O'Dannyboy

While I am seeing nearly twice as many Christian focused television programs, I get the feeling we are being told what we wan't to hear (having our ears tickled) to lull us into a false sense of security and confidence. We are told that many believers will be deceived in this time. Stay close to the flock, keep a sharp eye for the wolves in sheeps clothing and trust no goats.

This is not really news. The House has supported stronger border security since the beginning. The only difference now is that the House is going at it in stages rather than deal with the senate and their "comprehensive" aproach. I do not believe they expect the senate to vote on it, but the senates indecission and "trading card" style of politics is really starting to anger alot of voters. I think the House is simply giving the senate a little more rope, if you know what I mean.

It is sad.

It seems as though anyone that has attempted to write a review on this movie was ultimately left scratching their head or chin on paper. This movie was very indirect and very subtle. I'm sure each of us saw and heard something slightly different than the other. What it seemed to portray was a toltalitarian government masked in religion, like V was masked in his self perceived morality, in an attempt to justify their very existance. While there were instances where the writter or director takes jabs at societies whos people refuse to accept homosexuals, simply because they are perceived as different, rather than being viewed as unhealthy or wrong. I can't help but think about the parts where the government "agents" ride around in vans listening to the citizens conversations in order to monitor what they are thinking so they can spin headlines as part of some control measure. The whole story, while clever, is very sinister and leaves you scratching your head as you look over your shoulder.

EricH you will be proud of me on this thread. I have tried hard to stay focused on the topic, even though Dannyboy, and Art keep trying to drag me into a Catholic argument. Actually I'm not. I could care less, at this poin,t to discuss Catholic doctrine with anyone. I know what I believe and that is enough for me. I said what I needed to say and some folks felt the need to correct me. My last post mentioned nothing either for or against the catholic church. I was merely pointing out that accusing people of hatred was rather harsh simply because they disagree with you. As for the OP I wish the Pope all the best in his efforts to convince his former students that evolution is far less credible theory than that of creationism. Some aspects of evolution are plausible but as has been argued in the past, there are too many holes. I prefer to think that, even if evolution could be proven, it would still be by Gods will and of his doing and therefore not a random process at all.

Have any of you seen this film? While this was a very well made movie I found myself feeling insulted when it was all said and done. The begiining of the movie has a moment where the host of a talk show tells the views that the fall of the United States was the direct result of "Godlessness". The rampant spread of homosexuality and Islam along with abortions and similar sins were the cause for Gods "judgement" on the United States. I found myself nodding my head in agreement, thinking, "this guys understands" only to have him using foul language to close his segment. The entire movie seems to mock Christian beliefs and even seems to depict men as generally good but misguided, conformant and sheepish. Furthermore the movie is set in a time where the religious leaders run things with the same disregard and self importance as would a multi-billion dollar corporation. While I enjoyed the acting and storyline, I did not like what what being insinuated. What did you think?

Blah blah blah. I'm sure the west feels all warm and fuzzy about this mock concern for Israel.

It's good that the shipment was stopped, but this only indicates another area which will need more attention if the rest of the world intends to keep tabs on or put in check any arms proliferation in these hot spots.

Yeah. Whatever. "New conditions" meaning that they want to lead the world governments on another wild goose chase for a diplomatic solution that Iran already knows it will refuse. For all the demands and threats the world governments make, Iran knows as long as the world needs its oil, it has the power. As long as the world is unwilling to punish Iran or use force to take it's oil, this stalemate will continue to drag out untill Iran has what it seeks.

Nasralla is simply fanning the flame here. Israel, no doubt, does not expect Hizballah to be disarmed or that they be removed from southern Lebanon. At this point the best they can hope for is a peackeeping force that does expactly that, keep the peace.

Hate, brother Pax, is an aweful strong word to be slinging around. If you wish to educate someone, don't you think it prudent to first set the example? We may not agree on the best way to represent Christ on earth, but we should at least agree to try our best to do so.

