It started

[melon]

Originally posted by MSU2mike:

I think it's unlikely as you're at least a year ahead of me (I think).

I've taken 100, 200, 201, 240, 310, and currently 343 & 463. And on the off chance that you were in any of that first group (excluding 240) it wouldn't have mattered as I spent the majority of those classes gouging my eyeballs with my pen.

But I have found myself spending more time at the CAS building this year and I'm at the VU very often (fiancee works there).

Well, I'm graduating in December, but that's with 3.5 years too. Quite a feat I wouldn't ever suggest to anyone, unless you're crazy (like myself).

I've already done 342 and 343, and all those other classes are just too damn big to remember anyone. But I'm in the CAS building all the time too, one place or another. It's highly likely that we've crossed paths at least once (even if just walking down the same hallway) and never known it.

I know some of the VUers too. More craziness if I knew your fiancee, whomever that may be. A small virtual world after all.

*new film: 'Sightings of Melon'*

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[U2Bama]

If Gallup was involved, it was probably a scientific sampling poll, much like what is used prior to elections.

But the phrasing of questions for these polls does often "lean" one way or the other; example: during a referendum on an "education lottery" here in Alabama, the lottery campaign phoned people and asked them "would you favor an optional tax to help fund K-12 education and college tuition for Alabama's children?" How's that for transparent!?

~U2Alabama

 

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by melon:
Bitch to Nielsen then if you don't like my demographics. Let's see if they'll change them for you.

Melon

Actually Melon, ACNielsen's Stats are skewed. Also they lost the TAM tender for various reasons. All this from a company that experiences 5mil profit from one client alone, and allows its operations dept (my old data analysis section) to absolutely crumble.

In a nutshell, ACNIelsen and all their type can fail and stuff it up. Dont believe statistics blindly.

 

[camiloj]

I am a bleeding heart liberal democrat that belives in peace and equality.

I have not read ANYTHING anyone else has posted on the subject.

I have had five beers.

I wholeheartedly support what the UNited Staes and the U.K has done in the name of democracy and in retaltiation for the brutal murder of thousands in NYC and Washington D.C., a clear act of war on the free world.

I am in fear for our future.

I accept that. Such is life in times of war, as we are now living.

God help us all.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Ahem. Not to start a Melon love fest here, but I was a Journalism major for a while and I too can confirm a great deal of what he was saying about news demographics. So do lay off.

HOWEVER, all bets are off since the 9/11 attacks. Millions of people who haven't watched CNN for more than a sports or weather update are likely watching more frequently now. Many of those folks are probably participating in online polls as well. How much would that screw with CNN's normal viewer demographics? I don't know and neither do you.

MAP (the u2 fan formerly known as MP)

p.s.- Do we know for a fact that this poll we're arguing so passionately about was actually an internet poll of CNN viewers? Maybe it was a random telephone poll?

 

[U2Bama]

Great post, U2LA!

 

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
and in the New Testament, Christ said that "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

It is a hard thing to go to war, and it should be hard. But it is not necessarily in conflict with the teachings of the Bible, particularly when it is done out of love -- the love of freedom and your fellow man.

Achtung Bubba

Alright, so i don't like to feed the monster of madness, but this is just too much!! please Achtung Bubba, i would like to ask you a personal favor; please do not use The Word to fuel your own hunger for blood and glory. I'm not even going to deem your comments on the U.S. army involvement in El Salvador with a response; as it is obvious you have never lived through such horrible tragedies. I am rather going to complete the verse which you quoted from Luke; the verse you have so carelessly used is regarding a one of the final conversations Jesus had with His deciples before Judas betrayed him with a kiss... {recall Pride}

I believe Jesus is using the sword as a metaphor, meaning to use His Word as a weapon against those who would attempt to destroy the Kingdom He had brought to us as His Father had done for Him. If you will notice in the following, He actually condemns the use of force:

Jesus Arrested
Luke 22:47-53 {see also Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-50; John 18:3-11}

47 While He was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48. but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

49 When Jesus's followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50. And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And He touched the man's ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53. Everyday I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour-when darkness reigns."

I'm sick of sorrow
I'm sick of the pain
I'm sick of always hearing
Again and again
That there's NEVER gonna be
Peace on Earth...

