# War and Religion



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

ok, we have enough threads discussing the rights and wrongs of war. of this war and of any war. but it's interesting to me how different religious people reconcile their feelings about war - no matter which side they stand on.

also there was this article in the SF Chronicle today that raises some interesting things about prophecies. i'll admit that one of the reasons all this scares me so much is because back in the late 80's and early 90's i read a number of books talking about prophecies of some terrible things that would happen from about 2002 - 2012. some of these were interpretations of nostradamus predictions while others were from other sources including the bible. The events that are unfolding are frighteningly similar to what i read back then. i'm still looking for some of my original sources and specifics, but i'd like to hear from others on this.

one quote from this article i found particularly disturbing - 


> Bernal does not think Saddam Hussein is the anti-Christ because that great  deceiver will be "extremely subtle, cunning. He will look like the ultimate  peace-broker."


----------



## ScottW (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed,

I was quite interested in end-times prophecy concerning the Bible back in 92-94. Although my interest again sparked with the WTC attack and have been following things pretty closely.

Although everything is open to debate in discussion, this pretty much sums up what the Bible says in a nutshell concerning end times events.

1) The tribulation period is the last 7 years of the world "as we know it". The tribulation begins with a 7 year peace treaty being signed between Israel and another government or person, basically, the anti-christ.

2) The first 3.5 years of the tribulation, the world will experience a peace that has not been seen since the beginning of time.

3) At the 3.5 year mark, the anti-christ will sit on a thrown in Israel and declare himself to be god. This basically, unleashes the remaining 3.5 years... and begins to final battle called armagedon. When many countries around the world converge against Israel.

4) The Bible clearly says that the if God hadn't stepped in to stop it (just before then end of the 7 years) that all of man would be destroyed. At the end of the 7 year period, Jesus returns to earth and rules for 1000 years on earth.

5) Following the 1000 year reign, this earth is destroyed and a new heavens and earth is created.

That is pretty much all of it in a nut shell. I could go on about plagues and other descuction, references to possible nuclear attacks or meteor destruction here on earth.

I have also read recent discussion (not new ideas, but new to me) concerning prophecies about the destruction of Damascus in Syria, in how Damascus ceases to be a city, basically a heap of ruins. Also, references of the area of Iraq being "un-inhabitable". These prophecies, if not already fullfilled (which they don't seem to be) appear to happen, before the tribulation period.

Many have been concerned (or looking forward too) that the current Iraq crises could be the beginning of "birth pains" for the end time events to unfold. Interesting enough, Israel has been excluded from this conflict to date. The key to watch for are all things Israel when it comes to prophecy.

Also... there is some discussion and debate on where the USA fits into the end times, and why it appears in prophecies concerning end times, the USA is not mentioned as a "end time power". Although, reference is made to a "Mystery Babylon" which the Bible says is is the merchant capital of the world. While reading it, you can't help but think of a city lik New York or other port city. It Bible says that the city was destroyed in under an hour, basically goes up in smoke. And how only those on ships in the sea watched in amazement and where sad. The whole world is sad in fact, because this city or country or place is where everyone in the world deals with and would not be able to sell everything they previously did.

(I am paraphrasing really bad for layman purposes).

Anyhow... then you have the whole RAPTURE discussion... a time when Christians (those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord & Savior) are "caught up". The Left Behind serious of fictional books play on this debatable discussion (even inside Christian circles). A popular belief and is the rapture will occur just prior to the 7 year tribulation period. Others believe just before the 3.5 year mark in the tribulation, while others say it's post-tribulation. Of course, this is a "secondary" debate amoung Christians.

LOTS of neat stuff. I can't vouch for other prophecy folks as I will only vouch for the Bible.



Scott


----------



## ScottW (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed,

Here is something I think you should read. This was written by Jerry Golden, a Jew in Israel. I just read this following my previous post and is very interesting read. A different perspective for current time events and future events.

----

3-22-03

 Meanwhile back in Israel!

 Knowing that you witnessed the awesome precision bombing in Baghdad last night as we did, I will not elaborate on it. Instead I will speak of Israel and what concerns us here at this time. And should concern every true Believer and follower of Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus the Messiah) on this planet. 

 Don?t be distracted and don?t take your eyes off of Israel because when it is all said and done Israel and Jerusalem is what it is all about, for there is a move in the spirit far greater than what you just witnessed on TV in the natural. And for those who don?t know that or believe that, they will come to that reality soon enough. You hear of the New Prime Minister who was appointed by the world?s number one Terrorist Yasser Arafat and how pleased George Bush and Tony Blair are about this appointment. But the truth about this new appointment is not being reported. 

