|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will George Bush have a good legacy? |
| Yeah, he will be on the same level as Lincoln |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yeah, the same as Reagan |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Yeah, but less than Reagan |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
| No, on the same level as Carter |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, on the same level as Nixon |
|
57% |
[ 22 ] |
| No, on the same level as Hitler |
|
21% |
[ 8 ] |
| Worse than Hitler |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 38 |
|
| Author |
Message |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Captain Courageous wrote: |
| sundubman was just added to my stupid list. |
I added him to mine ages ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: The legacy of George Bush |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Happeningthang, I thought I would make this another thread.
| happeningthang wrote: |
In all honesty Eagles, your take on these issues is the primary reason I've been hostile towards your postings. How does a Christian view of things conclude that Bush and the bullsh*t war on terror is a good thing??
To me god(s), christianity, spirituality is about love, compassion, tolerance, you know... good stuff. To me that's polar opposite to Bush and his initiatives. When you put those two together it's just screaming WRONG!!!!! in my brain. That's my gut reaction, I'm not trying to have a go at you, but to quote an Australian equivalent to GDubya....please explain.
|
Good old Bush, eh?
Before the war in Iraq, I sent out a mass email to many of my friends and church members stating that I was against the war and that it was in the wrong spirit. Nobody replied and beyond that I was scorned somewhat by members who had influenced. However, I can understand this, because it is a very complicated process. As time reveals, it does seem like it was a wrong war at the wrong time.
Still, I can find positives in what George has done.
1. Removed Saddam Hussein, who is responsible for killing hundreds of thousand of his own people.
2. Instilled courage in people to fight against terrorism and stand for democracy. How many turned out for the elections? 80 percent in the face of death.
3. Has put fear in the Terrorist community. Where's Bin O Laden? Hiding in a cave and shaking like a baby.
4. Reduced the amount of persecution against Christians in the Islamic community. This might be hard to believe, but from what I have read and heard through friends and sources...it is much better now then when Bill Clinton was on board. I don�t know if you care about this, but I definitely do. Many Christians throughout the world are poor and exploited by evil regimes. |
I think the poll about Bush's legacy has lead us off of our topic - the religious aspect of your support for Bush and his policies. Being against war with dubious motvies is an admirable thing, as well as being a no brainer. Those who support the war most likely believe the war performs a noble purpose, such as the reasons you've listed above. I'm more cynical - Bush and company are there for one reason above all others - oil. It's running out, whoever controls it, whoever has it will be in a dominating position - or can maintain it. Things like Halliburton's profit margin in Iraq, willingness and support for human rights breaches in Guantanamo, Abu Grahib - lead me to believe that this war is not a particularly noble cause.
Religious persecution of any bent is not good, but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims. I don't think that because the focus of a persecution has changed that it counts as an improvement. A compassionate, and selfless Christian view would hopefully reach this conclusion. And here Eagles we can see the divergence of our views...
For me Christianity=compassion and understanding ie sympathy for others.
In my reading of what you've written...
Christianity = Christians first,others don't count or they aren't of equal importance.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Remember, I am still against the war in Iraq because war is war. It is a horrible deal and with it are horrible consequences. However, the important part is this. I haven't demonized George into something that he isn't. Whereas the NY Post, the LA times, Michael Moore have and other organizations have. They hate his stand against abortion, stem cell research and gay marriages and so they have killed this guy in the press. In the NY Times, there have been 118 articles written on him and of those articles, none have been positive. (Source...Bill O Reilly) |
I believe, and hope, that I do have a reasonably unbiased opinion of Bush. Michael Moore is hopelessly partisan and while he illustrates what I believe to be true about the nature of Bush and friends - he embillishes and exaggerates like all propagandists do. Rush Limbaugh did the same to Clinton. I think the real reason for your support for Bush is shown here and it's related to Bush's adherence to 'bible belt' America's religious issues.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
They hate his stand against abortion, stem cell research and gay marriages and so they have killed this guy in the press. |
I don't read any American papers , apart from Christian Science Monitor, so I don't really know what they have to say (and they can't really influence my opinions). But there's a reason why church and state are seperated - so laws affecting everybody in a society aren't decided by a "divinely inspired" preacher's interpretations of a 2,000 year old book. What concerns me about a religious based support of Bush is that it's based on a handful of issues, which gives Bush a status as a "Christian" President - the halo of which is being extended to everything he does.
And, nitty gritty time - what the hell is wrong with gay marriage anyway??? Again here is a point where we diverge.
Me...Christian=compassion They are people living their lives, for all intensve purposes, in a way that won't affect others. They are part of the human conidtion and should be treated as such.
You...Christian=Judgement and condemnation. Homosexuality is wrong they should be 'cured' and their lives curtailed.
