God angrily clarifies Don´t Kill rule!

[AQUARIAN AGE]

Not new but in times like these a must read!



Chris

[MIKE BURN]

To the point!

MIKE

[RonOnGuitar]

The problem here is the sudden invoking of biblical commandments, Aquarian Chris; usually people have no use for "Holy Writ"!



For example, I'd guess that you didn't invoke # 7 to complain re: former President Clinton's escapes with Monica & gals. Or for that matter, bring scriptures up when he waged war (including bombing Iraq) on other nations during his term. e.g Haiti was set to be invaded unless it's dictator followed instructions to go into exile. (He had a bit more sense than Saddam and did get out.)



But my point here, AqAge Chris, is actually consistency and unrelated to politics or policies - how often do you refer to whatever scriptures in order to make decisions on what you should do or how you are to live? If you're not defering to biblical commands as a way of life, then why should such an offering be considered as anything more than opportunistic cynicism?



==ron==

[bbchris]

Very interesting points Ron! I just sent that text to very religious friends of mine - will be interested in what they think!

|Blah Blah|Talk Soup|Thinking Out Loud|thewireweb|

[Seismic Anamoly]

Ron...I'm putting your hat in the ring for President in 2004...great point...

[RonOnGuitar]

Watch out, Chris, some folks get so serious when it comes to religious items (esp. re: their own religion,lol) that they might not catch the humour! This one is too preachy for me, tho the Onion is pretty often funny.



I'm always interested when people share how their beliefs form their outlook on the world and it's goings-on, because there usually is a consistent belief system at work that impacts all things.



I expect the Almighty prefers that everyone plays nice, but I'm skeptical if someone believes they have extropolated his take on current events! e.g. there are a good number of reasonable folks who will believe the Deity is a pro-war Foreign Policy Wonk.



Here we're talking about humorous sarcasm that uses religion to make a point, so it shouldn't be taken as other than that. Kinda like the cartoon with the 'word balloon' extending from heaven, saying "Don't make Me come down there!!!" or a bumper sticker I once saw that sez "Jesus is coming - and man, is he pissed!!"



Hope your friends have healthy senses of humor!



==ron==

[RonOnGuitar]

"I'm putting your hat in the ring for President"

---------

Cool! Then I could add NSync, BSB and clones to the "Axis Of Evil".



I think I can even handle the Killer Pretzels, too..



==ron==

[Seismic Anamoly]

Please do!!

[AQUARIAN AGE]

Ron:

First....I saw this cartoon in the news today. It is called "Two presidents":





Second....I think having sex is less critical than killing.

[NRKofOver]

Another bumper sticker:



Jesus is coming - look busy

Read all about ME!

[RonOnGuitar]

Hiya AqAge Chris -



I can handle a bit of German, "2 presidents" wasn't a toughie translation problem Maybe "zwei und zwanzig" might be a problem until one gets used to the numbering system!



There are more than a few errors in the cartoon, the most obvious one being that Monica's head is shown in plain sight above the desk! At any rate, it's not very accurate and displays an emotionalism-derived fantasy. Humor and cartoons very usually are not to be taken seriously, this one is no exception.



As to the question I was posing here, it really addresses the consistency and integrity in the ways we critique the world around us.



"I think having sex is less critical than killing"



That wasn't the question, but maybe I don't phrase things clearly. I do that sometimes, lol. The issue I'm raising is "How is being congruent or consistent to try to apply one "commandment", but then reject another because it doesn't fit personal politics? In specific, the commandment in question doesn't address sex at all, but rather speaks to keeping respect for one's life partner ("You shall not commit adultery"). Why is one valid, the other dimissed? You believe men cheating on their wives is not wrong? If so, what is the argument for men to do so?

(As a side note, in America we watched as the President waved his finger at the television camera and announced - odd as it seems - "I did not have sex with that woman".)



I suspect that the motivation behind most of this type of thing isn't "antiwar" at all, but rather just a sour grapes (an American saying) anti-Bush mentality that many folks have. People have all sorts of opinions on politics, politicians, policies; it makes things interesting to sound out different ideas and backgrounds. But I think it more intelligent and helpful if we can logically formulate and express our own opinions.



It's tempting for us as human beings to have knee-jerk ,automatic reactions. I was dicussing Iraq elsewhere with someone when I said that i think he should give the President a fair hearing on Iraq, and I passed along these brief quotes by the President:



"Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."



"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world"



"Once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."



The person whom i forwarded those comments to said that Bush didn't know what he was talking about, lying, etc, to keep it in his anti-Bush rant. Then I pointed out the president quoted was - President Clinton to justify his bombing of Iraq.



"Clinton: Iraq has abused its final chance"

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/s...6/clinton/



The person was not happy that he fooled himself, but it illustrated the fact that very few people are really anti-war, only anti-Bush.