I took your survey and found myself unwilling to answer one of the questions. Tolerance or Identity? Normally I would have said tolerance, but in this case the question is asking if I consider myself more important than everyone else, which I don't. The question basically asks if you prefer to work alone or as part of a team. I personally would prefer to be on a team, but if the members of that team agree to cheat or lie, then I will not contribute to that team and it would have nothing to do with any desire for individuality. I find it interesting that my definition of tolerance does not sync with that of the dictionaries of today and it seems to me that the definitions seem to change as often as the words are misused. I can tolerate loud music, just not while I am trying to sleep. I can tolerate the smell of puppy breath, but I wouldn't want to smell it all day long. Tolerance, for me, is the enduring, not acceptance, of conditions, situations, speach or actions that I don't agree with or find unpleasant. People can learn to tolerate many things which may cause them discomfort but if they were given a choice they would gladly choose not to be subjected to whatever it is. Christians are accused of being intolerant when, in fact, you will not find a more forgiving and kind hearted group. The thing is that our forgiveness is somewhat limited to those who ask for it and those who regret their sins/wrongdoings. Those who flagrantly flaunt their sins, as in Gay pride parades, are not finding it easy to gain acceptance and are quick to accuse Christians of being closed minded and hateful. These tactics are nothing more than propaganda to elicit a reaction of guilt by Christians who simply refuse to accept such practices as socially beneficial or in keeping with biblical teachings. There are, of course, other situations where the tolerance card has been played as well, such as with other religions. Christians have been and are accused of being intolerant of other religions despite their being constantly persecuted throught the world. The majority of those accusations have come from atheists, on behalf of the muslim faith, or so it seems. The same faith that demands that all who do not convert must be killed. The same religion that calls for the death of all Jews. Yet, we Christians are labeled as intolerant. We Christians "tolerate" Islam, because we must, but if we had a choice it would not even exist. It's not a matter of intolerance, but our refusal to accept that which we believe to be wrong as "just the way it is".

My biggest concern is for those "political prisoners" who are innocent and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no doubt this has always been the dominant concern where interrogations are involved. The important thing is to establish, without a doubt, that the person being interrogated has conspired or acted to harm United States citizens or interests. Some in the inteligence fields might consider coercive interrogation techniques necessary as long as they have a reason to believe that person has information of value. I am beginning to think that interrogations involving national security threats should not be administered by military personell. As I said, it is simply not wise to have the military act as judge and jury in these cases. While the military already is resposible for securing the prisoners and, at this time, administering the interrogations, I think it would be wise for the government to create a council or "tribunal" that does not fall under the command of or answer to the leaders of our military. This tribunal, rather than the military, would then be responsible for establishing what, if any, information the prisoner may have and their level of involvement in activities that pose a threat to U.S. interests/citizens. I understand that our government is going to whatever it considers necessary to protect its interests (aka citizens/taxpayers). But, now it is faced with enough scandals and bad publicity that it must answer for and it is most likely that any tribunal our council that is created will simply be a ghost or straw man to ease the concerns of the press and public.

I agree, but there do need to be measures to ensure that those being subjected to such interrogations have been officially classified as enemies of the state. At this point I have to agree that there needs to be some sort of judicial process where such a declaration can be made as a safeguard against abuses and unecessary deviations from accepted protocols. The military tribunals being proposed are hardly acceptable as long as those tribunals fall under the command of the military itself. I think it is only prudent that those in a position to classify someone as an enemy of the state not be the same ones to carry out the interrogation.

Some people react differently to different music, thats for sure. Some urbanites might dislike country music enough that they might be "uncomfortable" listening to it. Some "cowboys" might be somewhat uncomfortable listening to "gangsta rap". I know for me I could not listen to very much polka music before I would loose my mind. Also, I think if I had to listen to 30 minutes of what some middle easterners consider music, such as their calls to prayer, I might just be ready to cut someones head off as well. Just kidding. I know many, if not most, would consider being forced to listen to Rosanne Baar sing as cruel and unusual. I will say that standing in a cold room for an extended period might just weaken my resolve and is more than likely the cause of this particular person giving in. I can see both sides of this argument and I am unable to choose one side over the other. I am sure many of us have heard of "chinese water torture". While this method is non-evasive and does not in any way physically harm the person, it is in fact considered torture. While I may agree that certain interrogation methods could and should be considered torture, I would not be as quick to ban them from use by interrogators. Though only a formality, I do believe that no person should be subjected to "interrogation" unless formally charged as an enemy of the United States. I do not believe, times as they are, the government needs to be in a state of war to declare a person an enemy of the state. As far as I am concerned, the only reason our govenment is so secretive about such things is because there are people that simply do not have the stomach to do anything and everything necessary to protect the citizens of this nation. While it is unfortunate that people be subjected to environments, positions or conditions that are meant to make them uncomfortable and/or cause them anguish, fear or sorrow, we cannot afford to go soft on or in the face of our enemies. Consider Israel and see what even the apearance of weakness will get you. Go to a prison and ask what weakness (aka kindness and generousity) will get you. You would end up someones girlfriend or worse, someones sex slave as they pimped you out to other inmates for packs of cigarettes. I repeat, neither we or our allies can afford to be viewed as weak, passive or submissive in the face of such a violent, unforgiving and uncomprimising enemy.