As for abortion/ and stem cell research issues I partially agree with the right to lifers, in that life is precious and not to be toyed with. However, that's my belief which I live by - I don't feel that I can impose that belief on others, hence Pro choice. I would choose against abortion.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Am I for big greedy business models, the destruction of the environment and poverty? Of course not. Do I blame it all on Bush for what we are seeing in this world? No...I blame it on sin. Maybe foolish in your eyes, but I have had a lot of experience in this arena. I worked in Detroit for an environmental engineering company for 2 years and before that I worked in BC for 5 years. My dad has a company of the stock market for environmental solutions and my family owns businesses in other areas such as weapons manufacturing. People are greedy Happeningthing and they will always exploit the system. Regardless of what it is called. Communism, Church, Islam, Democracy and so forth. We live in a fallen world where people hate good and oppress the truth. Unlike human secularism where it believes people are inheritently good, I believe they are inheritently evil. |
This is one thing I really dislike about the Catholic view of life. Everyone's guilty, everyone's bad, everything sucks. What kind of god who is compassionate and loves you wants that for humanity?? People are inherently evil, but Bush is a good guy??? OH COME ON!! People are greedy - Bush and cohorts included, people oppress the truth, Bush and mates, Bush has got sin up the wazoo, baby anyone in his position in this world must do. You don't support the big business greed - Bush does - see tax cuts for rich, you don't support destruction of the environment well Bush won't sign Kyoto. I don't think he has enough power and influence to change things, but he's certainly representative of greed and he doesn't seem to be at all conflicted about it, rather he revels in it.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Can Bush be blamed for terrorists who strap bombs on their backs and randomly kill school children? Can he be blamed for most of the church seeing its own influence and prosperity above the imporance of helping others? No, he can't. He can try to influence them by his own moral behavior, in which I believe he has done a good job, but is having a difficult time because he is being character assassinated by a dark force.
Was George to blame for Katrina or was it series of mistakes throughout government and with the people? The governor had hundreds of school buses that he could have used, many people ignored the warnings, improper policies were in place, and Bush made mistakes.
So, we can either believe that he is motivated out of good intentions and wants what is right for the world or we can believe he is motivated out of evil.
|
I think you're right it does come down to that choice... I, and I suspect most detractors of Bush, media included, have all concluded that Bush, while maybe not motivated out of "evil" (a touch too strong), isn't exactly motivated by good intentions. His stolen election shows contempt for law and fair play, his appeal to fear, big business and government collusion, his bypassing of the congress, lies about WMD - this guy wants his own way. How can you say that people are inherently evil, and yet Bush and cronies are exempt from this???
You're right in that there is a lot of cirticism levelled at Bush, by the media, but again that is the media's role, as opposed to being cheerleader a la Fox News, and it's not just Bush, it applies to anybody in power, anywhere in the world. Same for comedians, they always parody the president of the day, I wouldn't say that it's a witch hunt, rather business as usual.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
How can you discern which one it is? Most of what Michael Moore has tried to pin on Bush has been shown to be outright lies. Every time there is a sniff of conspiracy or mistakes, the press jumps on him like rabbib hounds. Whereas most of the blame usually falls upon human institions. Can we really put our trust in human institions and world leaders? No and its the failure to recognize our trust in God that is bringing about the destruction that we see in this world. |
What does that even mean?? We can't trust humans to do anything right, so we should trust god to do it? Because we don't trust god it's all going wrong? I'm not sure I understand how god would manifest his power on earth in anyway different from what's happening now ie acting through humans and human institutions. It almost sounds a variety of nihilism. Forget it leave it to god.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
So really, why is he hated? It is it because of his stand for righteousness. Like I have said, he stands against abortion, stands against homosexual marriage and stem cell research. This is why he is. Yeah, he has made mistakes, but for the most part, God�s grace is able to overcome these issues for it is perfected in weakness.
Look at Lincoln and the history around his life. Liberals hated him and called him an idiot, a buffoon or liar. Churchill was called a warmonger by backbenchers. Reagan was also hated by many and only has become popular as time has shown the intelligence of the man.
Were they without their mistakes? No, they have all committed mistakes and were able to overcome these negative opinions later in life. Bush will find favor with God and we will see him cast in a favorable light in the future. It happens to all who stand for righteousness. God takes the foolishness and exalts it before the world so that it confuses the wisdom of the world. |
So we come full circle and we can see from your writings that your concern for Christian issues trumps all else.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
So really, why is he hated? It is it because of his stand for righteousness. Like I have said, he stands against abortion, stands against homosexual marriage and stem cell research. This is why he is. |
So support of these issues equals righteousness, in your mind, or writing at least. From three issues with religious significance you base your
support for Bush. It also seems that this is where you draw your conclusion that those who disagree with Bush do so, because of these issues above all else. Is that why humanity is sinful, while Bush isn't?
Personally I was outraged he stole the election, then annoyed when he was giving the rich more benefit than the poor, furious when launched a campaign of fear and lies to start a war. To me... the abortion/gay issues are small potatoes.
