yeah, dont be too self-righteous and high and mighty over it, too.

what do your people have to say about being humble?

10/30/2006 8:37:38 PM

Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way

10/30/2006 8:40:26 PM

Quote :

"The fallacy of that statement seems obvious on the face of it. However, frequently it is necessary to point out where the fallacy begins. Dean’s Liberation Theology begins with the false base premise that a Christian Society is a 'just' society. In fact, Christianity begins with the base premise that evil exists and therefore a just and fair society is impossible. Yet there arises the question of how Christianity allowed this false premise into modern theological thinking and the Second Vatican. Not to mention, most mainline Protestant Christian denominations have also inculcated this theology as well. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger offered “Preliminary Notes” on Liberation Theology that preceded the Instruction of Fall 1984. In these “Preliminary Notes,” the now Bishop of Rome made careful mention of Rudolph Bultman: Another key word made Bultmann important for future developments. He had reinstated the old concept "hermeneutics" and given it a new thrust. The word hermeneutics expresses the insight that a real understanding of historical texts does not come about by mere historical interpretation and, indeed, that every historical interpretation already includes certain prior decisions. Once the historical material has been established, it is the task of hermeneutics to "actualize" Scripture. In classical terminology, it is to "dissolve the horizon" between then and now. It asks the question: what significance have these past events for today? Bultmann himself had answered this question with the help of Heidegger's philosophy and had interpreted the Bible in a correspondingly existentialist manner. This answer attracted no interest then, nor does it now; to that extent Bultmann has been superseded in the exegesis currently acceptable. Yet what has remained is the abstraction of the figure of Jesus from the classical tradition as well as the idea that, using a new hermeneutics, we can and must bring this figure into the present in a new way. At this point we come to the second element of our situation to which we have already referred: the new philosophical climate of the late sixties. In the meantime the marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only "scientific" one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the 'poor" provides a starting point for fusing the Bible's view of history with marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the marxist sense and thus justifies marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible. Dean in his prophetic hope that America is returning to the 60’s is hoping for a time when humanity, in Ratzinger’s words, “…by giving life to those who are crucified in history. Man has taken over God's gesture — this manifests the whole transformation of the biblical message in an almost tragic way, when one thinks how this attempted imitation of God has worked out in practice and continues to do so.” Even Dean acknowledges in his speech to the Christian conference the tragic way that this Christian theology has existentially manifested itself in the most powerful and rich nation in the world: Later in his speech Tuesday, Dean appeared to backtrack. "I'm not asking to go back to the '60s; we made some mistakes in the '60s," he said. "If you look at how we did public housing, we essentially created ghettoes for poor people" instead of using today's method of mixed-income housing. Another mistake Democrats made in the '60s, Dean acknowledged, was that "we did give things away for free, and that's a huge mistake because that does create a culture of dependence, and that's not good for anybody, either," he noted, a reference to the Great Society welfare programs created by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in the mid-1960s. Even though Dean is ready to admit the errors of his party’s planks he is not ready to admit the errors of his party’s theology and philosophy: "Those mistakes were not the downfall of our program," Dean added. "They helped a lot more people than they hurt. But we can do better, and we will do better and our time is coming." The Democrat Party cannot seem to get past the error of the First Commandment. They view themselves as the Benevolent All Knowing who will make the world better for all if they can just steal enough money (taxes) from everyone else. They do not understand that the “Fatal Conceit” of Socialism is that no one person or any group of people can ever know enough to create an economic political system (socialism) greater or better than the free and open market system. They also fail to understand that at the root of every socialist system is a totalitarian society as F. A. Hayek so adequately stated and reasoned. The Democrat Party is still stuck on one of the two greatly dispelled myths of the Twentieth Century. The first myth was that race matters. The second myth was that money matters. With the collapse of the Marxists state of the Soviet Socialist Republic and Bill Clinton pronouncing that we are going to end Welfare as we know it, we have living proof that the concept of redistribution of wealth does not matter. Any society that seeks to redistribute wealth on the pretext that it will in some way recreate Heaven on Earth are not following Christ’s teachings nor sound existential policy. To use Rudolph Bultman’s own words, “…Until one has appropriated the grace of God manifested in Christ’s work, he is "alienated from his own true nature, alienated from life, enslaved under hostile powers and in bondage to death." Until Howard Dean and the Humanists and professing Christians of the theological basis of Liberation Theology become liberated from their enslavement to Marxists philosophy, they are on a doomed path."

I posted this awhile back, and it makes some good points about the complete and total folly of liberal christianity and "liberation theory", along with the idea that jesus was some peacenik. Wolfpack2K was already layed that out for you pretty well.

10/30/2006 8:41:39 PM

In any case, Jesus probably would have been against the Iraq war, and Bush and Cheney are going to Hell.

According to the former deputy director of faith-based initiatives though, Bush actually things Christians are idiots:

Quote :

"It was quite common, according to Kuo, for Bush and those around him to look upon Christians as useful idiots. "

http://americandaily.com/article/16078

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 8:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2006 8:41:53 PM

^the evidence against that has already been presented. go back to the first page, i wont post it again.

10/30/2006 8:46:37 PM

Nothing regarding the Iraq war and Christ was posted on the first page. You go back and read it.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2006 8:48:20 PM

Quote :

"Matthew 10:34-35: "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Did you ever wonder why your mother in law is such a bitch? There you go.) Apocalypse 19:11-16: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight. And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself. And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty. And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." His clothes dipped in blood; he fights and leads the armies and strikes the nations with a sharp sword - doesn't exactly sound like a hippie peacenik to me. The horse is white, not tie-dye. "

These verses pretty much sum it up....from page 2

10/30/2006 8:56:29 PM

And behold.. a tie dyed horse. And its rider wore a vesture with bell bottoms, and sang "The answer my friennnnnnd... is blowin' in the winnnnnnnd..."

