At 10/15/06 12:21 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/14/06 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/14/06 11:46 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/9/06 04:50 PM, TheMason wrote:

The Bible will back me up on this, just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are.

What they hell are you talking about?

Were talking about the Catholic churche's just war doctrine(ie the only reasons you should got to war and have it remain a just war) things like self defense and defending the rights of others.

At 10/15/06 08:34 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/15/06 08:15 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/15/06 12:21 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/14/06 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/14/06 11:46 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/9/06 04:50 PM, TheMason wrote:

I have no idea what the just war doctrine says, and I honestly don't care. The bottom line is, nazis cannot be Christian. The end.

The Nazi leaders and party have nothing to do with the Just War doctrine, there completely seperate(and remember to not label all the citizens of germany this way, most only joined the party because it help provide economic aid and such, whether or not they opposed it was up to them).

The Catholic Just War Doctrine is here.

http://www.catholic...t_war_Doctrine_1.asp

At 10/15/06 12:22 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/14/06 01:01 PM, ExpRezO wrote: I’m no troll either.

Sorry

)

Now isn’t that better?

<3
<3 x2

Maybe I’m not getting this, but is somebody explaining that killing someone in war can only be justified because he is a Christian?

I don’t know if that’s what you’re negotiating about, but I’ll post my opinion anyhow.

Christianity says that justifiable war is acceptable, right?

Well, shouldn’t it be? I mean killing anybody because you’re Christian isn’t considered justifiable, hence, it’s a sin. So, Christians cannot kill anyone because they are Christian.

So… Please inform me if I’m on track, or just audibly out of topic.

If I kill when I go to war, I'm forgiven if I just ask. Pretty simple to me.

At 10/15/06 08:34 AM, Grammer wrote: I have no idea what the just war doctrine says, and I honestly don't care. The bottom line is, nazis cannot be Christian. The end.

He's saying that one can label themselves Christians but not be Christians because they don't follow the teachings of Jesus. If one kills another in the name of Christianity, they are using as an excuse and as justification, they aren't actually following Christianity.

At 10/14/06 11:46 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/9/06 04:50 PM, TheMason wrote:

The original latin text is most likely ther direct word of God.

Really, Jesus spoke Aramaic; a semetic language that was part of a family of languages spoken by Egyptians, Jews and Palestinians. Remember, Jesus was a Jew; not a Westerner. Latin was the language of the people who killed Jesus (you know the Romans whose Governor actually pronounced the sentence and whose Legionares whipped, tortured and nailed JC to the Cross). Somehow I don't think Latin is the direct word of God...

And Grammer there are radical elements of every religion that teaches its members that there are circumstances where one should take human life.

Not Christianity, I know that for sure.

I hope you are trying to be sarcastic!

If they were, they wouldn't be Christian. I am not sarcastic.

What I was saying there was I hope you were being sarcastic by saying: "Not Christianity, I know that for sure." because that makes you sound like the proverbial monkey who puts his fingers in his ears and "hears no evil". I will be more precise: There are radical elements of every religion that pervert the religion's teachings into allowing violence; CHRISTIANITY has a long established history of this. The suppression of texts and killing of people early Roman church fathers labeled heretical, the Crusades, the Inquisiton, wars between Catholics and Protestants during the Protestant Reformation, the Salem Witch Trials, aborting killings/bombings, the modern American Patriot/Militia movements...

Modern ones point to the passage where Jesus tells his followers to purchase a sword as a Biblical example of Jesus telling his followers to take arms...

Now the way that you AND I believe that these are not real Christians is the same way mainstream Muslims believe that bin-Laden and the like are not real Muslims...

Have you not heard about the Catholic Church's Just War doctrine?

Grammer, I know this isn't your post. So to the user who asked: I attended a Jesuit college...what do you think?

Not very Christian of them. I would have to say those who wrote the doctrine didn't follow the teachings of Jesus.