 His name is Abu Mazen, and as things stand he will be accountable to Yasser Arafat, he will not have anything to do with security or negotiating peace, Yasser Arafat will keep that authority. And of course Yasser Arafat keeps the right to fire him at any time. But Bush and Blair are pleased with this appointment. The question is why are they so pleased? We will look at that a little later on in this article, but first Abu Mazen. 

 It should be noted that Abu Mazen refuses to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish State, and he was one of the main reasons that Camp David failed as he would not give up the idea of the right of return for the (so-called) Palestinian refugees. He was known to have made the statement that the offer of 95% of the West Bank and Gaza was not enough, he wanted 100% meaning all the land that is now called Israel as well. At least he and Arafat do see eye to eye on that. He is a Holocaust denier, and has said many times that the Holocaust is just a big Jewish lie to steal Arab land. The one thing that he and Arafat disagree on is how to go about destroying Israel. There are many other things that I could say about the new Palestinian Prime Minister that Bush and Blair are so excited about but I will leave it for another time. 

 What I am about to say may upset a few, but it needs to be said, some may say the timing of my saying this is wrong, because of the war in Iraq. But it is because of the war in Iraq and nearness of what is about to happen in Israel that it needs to be said, now. 

 First to all the Believers who will read this, if President Bush is a "Christian" and that is not for you or I to judge he is at best one who has bought into the replacement theology. Meaning that the nation of Israel in the prophetic Word of God is not the same to him as it is to me and I hope to you. Therefore he has no problem forcing Israel to give away God?s land to the enemies of God. It is however obvious that he does accept Israel as an important friend to the United States, but not as important as the EU, the Arab oil rich world, Russia, or a host of others. Therefore Israel can be sacrificed for what he considers the betterment of the United States and the world. He is wrong and very wrong, for God has other plans of which we are all about to discover, and I might add the hard way.

 President Bush does not want to end up as his father, a one term President, and he knows that somehow me must deliver something that looks like peace in the world, starting with the Middle east. He has spent enormous amounts of money, nearly bankrupting the United States at this point, and may very well finish that job soon. On top of that he has promised billions to everyone who will come to his side to help him destroy the man who tried to kill his father. So when it is all said and done he must have a sacrificial lamb to offer those at the door threatening to destroy him. 

 In the meantime Tony Blair who has stood faithfully when others ran is in an even worse political situation or at least a more immediate one. On top of everything else he has a pressing Islamic problem threatening to take over his country. And knows that if President Bush does not offer up Israel however clever he may be able to do it, they are both finished. 

 Bush?s first job was to deceive Ariel Sharon into believing his big lie. That lie was that when it is all said and done he would stand with Israel to the end. What Sharon didn?t understand was the last part of the sentence, to the end. Now what we here in Israel are wondering is why Sharon hasn?t woke up, because this Bush Road Map was not to take place until after the war with Iraq, and after Arafat ceased all violence and Palestinian incitement. But in a surprise move Bush did it earlier to gain support from the EU, Arab World, and other, without notifying Israel before he did, starting the sacrifice of Israel a little earlier than he intended. 

 So we are about to see a one sided agreement much like that of Oslo, Sharon will act like he agrees knowing that it spells the end of the Jewish State unless something supernatural happens, and it will. Simply because Sharon doesn?t know what else to do at this juncture. But if he doesn?t wake up in time, Israel will be sacrificed to safe Tony Blair?s job, and hopefully to get Bush re-elected, plus a host of other reasons to numerous to mention here. In the mean time the EU, Arab World, Russia and China will be smiling and the UN will come back into power even greater than before. All the above spells very bad news for anything left of Israel. 

 We Jews have been the blunt of the ills of mankind for a very long time, and nothing has changed, the evil forces who will do anything to hold off the appearance of the coming Messiah are hard at work. It has always been their top priority to kill all the Jews. What we are witnessing is their final effort and many will die because of the lack of good men and women doing what they know to be the right thing. Many who call themselves Christians have been totally deceived by the acts of George W. Bush and I know that this report will cause many to go separate ways. But the truth needs to be told and if given the opportunity I will tell it. 