10/30/2006 9:00:01 PM

shut up, there is only one solution to all of this:


[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 9:06:06 PM

Quote :

"When clearly nothing could be further from the truth."

Show me one passage where jesus says to kill people. There's one passage where he tells someone to kill their disobiedient children, but that's a far cry from war. In fact, jesus says "turn the other cheek", and "love thy enemy".
Come on, you know the bible, show me one passage where jesus tells us to go to war.

10/30/2006 9:08:53 PM

Wouldn't what God does be largely irrelevant when it comes to what he commands for his people?

Just because he rides in on judgment day with guns blazing doesn't mean this is what he envisions for his people, does it? If so, why do people get concerned over "playing god," if we're supposed to just do what god does?

I mean it seems pretty clear that god commands his people not to kill, but then kills himself. This means it's okay for god to slay his own creations, but not for his creations to slay each other (just an interpretation of the 10 commandments). I don't think that any of the characters of the old testament could get away with killing just by pointing out that Yahweh himself killed.

10/30/2006 9:09:30 PM

^that're essentially what i was thinking. who are we to play god and decide who will be eliminated preempitively? self-defense is one thing (as defined by a human's nature to stay alive), judging one and eliminating them seems like a job best delegated to the judge of man to me.

10/30/2006 9:14:55 PM

^^^^^^The first verse has no bearing on Iraq, and the second is talking about the freaking apocalypse.

Also, what about these verses, do they have no meaning? Was Jesus lying? A hypocrite? Seriously, what is your explanation?

Quote :

" Matthew 5: 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; "

Quote :

" Matthew 26: 51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 55In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. "

10/30/2006 9:20:45 PM

KILL IN THE NAME OF ALLAH JESUS!!!!!!!

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 9:36 PM. Reason : i now understand why everything is so messed up]

10/30/2006 9:35:54 PM

The explanation can be found in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine. I gave some quotes and references earlier.

As far as the second passage you quoted, the explanation is simple - Jesus had to be crucified, and He would not allow anyone to stand in the way of that. But we do not have to be crucified, we do not have to let people attack us and get away with it.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 9:43 PM. Reason : add]

10/30/2006 9:42:00 PM

Dude Aquinas was wrong about so much, how can you expect us to really believe anything he wrote?

10/30/2006 9:43:02 PM

Attack the source again.. one of the liberals' favourite logcal fallacies.

Anyway, while I may factually disagree with him on some things (the Immaculate Conception for instance), he is still regarded as a great theosopher, a doctor of the Church, and an authoritative teacher as far as I'm concerned.

10/30/2006 9:44:13 PM

I'm not so much attacking the source as I am doubting him because he's so ridiculously wrong about the stuff I've KNOWN him to write.

The stuff I'm familiar with from Aquinas are his interpretations of Aristotle and his "proof" of God. All of this stuff is so remarkably laughable and was such a road block to the advancement of intellectual pursuits in the west, that you'll have to excuse me for not having much faith in his other works.

10/30/2006 9:47:12 PM

tagging people "liberal" because of their disagreement with philosophers who regergatate Plato and Aristotal is more than a logical

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 11:24 PM. Reason : hahaha wtf happened to this thread. ]

10/30/2006 11:21:43 PM

I just wanted to note agian that wolfpack2k referenced a passage where jesus stated in metaphor what he did, not what should be done.

10/31/2006 12:05:16 AM

Hey dude just remember you're disagree with a guy from a TOP TIER LAW SCHOOL.

Go get your top tier law degree and THEN talk. Ha!

10/31/2006 12:11:46 AM

I think Randy graduated from a top tier security guard school.

10/31/2006 12:38:38 AM

I thought we learned empathy in 1st grade. hmm.

I got a 173 on the LSAT, But I still don't think he'd listen when I told him he was wrong.

Axiom1:If a human is innocent, then they should be free. (Taken as an axiom since 'innocent' is a subjective term. But if you'll agree that a definition of 'free from legal guilt or fault' is acceptable, that should be enough.) You can argue this axiom, but prove an innocent human should be detained then you should have no trouble turning yourself over to the authorities. And yes, it is black or white.

Fact1: Terrorists, alleged terrorists, detainees, criminals, senators, etc. all fall under the category 'Human.' (I don't care where you place them on the list, they are still on it.)

Fact2: There exists detainees at Guantanamo who are innocent.

From Fact1 we get that a detainee is human, from fact2 we know there exists a human at guantanamo who is innocent. and by axiom1 this is a contradiction.



What conclusions can you draw? Well, since none of our assumptions were wrong, we must be doing something that is logically false. That would be detaining innocent people. Bing! So, we should make every effort to correct this mistake. And no, military tribunal hearings are not good enough, as the humans can be detained indefinately. IF they acted expediantly, things would be alright. But they clearly aren't.

It's obvious why the US scores so poorly on math tests.

10/31/2006 9:14:12 PM

Quote :

"Why would someone be there if there wasn't a legitimate connection between them and terrorist activities? Do you think the brave Marines and soldiers there just go randomly picking up people in the middle of the night and taking them to Guantanamo Bay?"

Stephen Colbert made an almost identical statement tonight.

11/1/2006 12:05:15 AM