Okay, maybe I'll retract my statement a little bit, killing is okay in my opinion if there's no other option. We needed to kill the nazis, peace talks weren't gonna work with them.

But Jesus was a pacifist, even when it came to killing Nazis...

There are radical Protestants in the US who believe that the Bible includes examples where JESUS told his disciples to arm themselves.

Haha, then they're not the followers of my Jesus. They must be thinking of a different one.

Again I hope this is sarcasm because Jesus is who Jesus is. You, me and the radical Christians all follow Jesus and are all wrong about Him in one way or another. That is why the Bible tells "Judge not lest ye be judged." There is no such thing as "my Jesus" or "your Jesus". If you believe that you are trying to claim ownership/control/authority over Jesus; thus you are a blasphemer and for that you must DIE! (Just joking :-)

Christianity has just as bad a track record as Islam and Judaism. I suggest you take some college level World Civ classes.

I suggest you read The Bible, if you don't follow Jesus' teachings and repent you're not a Christian. That's the bottom line, pretty much.

My suggestion still stands, especially since I've taken both the classes and I've read the Bible to include texts that were suppressed by early Western/Roman church fathers. My suggestion is that you learn more about what has been done in Christ's name before slinging rocks at the followers of the Qur'an.

AAK

At 10/16/06 11:30 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/16/06 10:57 AM, TheMason wrote: Really, Jesus spoke Aramaic; a semetic language that was part of a family of languages spoken by Egyptians, Jews and Palestinians.

The Bible wasn't written by Jesus.

Then it was not written by a divine hand. Therefore it cannot be the divine and true word of God. It is however, divinely inspired which means it can also be humanly imperfect. More on this at the end of the post.

:: No, not really. You will never see anyone die from Christianity. You'll point to the Crusades and all of that jazz, but Jesus never taught killing. The crusaders killed on their own accord.

:: Again, this killing is not condoned by Jesus, and mos likely the ones who committed it weren't Chrisitna. Anyone who uses The New Testament to justify killing has no idea what they're talking about.

That is irrelevent as to whether it was condoned. My point is look at what has been done in the name of Christianity. The question poised in this thread which is worse; radical christianity or radical islam. The reality of the situation is that there has been millions of lives lost due to radicals who have perverted the Gospels and Christian Bible. What is actually in the Bible is irrelevent to the topic at hand; the topic at hand deals with radicals who do not believe a Christian is the same thing you and I obviously agree what makes a Christian...

Modern ones point to the passage where Jesus tells his followers to purchase a sword as a Biblical example of Jesus telling his followers to take arms...

...Justified killing if you're not the transgressor, but bin Laden sure as Hell transgressed against America.

And in order to be a follower of Christ, we must forgive bin-Laden and not retaliate. Nowhere in my reading of the NT do I see a justification for war...ever. (Unfortunately, many more people do...)

Prove to me that the Latin text of The Bible has Jesus telling us to arm ourselves. You do know that one of the men who translated some of the earliest versions of The Bible knew Latin, yes? We don't have the exact text from Mark, Matthew, or Peter, so it's best to just go with the next best thing.

Luke 22:36 - 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."

Now this was part of the Latin text. However, let's look at the history of Biblical texts.

The early Gospels were spread through oral tradition and not the written word. Roman church leaders took these oral stories and wrote them down in a different language (Latin or Greek, not the native Aramiac Jesus and his followers ACTUALLY spoke). Now the earliest Cannonizied text we have is a credit card piece of Luke written in Latin. However, we have other texts of Gospels not included by the Council of Nicea that date back just as far. SO then should we consider these to be just as valid as our Bible today (which has been edited, filtered, manipulated?)

I suggest you read Bart Ehrmann's history of the early church and transmission of Biblical texts. He's a Bible Scholar and professor at U of N. Carolina.

At 9/22/06 12:19 AM, Nylo wrote:

I'd love to thank Rosie o' donnel for her enlightening words that Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. If you agree with her, please run full-speed into an oven =)

I am pretty sure that both can be equally dangerous. You are stupid if you don’t believe this.