 I think what has saddened me more than anything is the fact that Jews around the world who can return to their God given land have not done so. And many who what to return are simply unable. For if enough Jews had returned to Israel things would be much different, for the only sure way to save Israel is to fill Israel with Jews. Yet we see once again Jews in America and elsewhere who are doing well "financially" they just will not let go and follow the call from God to all Jews to return to Israel. So it is for a large part the fault of the Jews as well as those who want to destroy us today. For if they would in obedience return to Israel, then Israel would be much stronger. 

 But I will close with this, what George W. Bush is about to do, will cause the total destruction of the United States of America. And there is absolutely no doubt about it, for God is not a man that He should lie. Gen. 12:3

 So far we are not expecting any attack from Saddam (if he is still alive) and other than the Palestinians dancing in the streets with pictures of Saddam, and a few regular daily terrorist attacks still happening, all is the same here. 

 Hizbullah has been told by Assad of Syria to sit still or else. He does not want Damascus destroyed and he knows Israel is coming straight to him if Hizbullah attacks. But this thing is far from over and the next few days will show us all many things. 

 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for our son Joel, and all the IDF soldiers, and all the coalition soldiers who are fighting the Islamic enemy. Pray for this Ministry and your part in it. Shalom, jerry golden


----------



## ScottW (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed,

Here I found this site... this person is explaining how current events might lead to end time events. This is just ONE mans view, not my own nor do I agree with it 100%. But since I know you like to read different view points... plus this should help explain some of my original post, at least in part.

http://jesus-is-the-way.com/PostWar.html


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed, I have read both the 'Left Behind' books and the entire book of Revelation in the Bible several times, and I must say that it hadn't even _occurred_ to me that Saddam Hussein could be the 'Anit-Christ'. *As I see it,* Saddam Hussein is the exact opposite of everything that the Anti-Christ will/would be, at least for the first section of the 'end times'
Scott, I know you said that you were simplifying a lot, but I think you slightly _oversimplified_ there. 
I would be happy to write out the 'end times' as I see them, but it would take a lot of typing, and I need sleep. I might do it in the morning though...


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

thanks scott. i did find those interesting and food for thought. i certainly would be interested in any other such interpretations of this kind of thing that people are following. 

but if i could be so bold, let me ask how this affects your position on the war? i know you are all for it. so there is a first assumption that it is because you are christian and thus would believe that your paradise of heaven is getting closer. yet at the same time this whole thing seems to me to be very contradictory to true christian values - just as this terrorist version of jihad is against true muslim values. i find this to be a tough spot to be in for someone who sees these interpretations being applied.

of course 'interpretation' is a key word in all this and thus how each person interprets and applies the information is a big part of what i am interested in.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 23, 2003)

Ed,

I guess unlike those who are calling for a jihad or holy war, I really don't seem to see this war as a mix of religion.

I am for the war because it takes Saddam Hussain out of power. This man is bad. I don't think I need to explain or tell all the bad things he has done to the people of that country. I don't think anyone deserves to live under such rule. I don't want to see civilians be killed, but I also know it's part of the "cost" of war. Same with our troops or any troops. I hate to see them go, but a price has to be paid, either way. Either Saddam stays in power and potentially thousands or millions more are killed by this man, -or- action is taken to remove him of power and hundreds are killed. Either way, it's a cost, just which cost is greater?

Of course, end time events do excite me. I look forward to the return of Jesus, that goes without exception. It's exciting to think that I *might* be living in the end times, but I will continue to live my life. I'm not going to stop and wait. The signs are here, and it's obvious the end is near. But when that is, tomorrow or 50 years (or more) from now, is not known to me nor anyone else for that matter.

As a Christian, I want God's will to be done. I know that He has a plan and that He is in control. I know these wars will come and go, the Bible says they will. I also know the I will be persecuted for my faith, whether tortured or just attacked here on the boards. Although I might get frustrated, I also find assurance in it, knowing that God's word stands.

I would love to see everyone know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior... as the Bible says, the path to destruction is wide, but the path to heaven is narrow. We are not saved by our works, but by faith alone.

When I think about war with Iraq... I don't think about "down with muslims", I think, "down with Saddam". I think the people of Iraq should be able to worship what or who they want to worship, just as it is in the United States. 

One last comment here (otherwise I will get lost on rabbit trails) and this is... you might think my statements above are contrary to my other posts in other threads holding a very "black & white" view point of just about everything. Saying that much of what is going on with Israel and Palestine is indeed spiritual warfare, just as I believe the same is involved with Iraq. Calling something spritual warfare is simply stating that something "supernatural" is happening to cause the conflicts, it's not just Chirstian's or Jews hitting others on the head with the Bible or vise-versa.

