Conservative christians booed the words of Christ -the golden rule - in SC, how do you Christians feel about it?

[jimmiej]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Good post. It is not about pacifism , but about not provoking fights. At the same time, we always need to be able to defend ourselves if need be.

I don't disagree. There's no reason for us to be picking fights. However, talking doesn't work with terrorist nations. They attacked our home soil, more tan once. Strength will keep them at bay. We defeated the Soviets that way.

[Ironmaw1776]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

I don't disagree. There's no reason for us to be picking fights. However, talking doesn't work with terrorist nations. They attacked our home soil, more tan once. Strength will keep them at bay. We defeated the Soviets that way.

When did which nation attack us? You mean Osama? He was Saudi ... not Iraqi or Iranian ... And he was found in Pakistan, not in Iran ... And Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and they know good and well after Iran, they are next, and so does India, and China, and Russia ... The fact is if we attack Iran, it will be WW3 ... Do you really think its worth it? Besides its not about them getting an weapon, it about the gas pipeline deal just like Iraq ... Stop listening to the media and do some research on the issue.

[pcamps]

Our Governments are a reflection of it's people. I voted yes because there needs to be a change of heart of it's nation.


But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles

Interesting that the children of Israel's priority was war.

When a man's( nations)ways are pleasing to the LORD, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.

Maybe this should be our policy.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

I don't disagree. There's no reason for us to be picking fights. However, talking doesn't work with terrorist nations. They attacked our home soil, more tan once. Strength will keep them at bay. We defeated the Soviets that way.

Soviets went bankrupt and a had new leader, Gorbachev, to steer them out of communism. Right person, at the right time. Good for them. Fighting terrorism should not include sending a 150 000 man invasion & occupation armies to countries like Iraq, and maintaining hundreds of bases around the world. In order to keep us safe from terrorism, we need to expand on intelligence, high tech, and elite troops. Small and agile. The good thing is that even the military seems to agree to that approach. Maintaining bases in Japan and Germany will not keep us safe from terrorists. That is a fact.

[MysticPhD]

Our individual Spirits are pained by the evils that this world contains and the exigencies that it imposes upon the relationships in the secular world. We should not confuse our individual actions and morality with what dealing with the evil of the world mandates for our collective actions. As long as there are opposing worldviews and goals in the many collectives of humanity . . . there are no Christian solutions . . . only worldly realities of power and control. The conflicts have been evolving toward ideologies and not national interests. The terrorist threat crossed that boundary on 9/11 and instituted a new basis for the "boundaries" across which collective conflicts will be fought.

Islam is a deen and ideology that crosses national boundaries and imposes governmental imperatives on myriad collectives. This makes the conflicts far more confusing and far more dangerous than the national ones were. You cannot engage with a Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm when the diverse populations are led by fanatics who believe mutual destruction is the fulfillment of God's plan for humanity. Naive' ignorance of the imperatives of real politik make the promotion of idealistic Christian morality at the national and secular level almost as dangerous as the fanaticism that drives the evil of terrorism in the world.

[jimmiej]

Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776

When did which nation attack us? You mean Osama? He was Saudi ... not Iraqi or Iranian ... And he was found in Pakistan, not in Iran ... And Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and they know good and well after Iran, they are next, and so does India, and China, and Russia ... The fact is if we attack Iran, it will be WW3 ... Do you really think its worth it? Besides its not about them getting an weapon, it about the gas pipeline deal just like Iraq ... Stop listening to the media and do some research on the issue.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Cyber Munchkin]

Originally Posted by pcamps

Our Governments are a reflection of it's people. I voted yes because there needs to be a change of heart of it's nation.

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles

Interesting that the children of Israel's priority was war.

When a man's( nations)ways are pleasing to the LORD, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.

Maybe this should be our policy.

Amen, pcamps..... especially to the bold and underlined !!

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by legoman

Agreed!

The whole problem with the primaries (as I see it), is there are forces at work here that are bigger than most people realize.

The military industrial complex wants to be in a perpetual state of war, for many reasons, but primarily so they can make big $$$$ and control key resources. The big $$$$ are used to buy off politicians on both sides of the spectrum (Obama/Bush, for example - they both continued and expanded the powers of war and government).

The U.S. is turning into a virtual police state, harassing its own citizens with TSA goons, to the point where Obama ("grudgingly") signed the NDAA (quietly on New Year's Eve - hopefully no one was looking), which gives him power to imprison an American citizen indefinitely without trial or lawyer. Goodbye constitution, hello Nazi Germany. Good luck with free speech or civil dissent in this kind of environment. Its only getting worse.

So then we come back to the primaries. All of the republican nominees have ties to the military industrial complex. And we see this in their policies. None of them want small government (I thought that is what conservatives wanted?). None of them will bring the troops home. None of them talk about reducing the budget/debt or returning to the constitution. It is because these things are a threat to the status quo.

Except for Ron Paul. Thus Ron Paul must be crushed at every opportunity, and they will use dirty tricks to do it. The mainstream media is an accomplice in all of this. Supporters are even bought and paid for. All so the system can continue as is. More wars. More of the uber-rich getting uber-richer. More bank bailouts. While millions lose their jobs and homes. This is truly evil stuff. The few who gain from this will ensure it must continue. Sadly, Ron Paul probably doesn't have a chance. But hopefully his ideas do.

Evil can remain hidden only for so long.

Well said!!

[Miss Blue]

Sorry guys but this is an old thread and has drifted off the topic in the op into candidates in the current election..There is an elections forum where you are free to discuss your choices and why..

c l o s e d