Just look at Hitler. He was pretty dangerous and he was a Christian.

Just look at George bush. He is a radical and his actions have caused the deaths of a million Iraqis.

Just look at the guy that kept blowing up abortion clinics and killing abortionists in cold blood.

These people are radical Christians. They are or were extremely dangerous and have killed many people. Of course you may say that there are less radical Christians that are willing to kill then radical Muslims, but that doesn’t change the fact that a radical is a radical, and is prone to support an action which is responsible for the killing of large numbers of innocent people.

Remember, if Jesus were born today, he would probably either be in a mental institution or be looked at with suspicion of being a terrorist.

At 10/16/06 01:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/16/06 11:30 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/16/06 10:57 AM, TheMason wrote:

And in order to be a follower of Christ, we must forgive bin-Laden and not retaliate. Nowhere in my reading of the NT do I see a justification for war...ever. (Unfortunately, many more people do...)

for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an (A)avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Romans 3: 14

Lol, tell me how many Christians really follow jess’s teachings rather then the teachings of whoever is the head of their church at the time?

Lol, almost no one could follow Jesus's teachings completely even if they tried. Everything that Jesus said and did was incorrectly recorded by the Romans. It’s hilarious that people worship a statue of Jesus dieing on the cross.

Just by worshiping Jesus on the cross, you are not following the teachings of Jesus. He wanted you to worship god and to help your fellow man. Not worship himself and his glorious death to rid us of all of our evil.

Please stop saying that you follow Jesus, because almost no one follows his teachings closely enough to say so.

At 10/16/06 03:02 PM, mayeram wrote: Lol, tell me how many Christians really follow jess’s teachings rather then the teachings of whoever is the head of their church at the time?

whoops, the spell checker screwed up the word jesus,

At 10/16/06 03:02 PM, mayeram wrote:

Just by worshiping Jesus on the cross, you are not following the teachings of Jesus. He wanted you to worship god and to help your fellow man. Not worship himself and his glorious death to rid us of all of our evil.

Yeah, but see, to some of us, Jesus was part of God.

You know, the trinity and all.

i have never recieved an explanation about the holy trinity that i can understand...

jesus is god but then he isnt, and then there is this holy spirit?

If thats what you believe then ok, but i still dont think jesus would want to have you using his or god's name to justify harming people as past heads of the religion have done.

even popes have harmed people.

jesus never supported a formal religious place or way of worship. he just said to worship god in your own way.

At 10/16/06 03:29 PM, mayeram wrote:

jesus never supported a formal religious place or way of worship. he just said to worship god in your own way.

I agree with you there, and humans have been trying that for centuries, but as usual we fuck up.

What do you think they advocated in the Protestant Reformation, look where that got us, intollerance, massive witch trials est est.

Basically, what JC points out in the Bible is what people should physically strive for but is almost impossible to get.

Likewise, my belief in the Catholic Church. If we could follow all of JC's rules, then we wouldn't need it, till then...

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote: I am pretty sure that both can be equally dangerous. You are stupid if you don’t believe this.

In modern times radical Christianity is nowhere near as dangerous as radical islam. Not even close . You seen the previews for that movie "Jesus Camp"? A bunch of crazies teaching kids to cry for sinners. That's about as bad as it gets today for modern Christianity. Take a look over in Palestine and you've got kids crying that they can't westerners any faster because rocks don't throw that far. Big difference.

Just look at Hitler. He was pretty dangerous and he was a Christian.

I have to heavily disagree. Hitler was fanatically into the occult, satanism, and a bunch of other crazy things. He launched his war on a political ideology, not off of religion. Hitler was in no way a Christian Icon.

Just look at George bush. He is a radical and his actions have caused the deaths of a million Iraqis.

