Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Iran Hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years

531 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

I wish I had your optimism. Yellowstone is about 60 k years overdue and throwing money at it won't help. As long as fundamentalists among muslims and Christians hold power the potential for mutual destruction is there

Had a lot of Christian suicide bombers in your neck of the woods? In fact, have you noticed a lot of Christians in positions of power in western governments? Be fair is all I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Had a lot of Christian suicide bombers in your neck of the woods? In fact, have you noticed a lot of Christians in positions of power in western governments? Be fair is all I ask.

um, the President of the U.S. from 2001 to 2009? And his little friend - loyal Ally, mr. tony Blair?

Edited by Colonel Rhubarb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Had a lot of Christian suicide bombers in your neck of the woods? In fact, have you noticed a lot of Christians in positions of power in western governments? Be fair is all I ask.

How many US presidents have not been Christian? Ever hear of the IRA? I think they were catholics. Ever hear of David Koresh or Jim Jones?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Meh.... I don't think your comparisons are fair.

The IRA where motivated by politics. The religious divide with the (predominately) Protestants in Northern Island may have been used to delineate differences - to foster the "us and them" mindset - but it was never a primary motivation.

Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones could be accurately described as either suicide bombers, or "holding positions of power in Western Governments."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

How many US presidents have not been Christian? Ever hear of the IRA? I think they were catholics. Ever hear of David Koresh or Jim Jones?

You're mincing the terms again. Let me be more clear - how many western leaders who LIVE ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAWS - have you seen lately? It's a pointless argument with you or some others here but maybe those who read without the bias will take note of what I'm saying. You can continue to make an equivalency between true Christian principles and other religions but it just doesn't wash. A fair minded person will admit this. And the real proof is in the way one lives their life. Have you noticed a large number of people wanting to immigrate to Islamic countries? Point being that countries even loosely based on Judeo Christian ethics are far more humane than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Meh.... I don't think your comparisons are fair.

The IRA where motivated by politics. The religious divide with the (predominately) Protestants in Northern Island may have been used to delineate differences - to foster the "us and them" mindset - but it was never a primary motivation.

Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones could be accurately described as either suicide bombers, or "holding positions of power in Western Governments."

And you don't think Al-Quaeda is motivated by politics? Every leader of the US has been Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

You're mincing the terms again. Let me be more clear - how many western leaders who LIVE ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAWS - have you seen lately? It's a pointless argument with you or some others here but maybe those who read without the bias will take note of what I'm saying. You can continue to make an equivalency between true Christian principles and other religions but it just doesn't wash. A fair minded person will admit this. And the real proof is in the way one lives their life. Have you noticed a large number of people wanting to immigrate to Islamic countries? Point being that countries even loosely based on Judeo Christian ethics are far more humane than others.

So only Christians who believe exactly as you are Christian? Of course we don't live by the old Hebrew law. That doesn't mean they aren't living by their religious views. Have you read Leviticus? I would hardly call those laws humane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

So only Christians who believe exactly as you are Christian? Of course we don't live by the old Hebrew law. That doesn't mean they aren't living by their religious views. Have you read Leviticus? I would hardly call those laws humane

It is those outside the faith who condemn just as readily yet never acknowledge they do any wrong. If a person takes the name of Christ then he must do as Christ said to do - or at least to try his best to - AND admit when he fails. This is the acid test. It is not difficult to determine that those who lie, cheat, steal and so on and do so repeatedly and without repentance or their conscience bothering them are lying when they call themselves Christian. Judge them or me any way you care to. The only judge I fear is the final one. Christ came to make all things NEW. He did not come to condemn but to fulfill the law and make free those who would follow - but he also made clear that those who willfully reject his pardon are lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

It is those outside the faith who condemn just as readily yet never acknowledge they do any wrong. If a person takes the name of Christ then he must do as Christ said to do - or at least to try his best to - AND admit when he fails. This is the acid test. It is not difficult to determine that those who lie, cheat, steal and so on and do so repeatedly and without repentance or their conscience bothering them are lying when they call themselves Christian. Judge them or me any way you care to. The only judge I fear is the final one. Christ came to make all things NEW. He did not come to condemn but to fulfill the law and make free those who would follow - but he also made clear that those who willfully reject his pardon are lost.

How many then do you suppose actually do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

How many then do you suppose actually do this?

How many actually try? I have no way to know - only the individual knows. But the Lord said that "narrow is the way and few enter in" My only point is that judging all who call themselves Christian by the actions of some who very obviously aren't even trying to follow his commands is unfair to the rest. Apply that standard to any other group and you'll see the equity in it I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

How many actually try? I have no way to know - only the individual knows. But the Lord said that "narrow is the way and few enter in" My only point is that judging all who call themselves Christian by the actions of some who very obviously aren't even trying to follow his commands is unfair to the rest. Apply that standard to any other group and you'll see the equity in it I think.

You mean like when someone brings up Stalin concerning atheists?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You mean like when someone brings up Stalin concerning atheists?

Yes which is right after someone brings up Christianity concerning wars.

The US doesn't start a major war every 20 years because of something the New Testament said. Religion is sometimes an excuse, and far less so today than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Stalin is a more contemporary example that provides anecdotal evidence to the self-assured atheist that no, you actually don't need to involve God when committing violence against other people. I've ran into violent people throughout my life, and not a one of them was motivated by religion. So there's evidence that even without traditional incentives to get dander up like religion, other real reasons to start wars (land, resources, power, i.e. money) are very much alive.