I've stated my opinions on these issues, and again my belief is that it's all good and well to have your convictions, no matter their motivation, and to act on them. It's another thing all together to try and impose these beliefs on others. As long as your actions and faith doesn't interfere with the well bieing and happiness of others - go for it. But eagles your take on Christianity seems to have a lot invested in changing other peoples lives rather than your own. For me this is where my appeal of a quiet faith comes from, and my dislike for missionaries- change and live your life - leave me alone to do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:48 am Post subject: Re: The legacy of George Bush |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Being against war with dubious motvies is an admirable thing, as well as being a no brainer.
|
Why? Would you support a force to stabilize Sudan? Or how a force to stop the threat of Nazism. We now face an evil greater than Nazism and it is Islamic Facism. I am sure you would. I think Bush overshoot the importance of Saddam and ran into the war with a Cowboy mentality...let's save them boys. Reminds me of what the US did to Japan. Yikes! However does it make the States evil?
| happeningthang wrote: |
Those who support the war most likely believe the war performs a noble purpose, such as the reasons you've listed above. I'm more cynical - Bush and company are there for one reason above all others - oil. It's running out, whoever controls it, whoever has it will be in a dominating position - or can maintain it. Things like Halliburton's profit margin in Iraq, willingness and support for human rights breaches in Guantanamo, Abu Grahib - lead me to believe that this war is not a particularly noble cause.
|
If the war is carried out for selfish ambitions rather than for the purpose of bringing freedom to an oppressed group of innocent victims, then I whole heartedly agree with you. However, I don't think this a war about oil, otherwise the States would be in Sudan right now trying to lay claim to its massive reserves. Ok, maybe some of it is, but I think that's a failure of the system rather than Bush.
As for Halliburton, I think for the time it served a purpose for operating all of the systems, but now, it has lost the contract due to reason and a voice of democracy. I never supported Halliburton, but I can understand why the government would support a supplier that could do all of the roles. When I worked in the automotive industry, our engineering firm was based upon handling many roles. Because of this versatility, we were able to land contracts that others couldn't. Not that I know much about Halliburton, but it seems like it positioned itself in a role that others didn't. Cheney understood this and probably took the company there thinking of stock margins rather than what the public would see as a breach of trust. Unfortunately, I have seen this mistake by other people and sometimes it is not based upon wrong motivations. As for Halliburton, I am still undecided. Why would they take down Worldcom and Enron, but leave Halliburton? Bush/Cheney don't have that much immunity.
As for the human rights breaches in Guantanamo, Abu Ghrahib. Yeah, some of what has happened was unbelievably horrible. But how is Bush responsible for people who tortured the prisoners? This wasn't in the protocol and those who were found guilty were convicted. Like I have said, sin makes people do evil things. Right? And now Guantanamo now has to go by Geneva Conventions. A sign that democracy works and doesn't bend to the dictation of one man.
| happeningthang wrote: |
Religious persecution of any bent is not good, but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims. I don't think that because the focus of a persecution has changed that it counts as an improvement. A compassionate, and selfless Christian view would hopefully reach this conclusion. And here Eagles we can see the divergence of our views...
For me Christianity=compassion and understanding ie sympathy for others.
In my reading of what you've written...
Christianity = Christians first,others don't count or they aren't of equal importance.
|
(This seems to be the thrust of your argument, while I have started this thread to talk about Bush. If you want to pursue this line then why don't you bring it back into the thread you started?)
But I will add, that the kingdom of God is a paradox. And those who want to enter in must take care of the oppressed which is quite contrary to a scripture that says the kingdom of God is taken by force and the forceful take hold of it. I think what you see here is unbalanced view of one perspective but haven't seen enough of the other perspective. If the media/society can contort enough of the picture so that only one side is showing then, it will do so to justify it's own disbelief.
I believe God's justice is about defending those who are sick, poor, without food or those who are oppressed by stronger parties.
So its true, I haven't shown too much compassion towards Islamic Facism, because I haven't seen studies or research where it shows the suffering of Muslims. Whereas, I have read many articles on books and papers that show the reverse. Where Christians are constantly killed, attacked or persecuted by extremists. But I have gone on missions where we have helped buddhist children learn english or supported orpanages that took in all types of religious faiths. That is why I go to a church that feeds the poor and builds orphanages.
I would like to explore the beauty of Islam, because I believe there is a beautiful side to it. I also advocate the moderate voice of Islam to speak out against the Facist side. My prayer is that peace will come to the Middle East because of the strength of the moderate voice of Islam. Also, our church is in the middle of many muslim communities feeding and housing them even under threads of violence and murder. Unfortunately, the press doesn't like to cover this, might bring too much hope.
| Quote: |
| I believe, and hope, that I do have a reasonably unbiased opinion of Bush. Michael Moore is hopelessly partisan and while he illustrates what I believe to be true about the nature of Bush and friends - he embillishes and exaggerates like all propagandists do. Rush Limbaugh did the same to Clinton. I think the real reason for your support for Bush is shown here and it's related to Bush's adherence to 'bible belt' America's religious issues. |
Yes, I support for Bush because I do agree with some of his stances, which I think are clearly stated in this article.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html
However, Christians should respect all rulers. Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar and to give unto God what is due unto God. Regardless of who is in Government, there should be a sign of respect and honor. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but respect and honor is commanded by God.