The big struggle in the middle-east is about Jesus. The jews missed the boat. Jesus came already, but they just didn't get it. They are still waiting on Him to return in glory, descending from Heaven. Christian's likewise, look forward to His "return" not His "first coming" as the Jews will see it.

Satan's goal is to stop all of this from happening. Although Satan might "win" many battles, he has lost the war. In the end, God wins. 

People say, shouldn't God be a God of peace and love, how can a God of peace and love, be a God of war or anything else? How could God allow evil to happen.

The One True God is perfect. We are not perfect. The same God who created us, loves us, but He is a just God, meaning He casts judgement. Also, a imperfect person can not come into the presence of a perfect God, we would instantly die. So, how does a God who created us with our own free wills... and we turn around and sin against Him and become imperfect... How does a just God find a way to love us and to show to us everlasting life with Him?

Well, He sent His only son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross, to be the perfect blood sacrafice to cover all of our sins. Because a gift is given freely and not earned... all we have to do is believe in Him, to believe that we are sinners and fall short of His glory... and that we believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, the ultimate sacrafice.

That is a loving God. There is nothing I could do or not do that will get me into heaven... except for one thing... and it is faith.

Rabbit TRAIL Alert... STOPPING NOW.

Scott


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

yea, you almost slipped in to preaching there. we'll have none of that in this thread thank you. 

seriously, that was said in a way i can understand despite my own personal disagreements. i hope your posts set a tone for this thread to follow as you have neither condemned nor criticized others but simply stated alot of what you believe. and you corrected my asumptions without the need to 'defend' yourself.

but....things i'm left confused by -
(again, built up general assumptions, past experience, etc.)



> I would love to see everyone know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior... as the Bible says, the path to destruction is wide, but the path to heaven is narrow. We are not saved by our works, but by faith alone.



there is something terribly frightening in that statement. it implies that one can do anything one wants - commit the worst attrocities even - and still be ok in the eyes of God. it almost seems license for war and destruction. it also doesn't correalate with Jesus' story of the good samaritan. i've always taken that story to mean that works and faith are equal. that God doesn't deal in the petty semantics of how one addresses him, but rather in how one reflects him. simply having faith that Jesus is God and that he will save all who believe that doesn't quite seem genuine to me.



> ... you might think my statements above are contrary to my other posts in other threads holding a very "black & white" view point of just about everything. Saying that much of what is going on with Israel and Palestine is indeed spiritual warfare, just as I believe the same is involved with Iraq. Calling something spritual warfare is simply stating that something "supernatural" is happening to cause the conflicts, it's not just Christian's or Jews hitting others on the head with the Bible or vise-versa.



well, i didn't quite buy into your 'black & white' sounding posts anyway. i guess i've come to know you're really a bit deeper than that, even if a bit quieter about your reflections than the results of them much of the time. i actually buy into this interpretation to an extent. i may not belong to any of these belief systems, but i do think that events in this world are effected by events in others. to some extent i believe that a constant 'battle' of dark and light is required to maintain the natural order of things. my biggest quandry is in determining if anyone in this conflict (leaders and gungho participants/supporters) is really part of the light. and if so, which one from an 'end days' perspective?

but from my view, i seem to be seeing it as the forces that engage in all of this as being forces of the dark. or to put this in more easternly terms with the yin yang symbol as focal point - that war and it's participants are the aggressive or masculine force (dark part - yang) and that those who are campaigning for peace are the passive or feminine force (light part - yin). and as the symbol so wonderfully illustrates, within each is a part of the other. while you see the battle as one to be won or lost, i see it more as one that must be gently maintained for the greater good. at neither point must either overwhelm the other.

i also have views that synthesize various mystic beliefs from judaism, christianity and various other religions that incorporate this view of maintaining balance as a vital part of God.

and while i know that you know, let me set any new comers straight on my religious beliefs. i am a pagan. what that means is far more complicated than i am going to get into here. i would also end up running down rabbit trails to do so. but to oversimplify, i am more concerned with my personal relationship with Diety than i am with any particular books on the subject or manmade institutions for worshipping. i see God as multifaceted and as such approach each facit with a unique focus - hence God becomes Gods. it's my own belief that the Romans were as quick to Christianize as they were because it was much simpler than dealing with multiple Gods. for me it is easier to relate to parts of God, than to an omniscient All. The hindus have it right - All Gods are One God.


so, to change the subject back a minute, here's an interesting web site that i ran across while looking for nostradamus stuff - http://nostradamus.freehomepages.com/ . i thought you and a few others around here might find this interesting. i've never seen nostradamus tied to such pro christian/anti- abortion views before and just found this ..how shall i put it...different. 