A million? It jumps from 250 thousand, to 650 thousand, and now it's a million dead Iraqis? I'm going to look past that remark, because I think you made a major no-no in your number fudging. If you honestly think George W. Bush is a radical Christian, you have no idea the kind of religious psycho leaders that roam the gloab. Ayatollah Komeni, Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinijad. These nutjobs are the worst of the worst when it comes to deprivation of human rights. George Bush is an idiot, but he's not a fanatic knee-jerk radical. He doesn't have the brain power for such complexities.

Just look at the guy that kept blowing up abortion clinics and killing abortionists in cold blood.

How many times does that happen in the United States? Radical Jihadists blow a piece of Israel up almost daily . Suicide bombers, katusha rockets flying randomly out of the sky; take youir pick. Can you imagine blocks being blown away every day in the United States?

These people are radical Christians. They are or were extremely dangerous and have killed many people. Of course you may say that there are less radical Christians that are willing to kill then radical Muslims, but that doesn’t change the fact that a radical is a radical, and is prone to support an action which is responsible for the killing of large numbers of innocent people.

Radical Christianity isn't a global issue. That's the difference. When's the last time you heard of a radical Christian slamming two planes into sky scrapers? Is that too American-oriented for you? Look no further than the plot to blow indiscriminate airplanes out of the sky over the pacific; thank God the UK busted it. Not enough? Bombings in Madrid. Russia. Take your pick.

Remember, if Jesus were born today, he would probably either be in a mental institution or be looked at with suspicion of being a terrorist.

That comment doesn't even make sense. If you're looking for an intellegent debate, that last comment threw you even more far off base than you already were.

At 10/16/06 07:53 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/16/06 01:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Then it was not written by a divine hand. Therefore it cannot be the divine and true word of God. It is however, divinely inspired which means it can also be humanly imperfect.

Listen, I'm not gonna argue on the authenticity of The Bible, but you can't point to the fact Jesus, who didn't write The Bible, did not speak Latin. That does not prove anything about the authenticity of the Latin version.

It proves the logical fallacy that the Bible is divine and is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' teachings. Haven't you heard the old cliche of "lost in translation"? Furthermore, it is written in the language of the persecutors of Jesus' people. Christian texts were written in other languages besides Latin.

That is irrelevent as to whether it was condoned.

Those who condone the crusades probably weren't Christian either.

It was killing carried out in the name of Jesus, and fueled religious fervor and zealotry. Regardless of right or wrong belief, that it was in Jesus' name is a historical fact.

You know, for someone who's supposed to know so much about The Bible, you don't seem to know that The Bible (not humans) dictate what is and what is not a Christian.

Not true, the Bible is the product of several centuries of debate in which there was sporadic violence and repression of views on what is or is not Christian belief. The Bible is a HUMAN product and is therefore flawed. Furthermore, as a human product you are getting what ancient church fathers in the ROMAN (not Jerusalem, Greek, Egyptian or Ethiopian) church thought what made a Christian. NOT WHAT CHRIST THOUGHT MADE A CHRISTIAN.

Bottom line is, people don't die from Christianity. You can't die from a belief that doesn't believe in killing. I blame the faulty interpretations of man, not the book they supposedly followed.

And in order to be a follower of Christ, we must forgive bin-Laden and not retaliate.

Not if they're not willing to repent. If they wanted to repent, they'd give themselves up to American authorities right now.

Where in the Bible is that caveat? On one hand you say no one has died from the Bible's teaching; then you turn around and tell me it is okay to kill al-Qaida because they are not willing to repent. And then down below you agree me with me again that you have never seen a justification for war in the New Testament. You keep contradicting yourself.

Nowhere in my reading of the NT do I see a justification for war...ever. (Unfortunately, many more people do...)

Neither have I, but I've only seen condemnation for the death penalty, as in criminals who have been caught and have the chance to repent. Not fascists who are out to kill six Jews. The Hebrews defended themselves in the OT, I don't see why we couldn't defend ourselves against the nazis.