What the Republicans did to Clinton was shameful and now as the adage goes, what you sow you reap, is coming back 10 fold to them now. Maybe they will learn their lesson the next time around. Peter didn't listen to ruling authorities when they told him not to teach in the name of Jesus. He did so, but in kindness and gentleness.
| Quote: |
| I don't read any American papers , apart from Christian Science Monitor, so I don't really know what they have to say (and they can't really influence my opinions). |
How can you say you don't have an opinion from American papers, but have an opinion on Fox News?
| Quote: |
| but again that is the media's role, as opposed to being cheerleader a la Fox News, and it's not just Bush |
I am not trying to be sarcastic or twist your words here, but trying to make a point. How do you know? By what you read or hear from, like the Daily Show? My point is that we are influenced by media and our cultural outlets. Music, people and society and so I wonder how you separate what is true from what is false.
Personally, I look at how a person treats his wife and his family. How he treats the people around him and how he is standing up for justice. If he does these things then there is strong chance that he motivated out of good intentions.
| Quote: |
| But there's a reason why church and state are seperated - so laws affecting everybody in a society aren't decided by a "divinely inspired" preacher's interpretations of a 2,000 year old book. What concerns me about a religious based support of Bush is that it's based on a handful of issues, which gives Bush a status as a "Christian" President - the halo of which is being extended to everything he does. |
Once again, who says? Who says that church and state are supposed to be separated?
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=59618
| Quote: |
| This is one thing I really dislike about the Catholic view of life. Everyone's guilty, everyone's bad, everything sucks. What kind of god who is compassionate and loves you wants that for humanity?? People are inherently evil, but Bush is a good guy??? OH COME ON!! People are greedy - Bush and cohorts included, people oppress the truth, Bush and mates, Bush has got sin up the wazoo, baby anyone in his position in this world must do. You don't support the big business greed - Bush does - see tax cuts for rich, you don't support destruction of the environment well Bush won't sign Kyoto. I don't think he has enough power and influence to change things, but he's certainly representative of greed and he doesn't seem to be at all conflicted about it, rather he revels in it. |
I guess I have more trust in the American Supreme Court than you. They took down Nixon and if they took him down then they must be able to take down Bush.
| Quote: |
| I think you're right it does come down to that choice... I, and I suspect most detractors of Bush, media included, have all concluded that Bush, while maybe not motivated out of "evil" (a touch too strong), isn't exactly motivated by good intentions. His stolen election shows contempt for law and fair play, his appeal to fear, big business and government collusion, his bypassing of the congress, lies about WMD - this guy wants his own way. How can you say that people are inherently evil, and yet Bush and cronies are exempt from this??? |
His motivations are based upon Captalistic tendencies. Like any system, there is a fear factor associated with them all. Bush, like any politician, is motivated from certain selfish ambitions which have sadly undermined his government. But like you said, who is exempt from such motivation? So, what system is better than what the US has? If you look at the world ecomonies, it is probably one of the most prosperous times the world has ever seen. In large part thanks to US policies.
| Quote: |
| You're right in that there is a lot of cirticism levelled at Bush, by the media, but again that is the media's role, as opposed to being cheerleader a la Fox News, and it's not just Bush, it applies to anybody in power, anywhere in the world. Same for comedians, they always parody the president of the day, I wouldn't say that it's a witch hunt, rather business as usual. |
Like I said...it's a witch hunt for the most part. What will Jon Stewart do after Bush is gone? Criticise Oprah?
| Quote: |
What does that even mean?? We can't trust humans to do anything right, so we should trust god to do it? Because we don't trust god it's all going wrong? I'm not sure I understand how god would manifest his power on earth in anyway different from what's happening now ie acting through humans and human institutions. It almost sounds a variety of nihilism. Forget it leave it to god. |
Not at all. God has created us to bring stewardship to the earth and that means in every institution. However, because man does not honor God and bring His wisdom into institutions then there is corruption and oppression. This is rather simplistic, because I have already written a lot.
| Quote: |
So support of these issues equals righteousness, in your mind, or writing at least. From three issues with religious significance you base your
support for Bush. It also seems that this is where you draw your conclusion that those who disagree with Bush do so, because of these issues above all else. Is that why humanity is sinful, while Bush isn't? |
No, it encompasses more than that, but those issues are easier to understand.
| Quote: |
| Personally I was outraged he stole the election, then annoyed when he was giving the rich more benefit than the poor, furious when launched a campaign of fear and lies to start a war. To me... the abortion/gay issues are small potatoes. |
It's not proven. If he has, then why hasn't he been taken down if he is so stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Courageous wrote: |
| one side that gives a good Christian man a verbal beej, |
Yes, please tell us what a good Christian man is. Son, I have known good Christians, and Dumbya ain't no good christian man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1) Election was not stolen
2) Iraq war was not done out of humanitarian concerns.
But the fact is that Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 (Iraqis) in his 30 years in power. I am not including any one else he killed like Kuwaitis.
As many as Saddam killed he would have killed many more had he not been contained both in the past and in the future.The US was preventing Saddam from killing off the Kurds once and for all.The US could not contain Saddam forever.Eventually the US would have had to allow Saddam to go free. That would have meat more killings by Saddam.
His sons were coming up next. What were they going to do.
Anyone who claims they oppose the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons is either disingenous or ignorant.
Cause nothing the US has done is worse than what Saddam would do if he got free.