~Peace on Earth~ Bono




------------------
"I don't want to be the bleeding hearts club here, but you can't close your eyes to what's going on in the world. But you want to hopefully make a music that tries to transcend that and lift yourself and, if you're lucky, other people out of that." -- Bono, 1997

 

[missmacphisto]

I received advanced notice of the impending attacks. Heard about it Saturday evening. I didnt really catch his meaning and "get" what he was trying to tell me till the next day though. I need more sleep.

God Bless the US Military and its allies, I hope they all return safely...

------------------
Look...look what you've done to me...You've made me poor and infamous, and I thank you...

My name is MISS MACPHISTO...I'm tired and i want to go HOME...

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Bacchus,

First off, I'm not using the Bible to "fuel [my] hunger for blood and glory", but to defend my position that war can sometimes be necessary and morally justified. Sorry to destroy your stereotypes, but not everyone who believes that war can be necessary is a bloodthirsty warmonger.

Second, look at the context and you will see I was responding to a post suggesting that the Bible specifically condemns war ("Thou shalt not murder" being the verse cited). As you have shown, one of the best ways to refute the interpretation of one verse is use another verse. That's why I used the Bible in that specific context.

Granted, as in many instances, Christ may be speaking metaphorically about "buying a sword". If He is, it's probably a reference to either the Word of God, or -- as I've seen in Biblical commentaries -- mental preparation for the perilous road ahead.

But I SERIOUSLY doubt that Christ's words in the garden were a grand statement on the state of the world -- that war is always immoral. Look at the circumstances: He just prayed passionately about His own fate, and was mentally preparing Himself for His trail and crucifixtion. He was more likely simply telling His disciples to allow Him to be arrested than giving a political statement.

He clearly condemned that specific use of force in His defense, but it's not obvious He attacked the use of force in general.

There are other verses that can still point to the use of force being justifed:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.(Romans 13:3-4)

In this case, Paul is saying that the authorities (the government) is to be feared by evil-doers because they do no "bear the sword in vain". In this case, Paul is more likely referring to the ability to arrest, try, and convict criminals -- rather than the Bible -- and this power of arresting evil citizens can extend to declaring war on evil states. After all, the main purposes of any government is to protect its people from internal threats and to protect them from external threats.

Finally, there is the implicit message of Matthew 8:5-13, where the Roman centurion came to ask Jesus to heal his sick servant. Neither Matthew's description of the event nor Christ's words or deeds suggest that the soldier was wrong for being a soldier -- He certainly did not confront the man with his deeds as he did the woman at the well.

Admittedly, that's a stretch, but no more so than suggesting that Luke 22:51 condemns all acts of force.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[Ormus]

To use the Bible to justify war is the equivalent of using the Koran to justify terrorism. There is no justification for either, regardless of whatever passage gives you the moral compunction to kill. There is no such thing as a "holy war." All war is evil, but there is such a thing as a "necessary evil." Can we put it at that?

Ormus

 

[U2Bama]

All of the Scriptures which both of you have posted are both valid and potentially relevant to today's situation.

However, I do not think that we should use the Bible to absolutely condemn OR justify this "war" as it is coming to be.

The most relevant passage that has stood out to me recently has been Matthew 24:6-7:

"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes."

Now this passage was part of one spoken by Christ about the times leading UP TO "tribulation" or "the end" or whatever name various denominations of you apply to the prophecies of Daniel (to an extent) and Revelation. I am NOT trying to justify the use of force with this passage; instead, I am stating that perhaps Christ was warning us that such things will necessarily take place continuously during our time here and leading up to your "end times," as we discussed awhile back in the Free Your Mind forum.

But I do not think that we should take The Osama's bait and make this some "Holy War," and that is why I am fearful of taking a religious view, for or against this military action, although personally and politcally I AM 100% in support of military action to topple The Osama, the Taliban, the slave-holding regime of Sudan (whom we probably won't target) as well as a few other tempting targets. And I hold that view with a clear spiritual conscience. And I pray that God blesses and comforts everyone affected by what is to come.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[Ormus]

And Matthew 8:5-13 says a lot more underneath that you wouldn't like, so if you want to talk about stretches, I'll give you some. But it's off-topic.

Ormus

[This message has been edited by Ormus (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Ormus:

No, there are huge differences between wars and terrorism -- most notably, terrorism typically involves the brutal attack of civilians without warning or provocation.

The Bible also justifies the pursuit of criminal justice, in Romans 13 (quoted above) and in much of the books of Law in the Old Testament, but the pursuit of justice is an entirely different matter than the brutal forms of punishment that Muslims practice (severing hands, etc.).