So to be at all consistent, if someone choses to commandments from scriptures as a moral basis, they cannot pick and chose what commandments are okay based on their politics. That's what I would call an exploitative and cynical (ab)use.



The second point is that criticism must be consistently applied, otherwise it is completely hypocritical. That is, you can't make an "exception to morality" simply because someone shares your politicalworld view. I'm certainly up to hearing how you make a case for ,say, Clinton's bombings of Iraq as to why you think bombing was needed then. I'd also be up for hearing why you support France sending troops to kill and maim in Africa - without waiting for UN permission - as they have recently done? And there are more of such examples.



My contention isn't that criticism is bad, but rather that criticism that is ot well thought out and then selectively misapplied is not at all valid. This is probably the main reason why the "anti-war" protests in America have been so tiny compared to the US population. Though the get a lot of mileage among themselves based on emotionalism, the American people are more attracted to common sense and the ability to reason in a logical, linear fashion. Sloganeering isn't as successful as it used to be.



Here's a good example of that from a person who calls herself a "war agnostic". The entry in full it is at the link.



www.buttafly.com/original...rotest.htm



The Anti-War Protest in San Francisco

<<Last Sunday I found myself standing in the middle of thousands of anti-war protesters on the Embarcadero in San Francisco. I'm usually not the type of person who goes to protests, but this one was taking place right outside my hotel and as an Iraq war agnostic I was curious to check it out. For months I've been teetering on the fence between being for and against invasion, seemingly the only person in the world who doesn't have a definite opinion on the issue. I figured this would be the perfect opportunity to hear a summary of the anti-war position to help me make up my mind once and for all.>>



But with the liberation of Iraq set to start soon, this is all pretty much really moot! -

==ron==

[AQUARIAN AGE]

Who said something about pro or con Clinton or Bush?

My point was and is that I really can´t believe that you are trying to tell me that a blow job is an equal crime to killing thousands of people. Do you want to say that?



I consider the talk of "Anti-Bush" or "America bashing" pure propaganda. These "believes" help that "the little man" can stand behind the flag and wave his son good bye.



I am anti-war, believe it or not. And the "Onion"-satire for me (and I think it says that clearly cause it was written short after 9/11) is not only anti-US-war, its also anti-"Holy War" from every country, president, dictator, what so ever.

Quote:

---

But with the liberation of Iraq set to start soon, this is all pretty much really moot!

---

Liberation. Well,....so many dictators freed a country, if you count on that there was never a war in history.

Edited by: AQUARIAN AGE  at: 3/20/03 1:01:59 am

[RonOnGuitar]

Hi AqAge Chris (to keep seperate from "bb"chris!)



I don't think we're quite connecting here, language differences probably has a lot to do with it. I should have studied German longer, hahaa!!



But I think we're talking about two different issues. I'm speaking more of where we get our moral codes and how consistently we apply them, rather than a sexual act for example. I don't think we're having much luck in understanding each other 100% here, but it's not all that important. It's always great to hear opinions of thoughtful people - disagree or agree - and you are obviously a thoughtful person.



You are right that the "comic message" addressed those who use a religion to justify mass murder. It is correct that those who massacred thousands of Americans (and non-Americans) on Sept 11th, 2001 were driven by a speciic religion. Those who make up the coalition forces to free Iraq come from many backgrounds and religious faiths. Many are athiests, agnostics or just a-religious. The same as when the Allies freed Austria and released those who survived Mauthausen-Gusen.



I see there is a board set up for talkin' "all things Iraq, war, etc.", so I won't pursue these things much here. I'm not much interested in going on about things at that board, either, lol.



But I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here, thanks



take care,

==ron==

[AQUARIAN AGE]

You are right, there are language difficulties here. And they would be less if I would be able to get to the point in english as good as it probably would be in German.



But, as you might have guessed: I posted this Onion article because both "war-riors" say that good is on their side. "May God continue to bless America" f.e.



Here´s another one (I once translated it to english):

[RonOnGuitar]

That reminds me of what the American president Abraham Lincoln said about the US Civil War. Someone said to him, "God is on our side." Lincoln responded "The question is not whether God is on our side. The question is whether we are on God's side."



One correction, tho - I'm not Jewish, but I'm famailiar with religious belief systems in general. Judaism does not use the word "Yahwe", Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Many Jews don't even write out the words "God" or "Lord". You'll see "G-d" or "L-rd" instead. When reading aloud where "Yahweh" is written, they usually use another word - most often "Adonai", I believe. Saying "Yahweh" to them would kinda be like calling a parent by their first name! At least I think that's how it goes.



One phrase that I remember well from German-language classes im schule is something like "Es seit so aus als op eine Tropishe insle vara". My spelling is bad - but I think it means "It seemed like it was a tropical island". I have _no_ idea at all why I remember the phrase, lol.



==ron==