I take a more complete view of things. I see God in everything and everywhere. So if the lawmakers decided those laws were good, all good comes from God. I think that is a way of speaking. God didn't use words, but the idea got to the law makers, and they passed it down. Sometimes God speaking could also be called inspiration. I think the reason it was only that particular group, is because they were the ones searching for answers. I don't think that words were actually spoken that anyone around would have heard. Like I said, I think coming up with an inspiration is one way that God speaks. It wasn't spoken with words.
I agree to a certain extent, even if the laws passed were bad I should stay the course, pray and all good things come to those that wait. God puts everyone in power for a reason, good or bad and it is all a part of the master plan. Romans 13 deals with Christianity and politics perfectly... this is why when Clinton was still in office and morally reprehensible I still respected his office and what it stands for unlike most Liberals do today for Bush... Romans is probably my favorite book in the Bible because it teaches me just about everything I need to know about my walk of faith in this messed up world. I encourage all that really truly want to know where Christians come from in their view on politics and interaction with the world to read this book.
I kind of think the same way. But can you really claim that and also claim that god dictated not to eat certain animals? Was that "law" true for other cultures as well? Why were the Jewish laws more important than those of other cultures? The Jews were not the only spiritual people on the earth. They did not have a monopoly on "God". You say they were the only ones looking but I think that is just a biased answer. That completely discredits other people, cultures, and religions and it is bogus.
Peshawar cleric Maulana Yousaf Qureshi offers 7.5m rupees ($125,000) and a car to anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew the cartoons. The reward is later reportedly raised to $1m http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4722712.stm This guy is suppose to be a religious leader? In civilized countries, when people put out bounties to murder someone, it's a crime. And please don't even compare the bounty on OBL to a cartoonist.
Romans is probably my favorite book as well. That's cool. But as far as morally reprehensible, I think that Bush is goverened far more immorally. Trying to paint a plane like a UN plane, and tricking the Iraqis into attacking it, in order to start a war, is about as bad as it gets. Lying to people who worked near the WTC and telling them it was ok to go back to work when the administration knew the air quality in the area was harmful, isn't too far removed Euriah being sent off to the front lines to be killed. Giving to the rich while cutting programs that help the poor, also seems far from Christian. Starting a war in Iraq is about as far removed from Jesus as I can imagine. Trying to justify torture is also incredibly immoral. The list goes on and on for Bush. I think he has goverened as removed from the principles of Christianity as any President I can imagine. Here is an article by other Christians that are upset by the torture I do respect the office of the President, and I pay my taxes. But I repsect the constitution more than the man.
I completely disagree with you and your conspiracy theories, but that's alright we're allowed to disagree. As for Clinton being "far from reprehensible" I'm going to play the Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and the Balkans cards right there and follow it up with his bombings on Iraq to help ease the burden of his affair.
Clinton was certainly reprehensible. I am not saying he was an angel by any means. But it is ok to disagree, but the things I spoke about, have all been documented, and aren't conspiracy theories by any stretch of the word. As far as Clinton's bombings in Iraq, Kaye, who was appointed by Bush to investigate concluded that one of the reasons Saddam didn't have WMD was precisely because of those bombings by Clinton. The charge has been made that it was a bombing to ease the pressure, but the facts tell a different story.
This story is so questionable I'm not sure I'd go around using it to bolster your position. You've got enough legitimate ammunition to use against Bush as it is.
Now they are putting bounties on the heads of the cartoonists......WTF is wrong with these people? Link to bounty article DD
The SINGLE biggest reason that I have an issue with the Muslim faith is the lack of a powerful moderate voice. The religion is barely 1000 years old, and it certainly is going through some harsh growing pains. Kind of looks like the Chritians and their Inquisition. I hope they wake up and realize that human life is more meaningful than a silly cartoon about their religious icon Muhammed. DD
I see you enjoy repeating false crap over and over again, you're truly ignorant, I feel bad for you...but at least you're genuine.
Yeah, so I guess the others that have sided with me here about that issue are ignorant as well? It is only hurting your religion, so I guess that isn't important at all? America isn't getting this loud and clear message that you say is happening, so you might want to turn up the volume on the megaphone or something. If you read through my recent posts and don't see that I am trying to help your cause then you are just as blind as those that are rioting.
I thought this came from personal notes from a meeting b/t Blair, Bush & others. I could be wrong, and you've definitely read more on it than I, any links? It makes absolutely no sense, though. The U2 flies at 16000+ feet, not possible for anyone on the ground (ie Iraqi radar & SAM sites) to know what's painted on it. Why repaint the plane? A U2 conducting UN business is under the auspices of the UN, no matter what color it is. Just sounds incredibly silly. Also, the Iraqis violated UN Resolutions wrt the No-Fly Zones a thousand or so times over the years, and continued to do so in the runup to the invasion. They targeted UN (US/UK) planes with radar, fired on a few of them, and brought military response from UN-tasked warplanes a few hundred times. Why the need to fabricate anything?
"Trying to help my cause?" LOL! OK, whatever you say... How about you do a little bit of research to try and find out if you're right or wrong about making statements such as "Muslims aren't condemning this" or some other silly remark that you frequently make? It's not my fault that you're lazy. Geez, no wonder they call us the lazy generation...
It did come from meetings. But it was a govt. memo about those meetings. That is why I gave it some credibility. The problems you mentioned might be one reason why the plan wasn't put into use. It was a stupid plan, and may might have been part of a brainstorming session where they just threw ideas around. The only thing that is important about it is that shows the intent of Bush to go to war. The plan itself shouldn't be taken seriously. But it does show that Bush was not hoping for peace, but rather looking to make going to war alright.
Feel free to show me where muslims are gathering in one loud voice openly condemning the actions of these wack jobs. There have been quite a few people on these boards that have agreed with me, so are we simply blind? I read news all day long from around the world and all different sources and I don't see news stories being picked up by these supposive "stands" peaceful muslims are taking. Feel free to provide us with some links to any major news outlet who has reported on this. All I have seen on the subject are these two gatherings in LONDON that say "Islam is Peace" but still do NOT openly condemn the actions of their radical brothers. I find it hard to believe that there is so much condemning of these idiots by muslims and there hasn't been one link in the nearly 40 pages of this thread. I have only seen comments on terrorists, nothing on these riots going on now or the ones in Paris just a few months ago. In fact, the people that still speak out against terrorists generally blame it on the "west" such as in the Times UK article below. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4704716.stm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1904949,00.html
That was my thinking as well. And yes, it's obvious that the Bush Administration was determined to force the issue wrt Iraq. Gotta run, have a great weekend all.
who are else are they going to blame? jamaica? i wish the cartoons were from jamaica so those people have to burn chronic in their protest, maybe they'll chill out.