(Granted, I do not whether severing hands is actually proscribed in the Koran, but it seems to be a zealously followed practice.)

Either way, you make a very unusual statement:

Originally posted by Ormus:
There is no justification for either, regardless of whatever passage gives you the moral compunction to kill.

You seem to be saying that -- even if the Bible or the Koran proscribes certain actions -- there may not be a justification for those actions.

If that's the case, why even obey scripture? If you're going to judge some commandment by an external moral code, than you should just use the moral code and throw scripture away.

As a Christian, I can and should debate whether an action is commanded, condoned, or prohibited by Scripture. But once I'm certain that the Bible tells me X is good, bad, or neutral, I am compelled by my faith to obey.

Otherwise, I'm just following my own path, using the Bible to defend what actions I can, and ignoring the Bible when it disagrees.

Finally, a HUGE problem to ponder:

It can easily be said that most Christians believe that God is at war with Satan. If ALL war is evil, where does that put God?

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

And I would love to know what more Matthew 8 says, or rather, what you *think* it says.

 

[Ormus]

I find, with all this discussion of Biblical "laws" and "obeying scripture," people have missed the point. What is the point? St. Paul sums everything up for the Christian. I have bolded the parts I see as the key phrases, but I have included the whole text:

Romans 13:8-10

8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

St. Paul sums up the entire message of the Bible, and, hence, "the law," right here. The Bible is about love, not about hatred, war, and/or bigotry. It's surely used for those devices, just as bin Laden uses the Koran to justify terrorism, but both bin Laden and Christians who justify hate in the Bible are wrong. There is no sitting on the fence on this either.

You can support this war secularly as defense, but do not try and think you can justify this with the Bible. You can't.

Ormus

[This message has been edited by Ormus (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[U2Bama]

Ormus:

All of the passages you cited are very true!

But perhaps to love my neighbor, I may have to protect him/her by killing the poisonous snake that is in their yard.

~U2Alabama

 

[Ormus]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
It can easily be said that most Christians believe that God is at war with Satan. If ALL war is evil, where does that put God?

Surely you jest. God can destroy Satan with the blink of an eye. The "war" is not between God and Satan, but between humans and Satan. Each time we choose evil over love or each time we twist God's meanings into something evil, we give Satan more territory. God, simply, is there to give us an option, with the only right option being Him. However, how many are willing to accept Him?

Ormus

 

[Ormus]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
But perhaps to love my neighbor, I may have to protect him/her by killing the poisonous snake that is in their yard.

But, you see, the terrorists are your neighbors, not snakes.

Like I said, you can justify this war secularly. I have no problem with that. But do not look at the Bible for justification of war. Those that do do a great disservice to God and His Scriptures.

Ormus

 

[Ormus]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
And I would love to know what more Matthew 8 says, or rather, what you *think* it says.

Another time, Bubba. The interpretation I am talking about has nothing to do with the task at hand. I do not wish to get into a tangent but yet.

And remember, your interpretation of Matthew 8 is an *opinion* as well.

Ormus

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by Ormus:
But, you see, the terrorists are your neighbors, not snakes.

Like I said, you can justify this war secularly. I have no problem with that. But do not look at the Bible for justification of war. Those that do do a great disservice to God and His Scriptures.

Ormus

Well, to quote a song (by The Samples, NOT from the Bible!)

If Jesus could tell the men from the snakes, then they would ALL be serpents!

Actually, I see the oppressed people suffering under the Taliban and Sudan's government in Khartoum as my neighbors, and their purpetrators as snakes!

But you are right, as I said earlier: we should not try to justify this Biblically, nor should we condemn military action Biblically, in my opinion.

~U2Alabama

 

[Achtung Bubba]

You're making the leap from hatred to war. Seeing that you are, it's easy to see why you think war is never justified.

I think it's often true that war springs from evil purposes -- hatred and the selfish desire for more power or possesions being the chief reasons most nations start wars.

But I don't believe that war is NECESSARILY out of hatred. If there is a psychopath running around within some city, it is a genuinely good thing to lock him up, to keep him from doing others harm -- doing so is being genuinely concerned for his neighbors. Likewise, if there is a genuinely evil state threatening its neighbors, it may well be a good thing to keep it from doing others harm; typically, war is the only way to accomplish that.

In that case, it can be said that a nation is going to war for the concern of other nations. It can be said that war is done out of love -- that war is therefore good.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

And I do not jest when I refer to the war between God and Satan. True, God is infinitely more powerful than Satan; yet Satan rebelled against God, and God will respond with the ultimate punishment alluded to in Revelation.