Remember if Saddam had given up his war then their would have been no war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fiveeagles, happeningthang put a lot of thought into a well argued and comprehensive post.
I think your response didn't really do it justice. I did think it sounded a bit muddleheaded and confused on certain issues.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| If the war is carried out for selfish ambitions rather than for the purpose of bringing freedom to an oppressed group of innocent victims, then I whole heartedly agree with you. However, I don't think this a war about oil, otherwise the States would be in Sudan right now trying to lay claim to its massive reserves. Ok, maybe some of it is, but I think that's a failure of the system rather than Bush. |
So I guess thats half-hearted agreement that the war is being carried out for selfish ambitions.
So how does Bush not bear responsibility? He almost certainly wasn't the architecht of those plans, but he signed those plans. He okayed everything. If he is indeed the righteous christian man you believe him to be, he should have had the moral courage to make a stand against the selfish ambitions. He's president, leader, commander-in-chief. A failure of the system is his failure. Ignorance is no excuse, just an indication he is unfit to fulfil the obligations of his position.
| Quote: |
| As for Halliburton, .... Cheney understood this and probably took the company there thinking of stock margins rather than what the public would see as a breach of trust. |
Engaging in the great and noble art of capitalism, was he? Capitalism is profit at any price. By it's rules, you take the most profitble course of action, without any reference to morals or to God. You sound like you support that. How can you ascribe innocent motives to Cheney in this case? The reconstruction money could have gone to Iraqi firms, who could have done the same poor or non-existant work for one tenth of the price! Obscene amounts of money went into the Halliburton coffers - the rich getting richer through selfish action. You defend that? How many meals or orphanages could that kind of money have provided? If Bush were worthy or the esteem you give him, he would not be complicit in the war profiteering of the already obscenely wealthy, he would be putting money into meaningful social programs, not just giving cheap lip service to token issues like gay marriage and abortion.
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| happeningthang wrote: |
Religious persecution of any bent is not good, but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims. I don't think that because the focus of a persecution has changed that it counts as an improvement. A compassionate, and selfless Christian view would hopefully reach this conclusion. And here Eagles we can see the divergence of our views...
For me Christianity=compassion and understanding ie sympathy for others.
In my reading of what you've written...
Christianity = Christians first,others don't count or they aren't of equal importance.
|
(This seems to be the thrust of your argument, while I have started this thread to talk about Bush. If you want to pursue this line then why don't you bring it back into the thread you started?)
But I will add, that the kingdom of God is a paradox. And those who want to enter in must take care of the oppressed which is quite contrary to a scripture that says the kingdom of God is taken by force and the forceful take hold of it. I think what you see here is unbalanced view of one perspective but haven't seen enough of the other perspective. If the media/society can contort enough of the picture so that only one side is showing then, it will do so to justify it's own disbelief. |
Muddle headed dithring, I'm sorry!
Are you saying the media gives a one-sided opinion in favour of the perspective that the kingdom of god being entered by the helpers of the oppressed, and not enough about the warmongers entering the kingdom of god, or the other way round?
And on that note, it's not a real paradox. A paradox is two incompatible truths from within the same paradigm, ie based on the same assumptions.
This is two different views from two different paradigms, one which belives in a God that protects the weak and oppressed, and one which belives in a god that rewards military strength and the ability to vanquish the weaker party. One sounds like the God of Love, the other the God of War. What viewpoint would Jesus adopt? Both of them?
| Quote: |
| I believe God's justice is about defending those who are sick, poor, without food or those who are oppressed by stronger parties. |
So you think the current Israeli war is against Gods Justice, being the economic and military powerhouse that Israel is? Or do you actually believe that your tribe must vanquish the other tribe (cos they're all evil, right down to the last civilan casualty), thereby attaining the Kingdom of heaven?
| Quote: |
| So its true, I haven't shown too much compassion towards Islamic Facism, because I haven't seen studies or research where it shows the suffering of Muslims. Whereas, I have read many articles on books and papers that show the reverse. |
Ok, you've been subjected to a lot of one-sided religious literature. I'm heartened that you're aware of your informational shortcomings. I hope you make an effort to rectify that, and increase your capacity for compassion.
| Quote: |
| Where Christians are constantly killed, attacked or persecuted by extremists. But I have gone on missions where we have helped buddhist children learn english or supported orpanages that took in all types of religious faiths. That is why I go to a church that feeds the poor and builds orphanages. |
Great. Have you considered spending time in refugee camps helping Muslims who are suffering on the wrong side of your holy wars? You might no be so quick so support the smiting of the co-conspiring civilians of the Evil Empire.
I
| Quote: |
would like to explore the beauty of Islam, because I believe there is a beautiful side to it. I also advocate the moderate voice of Islam to speak out against the Facist side. My prayer is that peace will come to the Middle East because of the strength of the moderate voice of Islam. Also, our church is in the middle of many muslim communities feeding and housing them even under threads of violence and murder. Unfortunately, the press doesn't like to cover this, might bring too much hope.