_*note- i do not expect to see this become a thread about abortion. we have had them already and anyone can start another if they feel the need to address it again. i personally am pro choice. i would like to keep this thread civil and intelligent with respect for each other and not denunciations of others beliefs nor the beliefs that might be linked to in the process. please open your minds long enough to realize and accept that if we are going to think different, we are going to be different* _


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

Independantly of the fact that some people think that they are superior forces or not, religions and prophecies were created and used by human either to explain why they are right, or to lower their fears of the unknown.

Humans are responible for their acts, for their decisions, for what they do and for what they don't do. Don't put the responsability on a god or on a destiny.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *IHumans are responible for their acts, for their decisions, for what they do and for what they don't do. Don't put the responsability on a god or on a destiny.*



Exactly.

The thing is, God already knows the decisions we will make, even before we make them, even before we were created. Thus, it is very easy for God to be prophetic on events because He knows just exactly how man's free will is going to play out.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

As I am writing, French muslim 'representatives' have joined in Évry to declare that they will pray and condemn all forms of violence in their prayers. In other words, they refuse to support any side of the warmongers.

My 2¢


----------



## ScottW (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *there is something terribly frightening in that statement. it implies that one can do anything one wants - commit the worst attrocities even - and still be ok in the eyes of God. it almost seems license for war and destruction. it also doesn't correalate with Jesus' story of the good samaritan. i've always taken that story to mean that works and faith are equal. that God doesn't deal in the petty semantics of how one addresses him, but rather in how one reflects him. simply having faith that Jesus is God and that he will save all who believe that doesn't quite seem genuine to me.*



Ed, one of the things I harp on and many will do the same as I do, it's not ME who is saying it, it's the Bible that says it.

Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;"

We see an example of this... Parable of Two Debtors, Luke 7, 40-50, "40___And Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he replied, "Say it, Teacher." 
  41___"A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred [2]   (25)   denarii, and the other fifty. 
  42___"When they (26)   were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?" 
  43___Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have judged correctly." 
  44___Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you (27)   gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 
  45___"You (28)   gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 
  46___"(29)   You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 
  47___"For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." 
  48___Then He said to her, "(30)   Your sins have been forgiven." 
  49___Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "(31)   Who is this man who even forgives sins?" 
  50___And He said to the woman, "(32)   Your faith has saved you; (33)   go in peace."

In response to your statement, yes you are correct. Someone who commits the worst possible sins in all the world, (ie Hitler) could, 5 minutes before he dies, ask for forgiveness and be saved. Salvation is a free gift, not earned. If Hitler didn't have the same options as anyone else, then salvation would not be a free gift, but would be earned (works).

Now, let's look at it differently, using Hitler again. *If* Hitler had been a Christian before he did everything he did, would he still have been saved? Yes. 

As Christians, we are judged by God and held accountable by God. Our "free pass" to heaven is only based on faith. Our rewards in heaven (of which we turn around hand back to God) are based upon our life as Christians.

The only unpardonable sin is not beliving in Jesus. Which really makes sense. If Jesus is the ultimate sacrafice for our sins and covers EVERYTHING, then there is nothing we can do, short of accepting that free gift, that will keep us form God.

I'll respond to more of your post later.

Scott


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *Exactly.
> 
> The thing is, God already knows the decisions we will make, even before we make them, even before we were created. Thus, it is very easy for God to be prophetic on events because He knows just exactly how man's free will is going to play out. *



If it's already written where is my freedom ?

If it's already written why should I fight (even for freedom) ?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 23, 2003)

PART 2

I went back and read the Good Samaritan portion of your comments and also the verses in the Bible, Luke 10:30-37... these verses speak nothing of salvation or imply (from what I read) that works save you.

Sorry for the horrible paste job... 

30___Jesus replied and said, "A man was (36)   going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 
  31___"And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 
  32___"Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 
  33___"But a (37)   Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 
  34___and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 
  35___"On the next day he took out two [1]   denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' 
  36___"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" 
  37___And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same." 

 This appears to be more of a "treat others with respect and take care of those in need" than anything else.

