Bible, which was never written as a How-To manual to do God's Will on earth, but more of a theological and historical scholarly work. Therefore, there is a lot of debate about what is Right and what is Wrong as far as pleasing God goes.
Into this mix has come some good in a special way. it has been recognized by most people that the very first thing to do is to make sure that what IS written in the Holy Bible is accurate. The American Christian Fundamentalists approach this problem by telling their followers that there are no contradictions or errors in the Bible, that it is already word perfect. It is unfortunate that millions of their followers believe that lie - an intentional lie.
The other half has one to great lengths to discover the truth and to reconstruct the Bible from the original ancient Hebrew script which I always misspell (Arraghmague?) and linguists conferring with cultural anthropologists and other scholarly qualified whatnots, they have made a direct translation from ancient Hebrew to Modern American English.
Now, even with this new insight into the meaning of things and getting everything right, there is still a major problem. What does one do, for instance, if God tells you to do one thing and Jesus tells you to do the opposite? Which one do you follow?
The Southern Baptists were created on the assumption that given a choice, ALWAYS do what Jesus said to do. Jesus is seen as the latest Word from God. But about five years ago now, the Christian Fundamentalists came in and got themselves voted into the leadership. You may recall their ruling that no woman could become a minister of the faith? They made that announcement to distract the Southern Baptists into a meaningless debate while the REAL ruling came that changed it all. This leadership changed that rule about who to chose between, Jesus or God. The rule was changed to when in doubt, do as God tells you to do, not as Jesus told you to do.
That shift may not seem like much to most people. But the enormous change that it made in the church and the reasons for it would be too long here. Just accept the fact that Jesus was cut out of Christianity at that point from the Southern Baptists.
This has caused a church schism, with many leading the fight to change it back, or to break away from the Southern Baptists altogether. Many in the church are not even aware of this change and they say, "So What? I'll do as I please!" But the church has changed - drastically and in the long run, it will not be a Christian one.
Now you know how this relates to the subject matter between Helen and I.
How does this tie in with your question? NTS, the rendering Unto Caesar part refers to those things that are earthly - eating, sleeping, etc. Paying taxes is a necessity. When asked the question, one gives to God those things which belong to God; i.e. your soul, your love, your thoughts, your deeds, your mind. You give unto the State that which is their due -- pays your taxes, obey the laws, and participate in the good of society.
You have your choice, NTS, if you are a Christian: either you obey the word as Jesus taught it or you obey God, as in the Old Testament when conflict arises. Personally, I believe that Jesus updated God's Word on earth when he had His ministry here on earth. Therefore, given a choice to either follow Jesus and to love my neighbors as well as my enemy, I shall, even if I be condemned here on earth for it.
Now, that Gary Cooper movie Sergeant York has that one movie scene which you might be referring to, where according to Hollywood, York decided to go to War to give the State its due. Whether that was a real question that York had or a Hollywood promotion, that is a personal matter. I choose, as a Christian, to follow Jesus. You may follow any other interpretation that you like, but please don't call yourself a Christian if you are going to ignore Jesus' ministry.
posted on February 14, 2003 02:56:38 AM new
I can't walk on water...Well maybe today I could walk across the lake. It's been Fridge here for the last few weeks. I can make wine and beer out of water but it takes a long time.
Who wrote the New Testament? Not Jesus, It's was his Apostles.
I believe each and every person knows (unless they have a mental problem) what is wrong and what is right. They may not always do the right thing but they know.
Your essay shows one of the many reasons I'm not happy with organized religion. Religion is to each different. Hopefully comforting and inspiring, not a restrictive control.
Now lets see what happens today at the UN.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 14, 2003 06:42:32 AM new
Borillar
"Now you know how this relates to the subject matter between Helen and I."
Your last post was informative. As you probably know, I didn't pay attention in my Southern Baptist Sunday school. because I saw the hypocracy at a very young age.
I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a member of any other organized religious group. I don't recognize any God or omnipotent being. Other than saying that, I don't need to defend myself any more than I expect you to defend your position.
I have studied the Bible as literature in school and you are right to say that there is some great wisdom to be found there as there is in literature throughout the world.