Yes, I support for Bush because I do agree with some of his stances, which I think are clearly stated in this article.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html
However, Christians should respect all rulers. |
Hmmm, really, is that so? ALL rulers? Even evil ones?
| Quote: |
| Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar and to give unto God what is due unto God. |
Wasn't he looking at a coin with ceasars picture on it, and therefore talking about money, not "respect and honour"?
| Quote: |
| Regardless of who is in Government, there should be a sign of respect and honor. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but respect and honor is commanded by God. |
So, if Saddam Hussein is your leader, should you respect and honor him? If Hitler is you leader should you respect and honour him, because God commanded you thusly?
Jesus acknowledged NO power "except it come from above", ie God. at NO point did he advise subjugating yourself to any material authority, ESPECIALLY blindly subjugating yourself in the manner you suggest.
What the hell is going on in your head? It sound in this case like you've been brainwashed. SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY. BELIEVE, DO NOT QUESTION.
I hope this demonstrates the need for the ability to critically assess any religious input.
| Quote: |
| Personally, I look at how a person treats his wife and his family. How he treats the people around him and how he is standing up for justice. If he does these things then there is strong chance that he motivated out of good intentions. |
There's nothing especailly admirable in treating your own family and kind well. It's human nature, common to the good and evil alike. A truly good and spiritual person will treat everyone on the planet as equals before God, not selfishly put the interests of your own kind above others, no matter how misguided thier leadership (and while your helping them with the mote in their eye...)
Saddam Hussein treated his own family and ethnicity well. It's the others he committed barbarous crimes on. Doe he make it into your good books?
As for standing up for justice (Gods justice being defined by you as looking after the weak and showing compassion) how does Bush fit that criteria? He is the strong dominating the weak with no mercy or regret. Or are you secretly subsribing to the other scriptuaral teaching here?
Sorry if I've sounded harsh, but some of your deeply held convictions are BENT beyond spiritual logic or reason. It's time for some housecleaning, in case the world DOES end tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush Senior was a poor president.
Bush Junior is a poor president.
Frickin' Jeb would be a disaster.
There's no room for argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Happeningthing are you going to respond? Because I am not going to respond to both posts. Too time consuming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Good.
While you're waiting for a response, why don't you tell us more about the "massive" reserves in the Sudan and how they comare to other places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: Re: The legacy of George Bush |
|
|
I will respond here Eagles, but I agree picking each others points apart one by one is time consuming. I'm going to abandon this lawery approach and try and just sum up what the thrust of my points are, with a few of your points specifically adressed.
To both Eagles and Joo, let me say this; I do object to the war on "humanitarian" reasons,but only in the sense that ANY war is to be objected on humanitarian reasons. People get killed - it's not good. However, Joo is right here. I met a few Iraquis who, having been conspcripted into the Iraqui Army and captured in Gulf War I, were allowed to migrate to Australia. (SHADDUP BIG VERNE!!) A few drunken conversations with them left me with no illusions about the humanitarian record of Sadam. From the stories I heard people's lives were pretty precarious before the outbreak of war. The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are only marginally better or worse for the civillians than life under Saddam or the Taliban. Those guys suck. It's not in dispute.
So, no Bush /the U.S isn't "evil" for being in Iraq (pretty sure I didn't say anything like that), but please, lets not sugarcoat it. Saddam in charge of Iraq kept Iran in check. Saddam served a purpose for the U.S and if they waited years to invade after killing Kurds, sold arms to them, and drove into Bagdhad in Gulf War 1 and then bailed out .... I conclude that freeing the oppressed isn't exactly high on the priority list.
And let me be clear about one thing. When I say "the bullsh*t war on terror" I'm alluding to the line of crap that claims Saddam was part of Al Quaeda. The invasion of Afghanistan was war on terror...OK, dismantling the Taliban, obviously, hunting Bin Laden...war on terror...invading Iraq NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. Why did they go there then?? OIL!!!!!!!!
OK. Now that illusion has been dispelled from the debate - we can continue to discuss the nature of religious support for Bush.
And here, let me quote from Eagles...
| fiveeagles wrote: |
(This seems to be the thrust of your argument, while I have started this thread to talk about Bush. If you want to pursue this line then why don't you bring it back into the thread you started?) |
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! You could be called contradictory considering the first post of this thread reads...
[quote="fiveeagles"]
Happeningthang, I thought I would make this another thread.
| happeningthang wrote: |
In all honesty Eagles, your take on these issues is the primary reason I've been hostile towards your postings. How does a Christian view of things conclude that Bush and the bullsh*t war on terror is a good thing??
To me god(s), christianity, spirituality is about love, compassion, tolerance, you know... good stuff. To me that's polar opposite to Bush and his initiatives. When you put those two together it's just screaming WRONG!!!!! in my brain. That's my gut reaction, I'm not trying to have a go at you, but to quote an Australian equivalent to GDubya....please explain. |
I'm clearly asking about your take on christian beliefs, and how that relates to you supporting GDubya. YOU made it a new thread, and YOU took a different tack on the issue..........
Anyway, bygones...
Back to the issue - I've got to say I'm with Deadman on his take of your paradox. My major issue is that I have never heard of this scripture that says, "the kingdom of god is taken by force and the forceful take hold of it."