I think in this debate we are faced with the same blind spot as the Pharaces and Sagecese. I recal a bit of scripture where Jesus is in the temple, speaking and tells those attending to "drink my blood and eat my flesh","those who do not drink my blood and eat my flesh have no part in me". Those who heard him say this, of course, were incregulous. They too, took him literally and completely missed the meaning of what we was saying. Jesus told the Samaritan woman that if she were to drink the water that he was offering, it would become in her a spring and she would never thirst again. Do you think he was being literal then as well? Do you think he meant like a spring or a literal spring?

After looking over a portion of the article I am begiining to see how it will be so easy for Satan to bring about his one world religion. Like Blair, the governments of the world are beginning to acknowlege that there is a war of "ideologies". They refuse to be blunt about it but they are beginning to understand that Islam , not just radicals, are behind a "movement" to change the world to an Islamic theocracy. Blair admits that he understands that this ideological war will have to be fought or secular governments will be threatened and so these governments, like it or not, will have no choice but to become more "ideoligical" in order to confront this threat. It's ironic to see all this effort in western nations to check religion, especialy within the governments themselves, in effect dropping their defenses as well as disarming themselves against an enemy they refuse to acknowlage. Their only method of self defense will be to support a one world religion in an effort to stem the tide of a religion they cannot deny is both oppressive as well as violent. I believe the western nations are afraid of speaking out against Islam. It's like taking the witness stand against a person/persons you personally witnessed murdering someone. Sadam Hussein would be a good example. Many people have been unwilling to speak out against him knowing what danger they might be opening themselves up to. I believe western governments are similarly afraid. They are equally, if not moreso, afraid of offending the governments of nations which they are dependant on, as we are for oil. Either way I think some government officials are now willing to acknowlage the threat of Islam and are beginning to urge the sponsoring of research geared toward finding the means to protect themselves from the rising tide of Islam.

Here we go. Just as soon as the rest of the world agrees on this and work together to acheive peace, the sooner Jesus will return. Bring on the 7 year peace treaty!

Pax. I never said that the RCC prohibits the reading of the Bible, I said it did. "If I am correct, there were laws against the unauthorised reading of scripture, God forbid, and many people were charged with heracy (punishable by death) for challenging the edicts of the Pope, as in Martin Luthers case." The fact that you have attended many bible studies, while commendable, has no bearing on whether or not the RCC prohibited the reading of the bible. You have already admitted that you believe the clergy/papacy to be the sole authority on scripture. That being the case, the clergy determined that scripture was not up to private interpretation and labeled anyone who disagreed with their interpretation as heritics (an offense punishable by death). To hear that a one time protestant minister converted to cathocism is interesting but means little to me. If I do not "follow" the clergy I cannot see how you would think a catholic convert would be able to sway me. No offense but, as I see it, Catholcism and Christianity are not the same thing and praying to anyone other than God in any name other than Jesus is not Christian.

Do you actually believe that Bush and his administration have been twisting his or Englands arm? I find that a bit hard to believe considering the risks that Blair has taken. I seems to me that Blair believes in what he and the Bush administration are doing and is doing and had done everything willingly. Under those circumstances nothing he has done should be considered appeasement since he is not being coerced or intimidated. If however he were being strong armed, bullied or intimidated to do so then one might be able to say that he was trying to appease Bush.

I give no credance to the RCC and accept no representative to God other than my lord Jesus. This is not to say that I do not recognise Gods' representatives on earth, only that I need no intercessor to or intermediary to Christ himself. The reformation would not even have happened had it not been for the abuses perpetrated by the leaders of the RCC. It still confounds me that the church leaders went to such great lengths to prevent the Bible being made available to the "common" man. Their own arrogance presumed that such teachings and thoughts were beyond the common mans comprehension. If I am correct, there were laws against the unauthorised reading of scripture, God forbid, and many people were charged with heracy (punishable by death) for challenging the edicts of the Pope, as in Martin Luthers case. One scipture comes to mind when I think of the machination know as the RCC. John 21:15 So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,

Thats what I heard them saying. They were offering to give them hot dogs and pigs feet to eat. If they don't like what food we offer them, then thats their problem. Right? Sorry, but all I have is wine and BLTs.

Meanwhile middle eastern nations are spending billions of dollars opening mosques throughout the U.S. while our government turns a blind eye and is allowing an increasing number of muslims to immigrate, despite the obvious dangers. The sad thing is that our own money, through the purchase of oil, is funding this infiltration. I would not be surprised if the left wing were behind importing votes just as they are trying to buy them with their amnesty bill.