Mr Farrius

Well, I already assumed that you, just like everyone else on this forum, knew that the US back in the days trained Osama Bin Laden and even funded Afghanistan back in the Cold War. This is basic history here. I don't want to waste my time proving what everyone already knows.

Mr. FarriusTry this, Jesus Total misconception of the verse. Anyways, just as long as the distinction is made on this forum, I'm satisfied. I wasn't trying to convert anyone, merely to explain.

Well it's not that we're not acknowledging the post. What I'm saying is that it's rather futile to complain about nations funding US enemies when the US funds it owns enemies.

No. I do not find it incomprehensible that the disciples would have picked successors to carry on their humble work of ministry. I do find it incomprehensible that one of their "successors" had to become head of the entire Catholic church with the authority to change the Bible. Somehow I don't think someone with so much power and authority (who some even worship and consider divine) is what Jesus or His disciples had in mind. I agree Hugo. It is merely from the frustration in seeing a religion with so much power and authority use even the Bible to their advantage. You seem to know a lot about history. Was the Church not extremely corrupt? Did they not buy souls into Heaven? Explain that to me.

Show me anywhere in the Bible that emphasizes the need for a Pope, or as you call it, "the successor of Peter." Here is a site contrasting Catholicism with the Bible. It exposes the contradictions and how Catholics have distorted the original to suit their purposes. http://overseer5.freeyellow.com/

You forgot to mention the U.S. in the list of nations that fund its enemies, which funded Afghanistan and trained Osama Bin Laden.

Well, if you look at the history of Christianity, a group of people started questioning the Catholic church. Especially with practices like granting eternal life through cash, which is not Biblical at all and even outrageous. Also, Catholicism emphasizes so much on the pope, a mere man, where as Protestanism is totally about Christ, like it's supposed to be. The Pope has no Biblical foundation; of course, Catholics may have distorted their Bible. It has been known for Catholics to openly declare that they have the right to change the Bible. In Christianity, where the Bible is such a sacred text, is changing it not corruption? Once again, take a look at history; Catholicism has always been about power.

Elder, I'll admit I have never seen such flagrant abuse of Christianity, me being a Christian myself. I am utterly appalled. Of course, in Christianity, there are those who call themselves Christians, and those who actually are, just like any other religion. I think that there needs to be a distinction between Protestant Christians and Catholicism. I personally view Catholicism as an extremely corrupt form of Christianity as it follows barely any of the teachings of the Bible. Take a look at its history and even its practices today. This is a great distinction that people on this forum tend not to make. Protestant Christians believe in something quite different than Catholics and it would be logical to realize that. You want more information, PM me.

I fully support your claim that the world needs to change. I definitely do not endorse any crimes against humanity, such as starvation. I do not endorse dictators and what they do. I do not endorse their corrupt governments. Perhaps I was not referring to those nations.

Why does nobody understand my point? :angry: We are not talking about AQ. We are talking about Iraq. Of course AQ might have WMDs... that's to be expected of a terrorist network that nobody (not even the U.S.) is able to track down and find. After all, who knows what such an organization has? I don't believe I have ever come out and bluntly said there are none in Iraq. At least not in this thread anyway. I merely question... the existence of what appears to be non-existent, with humility of course.

Well said RB. These right-wingers are so content with the status quo that they cannot stand women having even ONE exclusive right. As a result, they have deigned to emotional and sympathetic appeal. I totally stand by you and all women in their reproductive rights to abortion.

And Kay is securing a country so the US can oull out in a year's time. If he finds what you are looking for he'll send you a fax, in the meantime if you are so interested in finding the stuff yourself, give him a hand. Well my friend, if you had read all of my post, you would see that I wasn't the one preaching that WMD's would be found. I am merely wondering where they are, since you right-wingers proclaimed so loudly that Saddam was a threat. If there are no WMD's, then that claim was a total lie.

You amuse me greatly Nuke. Could you get any more contradictory about the issue of murder? Or is it because this is a different thread?

We're looking for evidence of WMD's here, not the basic elements of warfare like guns... We shall see.

It is extremely interesting, that WMDs and the "protection of the American people" were used primarily to justify the war. Now that intelligence like the CIA proves constantly that there is barely chance of WMD's in IRAQ, and nobody is finding anything, "who cares." Extremely interesting indeed.