And, I've got to say, just reading it as you've presented it in your post - I'm not sure that you're looking at it in the right spirit.
Perhaps it means that you must be strong and deliberate in living a good life so that you will enter the kingdom of heaven??I would have read it as a metaphor. Reading it as you've presented it seems to me that it's a tad, um... arrogant... people take hold of the Kingdom of god?? It's god's kingdom isn't it?? How do people take hold of it then - you force god? S/he/it's god!!! Really don't understand the thinking behind this scripture you mention. You might be right in thinking it's an unbalanced presentation given I've never even heard of it, but I think the disbelief you mention is the disbelief in that force and agression will get you into heaven (kingdom of god).
I read through the article you linked to and after reading it I can well understand someone supporting Bush. It's been a while since I heard the phrase 'compassionate conservative', but Bush did a god job of promoting the idea in that article.
The word 'freedom' popped up a few times, as did 'love and compassion' and 'freedom to worship' all good ideas and worthy of support. However, in the same breath he's saying that the constitution needs to be changed to prevent gay marriage (where's the love and compassion there?), prison missions are to be government funded (in place of secular ones?, any prison synagougues, mosques, temples? - there's a government approved way to worship). Really, this last one is quibbling if the results are achieved, I concede that, but I will ask you again Eagles....
What is the objection to gay marriage??? REALLY A BIG NEGATIVE MARK WHEN YOU ARGUE 'COMPASSION'.
How is this a religious concern?
MEDIA
I am aware of Fox news, because Ol' Unca Rupert is Australian, which means Fox News Broadcasting is avilable on basic cable back home. I watched enough to realise that it's essentially a subscription service for conservatives who want to hear a certain view of the world. Fair enough. I just wanted to make the point that the media has a function, and a role to play in society - acting as watchdog - not a pom pom girl.
It's a fair point that The Daily Show is going to have severe problems when the Republicans are ousted, but if I had a choice between Bill O'Reilly- opinionated, loud mouthed, bully and generally offensive human being or Jon Stewart, a genial, funny guy...I gotta go with Jon. It's true he takes cheap shots and anybody would look bad if you edit a life on TV that way. But, in the same way Fox News isn't ... um ... news, neither is the Daily Show. They're partisan entertainment for those who know what they want. As long as you keep it in mind then the potential to be 'influenced' is minimalised, at least. In the same way you look at the family life of someone to judge them, I look at how they treat people. Same, same. But again DM's right even murdering bast*ds love their mums - that's not telling us much. How they treat their enemies says a lot more about a person. So strictly morally speaking, the Abu Grahib, Gitmo, Bush refusing to apologise to the "Arab world" (WTF?), bully tactics of Bill O - it's giving me a strong impression that the conservatives aren't as compassionate as a good Christian should be.
All in all fiveeagles you seem a decent guy. The mission work is admirable, the link you put up to demonstrate what it was that you liked about Bush was generally reasonable. I'm hoping we're only disagreeing about methods and reasons.
PS
Who says church and state should be seperated? Me for one. Really, if it comes down to somebody interpreting and abiding by a bunch of rules written 2000 years ago for a world that didn't even have car keys - how relevant can it be? Those 'holy' rules, words will be twisted to adapt them to a new time and situation making it hopelessly arbitrary. Isn't this what people are fighting against when they oppose Islamic states run by Ayatollahs??
PPS.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| 1) Election was not stolen |
If you belive that you're somewhat,
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| either disingenous or ignorant. |
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just so you know, I thought I would separate the issues, because I thought Bush would be a relevant conversation in the midst of what is happening in the world rather than a thread that focuses on the negative of Christianity. Right? As for the topic on homosexuality. Too many people who want to slam/slander you if you don't agree with it.
| happeningthang wrote: |
Back to the issue - I've got to say I'm with Deadman on his take of your paradox. My major issue is that I have never heard of this scripture that says, "the kingdom of god is taken by force and the forceful take hold of it."
And, I've got to say, just reading it as you've presented it in your post - I'm not sure that you're looking at it in the right spirit.
Perhaps it means that you must be strong and deliberate in living a good life so that you will enter the kingdom of heaven??I would have read it as a metaphor. Reading it as you've presented it seems to me that it's a tad, um... arrogant... people take hold of the Kingdom of god?? It's god's kingdom isn't it?? How do people take hold of it then - you force god? S/he/it's god!!! Really don't understand the thinking behind this scripture you mention. You might be right in thinking it's an unbalanced presentation given I've never even heard of it, but I think the disbelief you mention is the disbelief in that force and agression will get you into heaven (kingdom of god).
|
Well, it's the mystery and the heart of God and so I can only scratch the surface on something like this. I will try to touch on some its theology.