The Good Samaritan laws many states have, mirror this verse. There used to be much fear that if you stopped to help someone (ie car accident) that you could be sued if you moved them or did something wrong, that could have caused them more harm. The laws in Kansas (called the Good Samaritan Law) says that you can stop help someone out w/o fear of being sued, assuming you exercise good judgement. (ie, don't kick them around, but attempt to take care of them until emergency help arrives).


----------



## ScottW (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *If it's already written where is my freedom ?
> 
> If it's already written why should I fight (even for freedom) ? *



chevy... yes, this is one of those interest concepts it's hard to get ones head to wrap around. Even I, at times, have struggled with this in the past.

This is a long argument of pre-destination. If we are 'pre-destined' to accept Jesus while others aren't, then how can salvation be a free gift or choice? Are any of our choices real?

For me to understand it, I had to step back and think about it differently.

Let's say you are driving down the road and comes across the middle of the road and hits you head on. They are drunk, you die. (usual story here). 

The complete story and accident are retold in the Newspaper the following day. They talk about how you had left the grocery store and where heading home to your family after a long days work, where you were VP of Engineering and a great friend to many... and how this guy was drunk and had 15 DUI's and still wasn't removed off the streets... and his actions, caused your life to be taken.

In hindsight we see the complete story. 

Now, lets take God (imagine this if you will) that He can see everything that happens, past, present and future. He didn't script the life of the DUI guy or you driving down the road that day, but he saw it. He knew the choices that the DUI guy makes, and the choices you make, will at some point, bring you two head on with each other. He didn't stop it or change history or cause it... but He knew ahead of time, it would happen.

So, in essence, you do have a free will, God just knows the decisions you will make, not scripting them, but just knowing that you would make the type of decisions you would make.

Of course, to twist this up even more... you might here "prayer changes things". Well, how could my praying for someone to make it through a terrible accident really change the outcome, if the outcome is already set. Why waste my time on prayer for something I have no control over.

*this is hard for me to even grasp sometimes* But it is logical so that helps me out.

Lets go back to the story above...

chevy is driving down the road and gets hit on by a drunk driver. You don't die instantly, but are taken to the hospital in critical condition. I find out news of this, and I pray to God, asking him to spare your life (of which God may answer yes or no) and through my prayers, and hopefully others, you are life is spared, at least on this round.

Now you say, Scott... how can that be? How could prayer change things?

Well, let's go back to how God knows everything that is going to happen. Can he "step in" and change things... yes he can... just as He knows that you will be involved in a accident... he also knows that at a point in the future, I will pray for you, and He knows that at that moment in time, He will spare your life.

So, prayer does change things... but it doesn't mean that God didn't know I wouldn't prayer for you or that somehow history was changed (from his perspective) that day... but from your perspective and your family... those who prayed for you... spared you and thus history was changed.

I know that is weird and hard to grasp. But, that is the best I can explain it without repeating myself.


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

I'm not sure I want to continue this discussion on an open thread, because I was Christian, I know the retorics, I even teached it... and still I decided 10 years ago to follow another road.

I fully understand what you say. If (any) God would have this power, he (like us human) would be responsible for what He does and what He doesn't do. Therefore He would be responsible for all the goods and all the bads in life. And they are so many bads that it leaves no place for such a God.

I'm small, I'm just a man. I try to be great for my relatives, for my children, for my wife, for my collaborators. I try to be part of this crazy world. And I'm responsible for what I do and what I don't do. I'm far from perfect, I try to be better. The rest is outside of my reach.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 23, 2003)

Scott, what denomination are you affiliated with? The reason I ask is that some of the stuff that you have written doesn't fit in with what I have heard from the demoninations I have experienced.
I admit, being 13 years old, I probably don't know everything, but especially that part about Hitler doesn't ring true. I believe that he could ask for forgiveness five minutes before his death. I do not think, however, that if he would have commited all those atrocities if he had been one all along


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *I'm not sure I want to continue this discussion on an open thread*



let's just remember to keep this a discussion. it is not a debate. this thread is not about being right or wrong. it's about understanding how each of us applies our core belief system, i.e. their religious/spiritual beliefs, to the war and is able to reconcile those beliefs with the results of war. please refrain from stating one's views in terms of another's views being wrong. challenging or asking for clarrification of someone's beliefs is ok as long one does it without attacking the other person for having a different perspective. 
one of the first steps in human relationship is gaining understanding of our individual differences. my own feeling is that none of us have a monopoly on 'truth', but that each of us would be lost without some set of truths to guide us. Better to understand another's truths than to judge them without knowing how they arrived at them.