Okay if you are Christian the point of the New Testament is that it replaces the one of the Hebrews; that God is making a new covenant. This one is more pacifist (Turn the other cheek) and is definately not what was expected in the Messiah. They expected Patton, but what they got was a Hippy. You keep saying you see the nonviolence and that Jesus does not condone killing, but you keep throwing in little caveats and quid pro quos. What you are doing is contradicting yourself.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm taking a revisionist point of view towards The Bible, but this is what makes sense to me.

I don't think it is revisionist. What I think is that you are working through reconciling your religious beliefs with long held political beliefs that contradict each other. It is a natural thing in a secular society in which church and state are seperate.

The crusades were justified. It was an attempt to rally Europe against a common foe in those days and pay them back for three-hundred years of oppression.

At 10/16/06 08:15 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote:

A million? It jumps from 250 thousand, to 650 thousand, and now it's a million dead Iraqis? I'm going to look past that remark, because I think you made a major no-no in your number fudging. If you honestly think George W. Bush is a radical Christian, you have no idea the kind of religious psycho leaders that roam the gloab. Ayatollah Komeni, Kim Jong Il, Ahmedinijad. These nutjobs are the worst of the worst when it comes to deprivation of human rights. George Bush is an idiot, but he's not a fanatic knee-jerk radical. He doesn't have the brain power for such complexities.

yeah, i kind of pulled that out of my ass. i figure that by the time we leave iraq it will be that high though... i dont believe that george bush is an idiot. i think that he is a very intelligent and manipulative man that is willing to do whatever it takes to silence the opposition. he is not killing people in broad daylight because he knows that he would be ruined. he instead destroys his enemies reputations and makes them out to be traitors. yes there are far more evil men in the world then our president, but we are america, we should be the moral high ground not a country that uses a hammer to solve problems better solved with a screwdriver. we too often see ideological problems as solvable with military force. a democracy cant kill enough of a population to ensure a military sucess to an ideological problem.

Just look at the guy that kept blowing up abortion clinics and killing abortionists in cold blood.

How many times does that happen in the United States? Radical Jihadists blow a piece of Israel up almost daily . Suicide bombers, katusha rockets flying randomly out of the sky; take youir pick. Can you imagine blocks being blown away every day in the United States?

true, but my point is not that there are less radical jihadists, as it is that a radical christian that wants to kill is equally dangerous as a radical jihadist that wants to kill.

These people are radical Christians. They are or were extremely dangerous and have killed many people. Of course you may say that there are less radical Christians that are willing to kill then radical Muslims, but that doesn’t change the fact that a radical is a radical, and is prone to support an action which is responsible for the killing of large numbers of innocent people.

Radical Christianity isn't a global issue. That's the difference. When's the last time you heard of a radical Christian slamming two planes into sky scrapers? Is that too American-oriented for you? Look no further than the plot to blow indiscriminate airplanes out of the sky over the pacific; thank God the UK busted it. Not enough? Bombings in Madrid. Russia. Take your pick.

what about the IRA? they may have pretty much stopped now, but look at how dangerous they were at their peak?

At 10/17/06 04:03 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/16/06 08:15 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote:

what about the IRA? they may have pretty much stopped now, but look at how dangerous they were at their peak?

IRA was more about cultural issues clashing and the Catholic church just happened to be part of one of thier cultures.

Likewise with the Protestant church in the Orange Order.

At 10/17/06 09:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/17/06 04:03 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/16/06 08:15 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote:

what about the IRA? they may have pretty much stopped now, but look at how dangerous they were at their peak?

IRA was more about cultural issues clashing and the Catholic church just happened to be part of one of thier cultures.

Likewise with the Protestant church in the Orange Order.

Just like the Palestinian Liberation Organization was about nationalism and establishing a secular Palestinian state. Islam just happened to be part of the PLO's culture. Thank you for helping me make a point MP!

At 10/17/06 09:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/17/06 09:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/17/06 04:03 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/16/06 08:15 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote:

Just like the Palestinian Liberation Organization was about nationalism and establishing a secular Palestinian state. Islam just happened to be part of the PLO's culture. Thank you for helping me make a point MP!