If that struggle isn't war, or a fight, or a battle, then what is it?


------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
It can be said that war is done out of love -- that war is therefore good.

Well, if that's not "picking and choosing," then I don't know what is. I could state that an abortion can be done out of love (i.e., the woman honestly believes she cannot give her child a good life), and that abortion is therefore good. I can also advocate that euthanasia can be done out of love (i.e., not wishing to see someone suffer), and that euthanasia is therefore good.

Man...if this is true, I can do a lot more shitty deeds free and clear! I mean, all I have to do is kill out of love! Think about it...

Melon

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
If that struggle isn't war, or a fight, or a battle, then what is it?

A test for His creation, namely, us. Read Job sometime.

Melon

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 10-11-2001).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon -- er, I mean, Ormus -- ur, Melon. Whatever

You can also use my line of thought to justify lying.

Oh, wait, Schindler did justify lying.

The problem inherent in your examples (abortion and euthanasia) is that I'd bet we both imagine that most abortions and mercy killings occur for selfish reasons -- the convenience of the living rather than what's best for the one aborted or euthanized.

But, to be completely honest, IF someone HONESTLY loved that person more than him/herself and HONESTLY believed that an abortion or euthanasia is in that person's best interest, I can't condemn the actions for moral reasons.

I may say that he or she is irrational for thinking that an abortion or euthanasia is in the best interests of the other person and may thus criticize his/her ability to reason, but I can still see it being done out of love.


And, I'm not asking what the struggle between God and Satan is FOR US -- I'm asking what it is for God and Satan.

I believe it is true that God uses the struggle to allow man to be truly free, but there still exists a struggle between God and a free-willed creation of His -- a struggle that will end in the creation suffering an unspeakable punishment.

(The only alternative is to then suggest that Satan has no free will; that opens a huge can of worms that ultimately leads to the conclusion that Satan is an extension of God Himself -- that part of God is evil.)

So, we have again have this struggle between two free wills. From the perspective of those two, isn't the struggle a war of some kind?

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[melon]

Well, I must say. You've epitomized St. Thomas Aquinas' idea of conscience-based, personalist religion perfectly! And you're not even a radical Catholic!

I do tend to agree, though. If any action is based, honestly and thoroughly, out of love (and only you and God can determine the state of your heart / conscience), how can it be wrong?

The dilemma again, however, is with people like bin Laden, who, perhaps twistedly and wholly misguidedly, believe they are blowing up the U.S. out of "love" for his "neighbors," the Islamic people. What do we do for cases like this?

And as for that Ormus fellow...who is he?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[U2Bama]

Ah, melon, I knew you couldn't stay gone long, although I didn't suspect an alternate handle!

~U2Alabama

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Well, even assuming bin Ladin's committing these atrocities out of Mulim extremism and not for personal power (an assumption I do not yet make), his "love for his neighbors" is still Biblically wrong, because you are clearly commanded to love *all* your neighbors, including your enemies.

Bin Ladin hates us, obviously.

In the case where the person does something wrong out of a legitimate -- but misguided -- love (like in the abortion case), I'd imagine God would find that person "unfit to stand trial" in that case. The person's perception may have been really skewed (or reasoning abilities really twisted), but I don't think the person would be found guilty of that sin. But that's only a guess.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
The only alternative is to then suggest that Satan has no free will; that opens a huge can of worms that ultimately leads to the conclusion that Satan is an extension of God Himself -- that part of God is evil.

It's an interesting notion. Zoroastrianism, where Christianity inherited it's belief in Satan from the dualistic god, Ahriman (Shaitan), and our modern concepts of heaven, hell, and a loving God, tackled this notion by stating that it was a constant battle between good (Ahura Mazda [Ormasz--hence, Ormus

], the light god) and evil (Ahriman, the dark god). Hence, more war symbolism, and a belief that evil could not be destroyed by the light god, as he hasn't the power to destroy evil emanating from another god.

So, honestly, it's a philosophical question that cannot be answered, to me. I would say that Satan would have free will, just as much as we do. However, Satan is perhaps a pawn, as, in hell, he cannot leave. So if Satan chose good, would it do him any good?

*zen-like silence*

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Ah, melon, I knew you couldn't stay gone long, although I didn't suspect an alternate handle!

I never said I'd stray away from religion debates. I still love those. As for secular war debates, I'm finished. To quote one of my other posts, *yawn.*

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time