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *As I am writing, French muslim 'representatives' have joined in Évry to declare that they will pray and condemn all forms of violence in their prayers. In other words, they refuse to support any side of the warmongers.
> 
> My 2¢  *



that's quite interesting toast, but what does it have to do with your religious views and how they pertain to your views on this war? this thread is not about imposing or propagating your views on the war or news of how the different religious groups are reacting to it - supporting or not supporting. so any more posts like this that have nothing to add to this topic will get moved to one of the war threads where they belong.

think of this thread as being like a church in The Highlander - it is holy ground and fighting will not occur here.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *that's quite interesting toast, but what does it have to do with your religious views and how they pertain to your views on this war? this thread is not about imposing or propagating your views on the war or news of how the different religious groups are reacting to it - supporting or not supporting. so any more posts like this that have nothing to add to this topic will get moved to one of the war threads where they belong.*



I have no religious views. I was baptied as a Christian but I have renounced to faith aged 12. However, I am very interested in what religious people think. I have read Scott's contributions and yours with great interest.

This information I posted to give another angle. Islam and catholicism share some invariant aspects, some of them obvious, some less obvious:

- First, both religions are founded on the same Book: both believe in Abraham/Ibrahim. It is said in the Quran that all muslim must believe in the Ancient Testament to be a good muslim.

- Second, and I think this fits the thread, islam is also a religion of prophecies: fatwas and jihads are respectively direct and indirect prophecies. This condamnation of war by French muslim representatives was made in the form of a fatwa, I think.

- Last, Islam is also about salvation. War is unholy, _unless_ supported by religion itself. The last legitimate holy wars were fought during the XIIth century.

As this thread is called "War and Religion", and as this thread talked of prophecies and salvation, I thought this information about what goes on on the green side of faith could be of some value.

I do understand some explanations could have helped. Sorry


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *If it's already written where is my freedom ?
> 
> If it's already written why should I fight (even for freedom) ? *



Ahh, yes, pre-destiny and freedom.  If your every move has been pre-determined, then what difference does whether or not you have "true" freedom make?  The key here is not whether or not "true" freedom exists, it's our ability (or lack thereof) to find this information out.  If this information is NOT determinable, then individual freedom and predestiny are irrelevant.

Ask yourself this, if you "knew" that everything has been predetermined, how would you change the way you act if there were no way to determine what that future was?   Without this knowledge how would you be able to differentiate between the two?

The "I'm not gonna do anything if everything is predetermined" way of thinking makes absolutely no logical sense at all.


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *The big struggle in the middle-east is about Jesus. The jews missed the boat. Jesus came already, but they just didn't get it. They are still waiting on Him to return in glory, descending from Heaven. Christian's likewise, look forward to His "return" not His "first coming" as the Jews will see it.*



It's too bad that this forum is being used to criticize the religion of others, especially by its founder. I'm always eager to understand the beliefs of others, but that post amounts to proselytization.


----------



## edX (Mar 24, 2003)

i'm sorry Larry. i don't see how Scott is being critical of jews or Judaism. it is a pretty common tenet or assumption of christianity that the jews had their chance and didn't take it. in fact, christianity can only be realistically examined in the context of it's relationship to judaism. the same could be said for islam as well btw.

again, i am neither and would like to think i see this objectively. still it is sometimes hard to fully state one's own beliefs without sounding self righteous or proselytizing. let's try to show everyone a little leeway here and not get too critical of anyone's views unless they condemn someone else's directly. i assure, anyone who crosses that line will have their comments removed.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

Oh, Im not attacking Jews by any means... I am just stating, from a Christian perspective, factual information.


----------



## toast (Mar 24, 2003)

_Originally posted by ScottW_ 
*The big struggle in the middle-east is about Jesus. The jews missed the boat. Jesus came already, but they just didn't get it. They are still waiting on Him to return in glory, descending from Heaven. Christian's likewise, look forward to His "return" not His "first coming" as the Jews will see it.*

Ed and Scott, I do agree there is strictly no attack towards Jews here. But may I point out those two red bits which I found not very well formulated.

Of course you must not throw stones when living in a glass house: I am myself sometimes (some will say most of the time) very awkward in my posts. But still, I think that those bits may have been misinterpreted by Larry, this is why I allow myself to point your attention at them.


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *let's try to show everyone a little leeway here and not get too critical of anyone's views unless they condemn someone else's directly. i assure, anyone who crosses that line will have their comments removed. *



I'll show all the leeway in the world. I wasn't suggesting that anyone's comments be removed.