Lets hope it's secular.

But in comparison, the Palestinians and Isreali's are a lot worse then the Irish and British.

Think, one of the most well known massacres in Ireland(Bloody Sunday, 1972) resulted in 26 Causalties.

Thats nothing to the Holy Land carnage.

And most IRA bombings were given forewarning to the area to be bombed.

Simply put, The Troubles were a lot more civilized compared to Palestine troubles.

At 10/17/06 09:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/17/06 09:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/17/06 09:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/17/06 04:03 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/16/06 08:15 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:48 PM, mayeram wrote:

Just like the Palestinian Liberation Organization was about nationalism and establishing a secular Palestinian state. Islam just happened to be part of the PLO's culture. Thank you for helping me make a point MP!

Lets hope it's secular.

The problem is the PLA was run into the ground by the corruption of the Fatah party (the PLO's successor). So it could be said they could have been a little less secular and more religious and maybe they wouldn't be so corrupt!

But, look at HAMAS (who defeated the Fatah party in elections earlier this year). They have actually been moving towards a more responsible governing style. HAMAS elected officials have worked to build hospitals, orphanages, schools and public works projects instead of terror campaigns (since the second intifada). Right now the official platform of HAMAS calls for the destruction of Israel; BUT with 90% of Palestinians favoring a two-state solution there is subtle signals that if Israel would agree to recognize a Palestinian state's right to exist, then HAMAS would reciprocate.

So even HAMAS (an extreme religious based organization) is beginning the process of secularization and co-existance.

I think if we could get the two sides back to the bargaining table we might actually see a dramatic decrease in terrorist attacks in Israel. Unfortunately, this won't happen until Bush and Olmert are out of office.

AAK

At 10/14/06 11:55 AM, Grammer wrote:
That's the problem, though. They didn't actually go out and count dead bodies in the study. But anyways, there have been counts from the Iraqi government which come to a number not even close to 650,000. I'll have to see a supporting study if I'm going to believe something so outrageous.

Outrageous? Sorry, what do you think the end result of indiscriminate carpet bombing of densely populated areas would be, a couple of bumps and bruises? Consider the population of Baghdad is 5,948,800, the odds are you're going to hit quite a few people at least.

Anyway, is this study supportive enough?

At 10/18/06 10:13 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 10/14/06 11:55 AM, Grammer wrote:
That's the problem, though. They didn't actually go out and count dead bodies in the study. But anyways, there have been counts from the Iraqi government which come to a number not even close to 650,000. I'll have to see a supporting study if I'm going to believe something so outrageous.

Outrageous? Sorry, what do you think the end result of indiscriminate carpet bombing of densely populated areas would be, a couple of bumps and bruises? Consider the population of Baghdad is 5,948,800, the odds are you're going to hit quite a few people at least.

Anyway, is this study supportive enough?

The study actually says its a range of between 350,000 and over 900,000.

It does have some methodological issues; but it is the most statistically sound study done thus far.

Also how do you get indiscrimate carpet bombing; especially of Baghdad? The US did not carpet bomb and if we did the number of deaths would have started at 900,000 instead of it being the upper range.

You are aware that's the report that all the fuss is about, right? And, last time I checked, 655,000 fits in perfectly in the 350,000 - 900,000 range.

Anyway, have you forgotten all the news footage from 2003 with Baghdad being bombed? That's where a large chunk of the bodycount came from.

Liberals / democrats state that christianity is just as bad as islam because they have more against christians then they do muslims.