The implication atheists make is as if people aren't motivated to do terrible things by money. Somehow when it's institutionalized and as bad as it will ever get, e.g. when governments go to war, greed is overlooked and religion gets stained. We can understand greed well enough when free markets are concerned, just can't understand that politicians and bureaucrats are greedy too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Yes which is right after someone brings up Christianity concerning wars.

The US doesn't start a major war every 20 years because of something the New Testament said. Religion is sometimes an excuse, and far less so today than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Stalin is a more contemporary example that provides anecdotal evidence to the self-assured atheist that no, you actually don't need to involve God when committing violence against other people. I've ran into violent people throughout my life, and not a one of them was motivated by religion. So there's evidence that even without traditional incentives to get dander up like religion, other real reasons to start wars (land, resources, power, i.e. money) are very much alive.

The implication atheists make is as if people aren't motivated to do terrible things by money. Somehow when it's institutionalized and as bad as it will ever get, e.g. when governments go to war, greed is overlooked and religion gets stained. We can understand greed well enough when free markets are concerned, just can't understand that politicians and bureaucrats are greedy too.

You are right about our motives for staring wars not being about religion but, I think financially motivated, but there is a religious view concerning the middle east that is disturbing when all three major religions are apocalyptic in nature and consider Armageddon foretold by God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

You mean like when someone brings up Stalin concerning atheists?

Exactly the same - judging all based on a few is just wrong. As INDIVIDUALS. If those individuals are following the dogma of their faith well that's a bit different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Exactly the same - judging all based on a few is just wrong. As INDIVIDUALS. If those individuals are following the dogma of their faith well that's a bit different.

Well you make a good point. Still it seems the Christian right seems to band together for the political clout to suppress the civil rights of others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

You're mincing the terms again. Let me be more clear - how many western leaders who LIVE ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAWS - have you seen lately? I

The President of the USA from 2001 to 2009 claimed to, and so did his little friend across the Pond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

To be honest the only countries that worry me nowadays are Muslims and North Korea. The US and Europe are powerful, as are Japan and China and Russia, but they don't strive for anything except their interests, and it is not in their interest to destroy the world, nor even to dominate it except so much as to keep others from being a threat. The anti-Americanism and so on is just juveniles without a sense of politics or history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

You have no concern about the Americas world domination project. i certainly do.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

To be honest the only countries that worry me nowadays are Muslims and North Korea. The US and Europe are powerful, as are Japan and China and Russia, but they don't strive for anything except their interests, and it is not in their interest to destroy the world, nor even to dominate it

i have to agree with Br. there. Really, you don't think the US has made it its policy since at least 1945, to do just that? Or since it's "Freedom" and "Democracy" that it wants to export, ( :mellow: ) then that's fine?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

i think the bottom line on AT is that he would not support Israel if it wasn't part of his bible. He would not support such an oppressive regime if it was anyone else - especially if they were muslim.

That really says it all.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

i think the bottom line on AT is that he would not support Israel if it wasn't part of his bible. He would not support such an oppressive regime if it was anyone else - especially if they were muslim.

That really says it all.

Br Cornelius

I reject your characterization that Israel is oppressive. Controlling? Absolutely. They have to be due to the intafadas that have killed thousands. I'm sure you'd rather have them live like there is no problem while their enemies slaughter them but they refuse to do this. And your implication that I hate Muslims is an old slur as well. As to living by the bible - that does say it all - I'm happy to do so. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

If the US wanted world domination it would long ago have taken over Mexico (it had it conquered once and withdrew) and Canada, as well as the Philippines and Japan. You people are just silly in your ideological distortion. The US is hardly a perfect state and I chose not to live there, but the rest is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

If the US wanted world domination, why would it want Mexico particularly? Anyway, Mexico is gradually taking over the US, isn't it. Canada? A loyal NATO Ally, and what's NATO if not a vehicle for the projection of American power. The Philippines and Japan? That was what happened, to all intents and purposes, after WWII, wasn't it, when old Douglas MacArthur became virtual Emperor. Japan may be a commercial rival, but they're both still very important military bases for the US, though it's debatable whether Japan needs the US as much as the US needs Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

If the US wanted world domination it would long ago have taken over Mexico (it had it conquered once and withdrew) and Canada, as well as the Philippines and Japan. You people are just silly in your ideological distortion. The US is hardly a perfect state and I chose not to live there, but the rest is just nonsense.

You don't seem to understand the nature of a colonial empire and why occupation on the ground is really not that important to achieving the objective of control. All of the countries you mention are controlled to some degree by their agreements with the USA, all of them have US military bases on their Sovereign soil.

Empires simply don't look like the old fashioned model. Modern empires are about control of resources and access to markets at preferential terms - modern empires are all about money.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I reject your characterization that Israel is oppressive. Controlling? Absolutely. They have to be due to the intafadas that have killed thousands. I'm sure you'd rather have them live like there is no problem while their enemies slaughter them but they refuse to do this. And your implication that I hate Muslims is an old slur as well. As to living by the bible - that does say it all - I'm happy to do so. :)

You did not address the point. If Israel were not the central player in your Bible you wouldn't give a ****.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.