You take a hold of the kingdom of God, by ignoring disbelief, fear, doubt and hate and push into the realm of faith. One of the chapters of Hebrews is devoted strictly to those who walked in great faith. The faith to believe God for who He says He is.
| Quote: |
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Matt 11:12 |
The scripture refers to a spiritual violence that transcends into the physical. John the Baptist brought the power of God into earth through preaching, while others brought it through fire; such as Elijah. Jesus himself wished that the fire would be kindled to burn the chaff, but the time wasn't so. There is a spiritual violence that comes through the gospel and brings destruction to the forces of darkness. What is birthed in the spiritual comes into the physical. It's a paradox, because Jesus destroyed the works of Satan by dying on a cross for humanity. Sometimes the violence of God is displayed through judgments and other times it is displayed through brokenness. Only in God's great wisdom can it be understood.
It is completely opposite of the way the world works and is often misunderstood by those who are not of the spirit. So is the case when people misuse the name of Jesus and use the power of God for darkness. The crusades, pedophile priests, the Bob Jones massacre and so on. The disciples of Jesus were even misguided up to the time of the death of Christ. They had thought that kingdom of God was political and they were going to receive power through earthly positions in government and not through the Holy Spirit. This is why they ran away when Jesus was taken by the temple guard. They thought it was going to be the timing of Jesus' uprising against the political system through force. Not by dying on a cross.
Unfortunately, many Christians that you see today don't know the spirit of God. They are misusing this power to spread a kingdom that isn't God's, but rather increasing the kingdom of darkness. These included such people as Jimmy Swaggert, Jim and Tammy Baker and many others. On the other hand there are spirit filled Christians who make large mistakes as well. For example I think of how Billy Graham was manipulated by Nixon.
Bush, though sincere, I think was misguided in his counsel and theology. He probably thought he could slam dunk the Middle East and bring peace to a volatile region. Maybe he thought it would be as easy as 1991 and it would be a cakewalk to overthrow Sadam and bring democracy to that region of the world. And it was a cakewalk until he met a resistance completely devoted to Jihad. A resistance so devoted that it was willing to kill/sacrifice itself in the fight. And a region covered in blood from regional wars and racial tensions since the day of creation. I'm thinking that probably his theology of God's kingdom was probably over emphasized on taking the kingdom by force through physical violence rather than spiritual violence. Very similar to when Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword.
Unfortunately when Anne Coultier opens her mouth and says things like this;
Lets go in and kill them all and convert them to Christianity. (something like that)
Anne Coultier
The media uses it for a tool to persuade its readers of its evil. They focus on Anne Coultier, Pat Robertson and others who are using the grace of God as self righteousness, because it pushes their own agendas; human secularism. If they can show that Christianity is a political agenda with evil extremes then they will bring more to their own party. If you don�t believe this, then why don�t they show ministries like Heidi Baker, Benny Hinn and others who are doing tremendous charity throughout the world? Bono has seemed to have cracked the total bias, but it still has a long way to go.
Bush is genuine, otherwise he wouldn't take such hardline stances that would affect his popularity and his government. His stance against stem cell research goes against all the polls. It would be easy to justify stem cell research, because many other Christians are. His stance for Intelligent Design is mocked throughout the Scientific Academy. They hate him for it.
He didn't go into this war for oil, but for sincere reasons; his own version of compassionate Christianity. He probably was mislead by some of his Cabinent who were probably misguided by other selfish motivations. But I don't think Bush was.
Now, I am also speaking in the past tense, because I really believe Bush is learning from his mistakes and God is using this time to bring humility into this administration. So the question, I have to ask myself is if America didn't go to war with Iraq then, then when would it have happened? Eventually, WW3 is going to happen. Fascist Islam is not going away. Bush could have waited too long and then what? Another 6 millions Jews killed? Tough call if you are the man in charge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zulu
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted On the same level as Nixon but actually he's in between Nixon and aspiring to Hitler.
Dubya would like to be a Hitler, Hu Jintao, Stalin, Mao or Kim Jung Il. He's got the ego and sociopathic tendencies for it but not quite the means to pull it off.... so far. He's the worst president we've ever had. And I thought Reagan was going to hold that title.
I hope to see him in jail for 1) War Crimes, 2) Failing to act to prevent 9/11 and having money ties to some pretty nasty foreign entities
and give him a good whipping for 3) putting our men and women in Iraq when they should be in Afghanistan or home 4) Screwing our economy, letting our jobs go offshore, 5) failing to act on the recomendations of the Army Corps of Engineers and FIMA to ameliorate the damage caused by Katrina 6) being a cokehead and executioner of mentally retarded convicts, who then has the gaul to preach 'family values' 6) screwing American scientific research (in particular with NASA, stem cells and the like).
Bush is an economic and public relations disaster for America, he's done more damage to our country than a dozen Osama bin Ladens. We'll have to work hard to recover once he's gone, but we will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims |
On what do you base this? The hysterical whining of Muslim pressure groups?
Last edited by bigverne on Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims |
On what do you basis this? The hysterical whining of Muslim pressure groups? |
Look, I don't know about England, and I am not a big fan of Islam (or any religion, but that one is really low on my list), but in North America persecution has gone up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| but as others have argued there's been a big increase of persecution against Muslims |
On what do you basis this? The hysterical whining of Muslim pressure groups? |
Look, I don't know about England, and I am not a big fan of Islam (or any religion, but that one is really low on my list), but in North America persecution has gone up. |
I would be interested in seeing stats....I could believe that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