Can you read? I believe I have made it blatantly clear that this does not apply to Catholicism. This is not an issue of free will, but of control. Since you are not deeply religious as you have stated, let me attempt to explain. The issue of free will in Christianity applies to whether the person decides to accept Jesus or not. When you accept Jesus as your personal Savior, you have made the choice. That is the free will that you probably understand. Second, giving up control of our lives most definitely doesn't mean Jesus controls us like we're puppets. It does not mean that Jesus makes decisions for us. Rather it means that we give up control of our lives to Jesus so that we trust that He'll make sure things turn out right for us in the end. In other words, he controls our lives, not our physical beings. If according to the Christian belief, God created us, would it make sense for Him to give us brains to make our own decisions if He's going to physically make our own decisions for us and control us like we're dolls...? The mundane aspects of life, such as getting a job, or starting a business become trivialized because everything is under God's control and not ours. We do not try to control everything, because obviously we're not God. Catholicism, to be blunt, is a corrupt form of Christianity that barely follows even the basic teachings of the Bible, not to deeply offend any Catholics on this forum but it is true and no Catholic has been able to adequately explain why. I apologize if this digresses from the topic at hand but it was merely in response to rightturnonred.

Once again, it is you that must have the honor. Don't you dare presume to tell me what my religion teaches me. I, a Christian am taught, as all Christians are taught to give up control of our lives to Jesus. This is not Catholicism. If you want some kind of source, there's a book called Purpose Driven Life written by a Christian pastor addressing all Christians, which might help you greatly.

I protest! The honor must be given to you. Literally all you have asserted was that the administration was doing a good job and that some liberals have Vietnam syndrome. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask, is it truly your opinion that the current situation in Iraq (the one that most of the world opposes) is not bound to go down the drain anyway? I mean when most of the world opposes you...

Plenty, but there's really no point in trying to explain it to you. Please explain it to me then. Be as brief and concise as you can. This statement does not speak for all religions, especially the biggest one: Christianity. For instance, Christianity teaches to let go of self-control and let God have more of it.

It is clear that you have digressed, and misunderstood the point. The U.S. never occupied all of Vietnam. The U.S. however is occupying all of Iraq at present. Big difference.

So is the right to bear arms.

See, that's just the thing. The war in Iraq isn't Vietnam, and never will be in any way. Which is why so many Americans are wondering why the administration (the ones who have responsibility) isn't doing anything about it. The Vietnam analogy is a faulty comparison. Most of the casualties in Vietnam resulted from an American attempt to win the battles. The battles in Iraq are won. The actual war is over. It's just occupation now. Like you said, that's not going as smoothly as America would like, which is a problem, though it shouldn't really be a problem at all. See the irony?

So in other words, you were off topic. I was referring to Nuclear's proposal, and you couldn't resist making an asinine comment about the idiocy of the left. I in error, assumed you were contributing to the discussion. My mistake. My idea of the United States isn't one that remains stagnant and peaceful. If the U.S. is attacked, it must retaliate, and rightfully so. However, the U.S. charged headlong into Iraq to fight a war that evidently can't be won. It must accept the consequences. It is the administration's fault for not developing an effective occupational strategy. To take the blame and put it on someone else for your mistake lacks integrity and morality. Obviously there are going to be guerillas constantly killing and shooting American soldiers. Now I know this is extremely hard to imagine with the burning patriotism people on this forum express, but if the entire United States became occupied by an enemy nation, would YOU just sit there and watch? I don't think so. You cannot expect people that you have conquered to be submissive unless you would do so yourself in the same situation. You cannot embark on a mass slaughter campaign to kill people who feel that you are the intruder. The casualties resulting from guerrillas are to be expected; it's a part of war. It is the administration's fault for not developing a better plan. Or is it something else? Fill me in. FastNed, I automatically included women and children because Nuclear referred to families.

Morgan, I understand the frustration of American deaths and very little being done about it. But perhaps members on this forum can exercise a little self-control? Just because I am totally frusterated and exasperating doesn't mean I can come up with any solution, as long as it seems to solves the problem. I think we're all adults here? Also, I'd appreciate it if you never ever posted another definition for a word again, considering I most likely know the meaning, it wastes bandwith, it shows what you do with your time, and it's a pathetic attempt to make people look stupid. rightturnonred, when I criticize something about someone else, and then you argue with me about something he said, I have no choice but to assume you have endorsed his assertions and are attempting to defend his reasoning. Please be more specific next time. Also remember that though you claim the Democrats never offer solutions of their own, the Republicans do, but never ones that work. Proof? Look at the current situation in Iraq, the basis for Nuclear's prosposal.

I don't understand what's so confusing about my point. If the U.S. goes on a killing spree of 1000 Iraqi families (which include possibly innocent women and infants) for every American soldier dead, that is flagrant abuse of power, equated with governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At the moment, you would be justified in being so. I'll be the first to admit I am no anti-terrorist expert. However, I do not believe that because a horribly absurd plan comes out, that I do not have the right to point out its fallacies and without providing a decent plan of my own. After all, if you're even considering such a plan, would any rational plan make sense? I highly doubt so. You are carrying this too far. Such a proposal for anti-terrorism is absurd, pure madness, and I, along with anybody sensible has the right to say so without being required to propose one ourselves. Of course you do. The key word is defense. A massacre of Iraqi families is not defense. It is a provocation for the entire world to join together in war against America.