I get the feeling that liberals dislike christians mainly because of their oppositionistic stance against:

- EMBRYONIC Stem cell research

(Important thing to recognize that very few christians dont want stem cell research at all. They're afraid scientists will ignore all other options of harvesting stem cells [Imbillical cord / bone marrow] and go straight for embryos, which partially makes sense since i asume, that embryonic stem cells are easier to harvest. (especially if they plan on cloning embyros, then disecting them)_ )_)

- Abortion / late abortion

Most moderate christians really only care about late abortion since a more then before living thing is being killed. But more devout christians deeply beleive that once XY and XX make contact, the soul immediatly is manifested in the body. It's really hard to argue with faith, since there's no proof for or against the existance of souls (Since there's really no way to proove something that isn't supposed to be seen, heard, but felt, exists) Killing the 'life form' anywhere in eutero is just as bad as any other stage, just as bad as killing another human being. TO THEM.

So you have 2 things that christians are really in a grind over, that liberals are really exited to see be put in place as long term and expansive institutions. And christians stand in the way, that would get anyone angry.

However, i deeply beleive that liberals have no right to call the christian church bad because of the things it did 500 years ago. Now, let me explain, christian issues and muslim issues are almost exact opposites, the christian churches, for many many years had leaders who were corrupted, they wanted to be more powerful then kings, (which is where toppence for penense was invented) They tricked their followers into digging themselfs into a hell hole.

Muslims on the other hand are quite the opposite, muslims as small groups find themselfs adapting more hatefull beleifs, manifested over several years of pointless war over a cup that never existed, as well as discrimination. (We learn in history that when violence is fired at something, it bounces back. (even if you kill off every single muslim)

damn.. i have to go, i'll write more later. Cya.

- PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER. people back then thought the earth was flat, the sun orbits the earth, and clouds are heaven. They didn't have half of the proliferated morals as well as scientific knowledge we have today. Most christians can safetly stand back alone and say that they would never support that kind of violence.

At 10/21/06 09:38 AM, D2KVirus wrote: You are aware that's the report that all the fuss is about, right? And, last time I checked, 655,000 fits in perfectly in the 350,000 - 900,000 range.

Yes, I was just trying to give more accurate information of what the report contained.

Anyway, have you forgotten all the news footage from 2003 with Baghdad being bombed? That's where a large chunk of the bodycount came from.

No. But that was NOT carpet bombing. Carpet bombing is the indiscrimate bombing of targets with massive amounts of munitions. The 2003 Baghdad bombing was done with guided munitions, taking care to LIMIT collateral damage. If we had not been more careful, or had done carpet bombing as you suggested the lower limit of the study would have been 900,000 instead of 350,000. Please pay more attention when reading.

AAK

Oh, right, it was surgical bombing...which still involves dropping bombs from a great height on populated areas, then acting surprised when there are a lot more civillian casualties than military ones. No matter what the politically correct term, dropping large payloads of explosives on a city with a population of just under six million. And that's just Baghdad, so if you add to that Mosul, Bassora, Basra, Nassiriya, Amarah - all with populations of several hundred thousand - that's a lot of cities being bombed in a non-discriminate manner, and that's a lot of civillians in the way.

You say the bombing was aiming to prevent civillian casualties, yet it was civilised areas getting struck, so something has to give: and each and every time, it's the civillian casualties as humanity hasn't developed the ability to withstand an explosion as yet. If you bomb a large city, there's going to ber a lot of civillians so, therefore, there's going to be a lot of civillian casualties if you do it from the air (as opposed to sneaking in and bombing the primary target, James Bond style). That's the simple truth in the matter.

By the way, it isn't "collateral damaged", it's the "wholesale murder of innocent people", call it by its name.

back to Jesus v. Muhammad

Jesus would totally beat islam because he has superpowers, muhammad didnt cure no leppers, islam isnt backed up by a superhero, christianity rejoice

At 10/25/06 05:42 PM, Baron-Von-Geordie wrote: back to Jesus v. Muhammad

Jesus would totally beat islam because he has superpowers, muhammad didnt cure no leppers, islam isnt backed up by a superhero, christianity rejoice

In other words, Islam's central figure doesn't have a lot of made-up hocus pocus woven into their sacred text?

Anyway, we all know Buddha would win over all - he's so big you couldn't make a punch register and get punch drunk.