After my experience in the south, for a long time, I associated belief in religion with ignorance and I still have to be on guard not to do that.
posted on February 14, 2003 08:26:14 AM new
I agree with Helen's experience. I have always associated the worst ignorance with religeous zeal.
As far as trying to reason with people what the bible means at an earlier time I was reading the bible a great deal more and a man I was working with asked me if I drank because he was unhappy to associate with any of the other men at work who went of to the bar every night.
I informed him I had an occasional drink but didn't have any particular craving for it and sure wouldn't pay what they wanted in abar for it. He was disappointed. I said perhaps your making too much of it. After all if your Lord made water into wine he obviously thought someone could make use of it without making an ass of themselves.
He was horrified - "Oh no that was not wine like we have today it meant grape juice. Jesus would never make anything that would have gotten them drunk." This is what his church taught him!
I pointed out the man running the wedding celebration tasted the wine and asked them why they had saved the best wine for last when everyone else put out the good stuff first and them when everyone was tipsy and wouldn't notice the difference put out the second rate stuff. - And that the word used there was rendered in other passages as drunk -sometimes in a clearly negative connotation. So it did effect them as wine not juice.
The solution? His elders of his church told him not to talk to me anymore because I was from the devil. Sigh......
posted on February 14, 2003 09:37:02 AM newThe solution? His elders of his church told him not to talk to me anymore because I was from the devil. Sigh......
That seems to be a standard default answer for most evangelical religions.
posted on February 14, 2003 11:06:18 AM new
>The solution? His elders of his church told him not to talk to me anymore because I was from the devil. Sigh......
I was kicked out of Sunday School for asking too many questions! We were supposed to sit there and absorb it all without questition.
posted on February 14, 2003 11:18:14 AM new
>Who wrote the New Testament? Not Jesus, It's was his Apostles.
Actually, not the Apostles either; although the Books in the New Testament do bear the same names as some of the Apostles. In fact, only the Apostle James could write at all. Peter had a scribe in Rome to write down the story - the Book of Mark, some 35 to 50 years after the death of Jesus.
Most ofhe historical stuff was passed down by word of mouth from one generation to another. Starting in 320a.d., on the island of Nicia, a council was formed to bring what holy writings there were from the different churches (go forth and spead the Word) much of which was written down and re-written on new paper as the old crumbled to dust. They were gathered there, sorted out, and it was decided what should go into the Holy Bible and what should be excluded.
Any religion has it's "unauthorized" dogma and that is called it's Apocrypha. It is interesting to note that Catholics have a different Bible than Protestants use. Theirs has much more content to it for Catholic reasons.
So, what was all thrown out? Can you still get a copy of it? Sure! Just because they didn't sanctify it and include it into the Holy Bible didn't mean that they wer stupid barbarians and destroyed those works! You can go to any good sized bookstore or public library and look it up and read all that you like.
Of interest to me concerning what was left out as heretical is that Jesus held a belief in reincarnation. Now that is not so unusual, as Hesidic (sp?) Jews, the super-orthodox Jews also have always had a belief in reincarnation and Jesus was a Rabbi, so the idea is not without prescident.
Anyone want to guess why the Church would have felt that this was to be left out of the Bible?
posted on February 14, 2003 11:41:03 AM new
Well, first can you define reincarnation?
Jesus was called Rabbi, as an honorary title. In that day and age he was not a 'official', if you will, Rabbi.
Like in China, when older respected people are talking, the younger people will call them 'Teacher' though they are not what we would think of as teacher.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 14, 2003 01:45:23 PM new
Gosh, if this topic has mutated into a theological debate, I'll be happy to clock back in.
People who don't believe in God should take a look at human physiology. I believe many species have evolved over millions of years, but man is a uniquely created entity.
I always get a kick out of those strict evolutionists who claim that man evolved from apes.
The old, obvious, and still reasonable response to that line of thinking is:
If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
posted on February 14, 2003 02:11:42 PM new
Because we haven't wiped them out yet!
Obviously we're not a very big step up if they are still surviving. Eat more monkey meat! The real question is what are we going to do to keep something from evolving and wiping us out!
edited 'cuse my finger are too big for the keys
[ edited by gravid on Feb 14, 2003 02:12 PM ]