But to say "The Jews missed the boat" IS a condemnation of someone else's views, and it was troubling to see it here.

Not forbidden, just troubling.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

Stick out your toes and I will step on them. That is why it is good to wear shoes around here. The truth hurts sometimes. Im not about to whisper sweet nothings in someones ear so that I don't "condemn" their view point. 

But, honestly, I am just stating the obvious, they did miss the boat. A bad paraphrase of the Bible.


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 24, 2003)

If you prick me, do I not bleed?

If you step on my toes, do I not say "ouch?"


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

Scott: From your point of view, maybe. Maybe they did 'miss the boat' as you say, but obviously the Jews don't think they did, otherwise they would probably be Christians, wouldn't they?
Therefore, it is probably best that you don't say such things lest they be misinterpreted.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *Scott: From your point of view, maybe. Maybe they did 'miss the boat' as you say, but obviously the Jews don't think they did, otherwise they would probably be Christians, wouldn't they?
> Therefore, it is probably best that you don't say such things lest they be misinterpreted. *



Uhmmmm... okay? And who is making this a personal issue? I am sorry but it is not my job to tip-toe around everyone's view point. I am sorry ddlloyd... but your comments about my comments offended me, therefore I think you should not make them at all.

In fact, I am offended by your ANTI-WAR statements on our title, because I am anti anti-war. Therefore based upon your statement and others in this thread, it should be removed?

Okay, lets shut down the board, how dare anything anyone says offend anyone else.... oh, Im hurt.

No one is stopping anyone from expressing thier personal views, and as Ed agreed, my comments where not personal attacks, but my view point. If I think the sky is red, I should be allowed to think that, even if I am wrong. You are free to express your view points and to give "proof" that it's blue.

Scott


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 24, 2003)

Scott. Respectfully, I will say again: I don't think your comments should be removed. (Even if it wasn't your board!)

I guess the issue of censorship comes up a lot on message boards, which perhaps is why some have leapt to the conclusion that I was implying that the statement should be removed.

My original point was to let you know that some of your statements, to me, are offensive, because it discounts others' religious beliefs.

Your subsequent statements let me know quite clearly that you don't care. That's fine. It's not your agenda.

So I can only say that I spoke MY mind, and leave it at that.

I do know that we all have one very deeply held belief in common -- we all worship the same insanely great computer.


----------



## larry98765 (Mar 24, 2003)

P.S. And an insanely great board.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

larry98765,

Oh, I think what really annoys me more than anything...  is the "anti-war" protestors.  I call it the bandwagon approach. You made the comment you did, then wham... here comes two more people who have no real clue... but think... ah-ha... I stand for that, I don't know why, but I do.

I listened to a 17 year old girl on the radio, trying to give her reasoning for protesting the war, trying to debate an Iraqi who was for it. She had no clue or real reason for jumping on the bandwagon she was... and the Iraqi dude, man, he knew exactly, he we was speaking from experience.

I would bet $$$ that 95% of those who show up at a anti-war debate, don't really know all the details... they are only followers, with nothing better to do.

This thread was functioning fine... until... some un-named people decided to step in and defend something they don't know about. Heck, they don't even know if your a Jew or not, I don't either. Unless you say you are, Im not going to assume you are.

This is what frustrates me more about discussions on this board and others, is not the people w/ different views, the people who have no views and adopt them as they show up.

Scott


----------



## toast (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *A bad paraphrase of the Bible.  *



Maybe reformulation would solve it all ? 

I sincerely *do not* think Scott was delibately trying to offend anyone. And if his opinion offends some people, it may be his right, as far as the basic board rules are not trespassed. After all, many opinions are offense to some people.

I also think ScottW already apologized in some way by calling his own paraphrase a 'bad' one. In my humble opinion, gentlemen 

Don't you share this last point of view ?


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

Yes larry, good point! 
Scott: May I respectfully point out that there is a difference between my comments and yours: Mine mearly state my views, nowhere do they condemn yours.
Your statements, on the other hand, appear to 'put down' the Jews because they, in your opinion, 'missed the boat'. I don't know for sure, but I think they probably have valid reason why they do not accept Jesus as their 'Messiah'. Keep in mind that Jesus was, in fact, a Jew himself.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

Round & Round We Go...

 

Where we will stop... no one knows.

Once again... my previous post stands proven.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 24, 2003)

The religions are like underwear ... they both seem as sophisticated when you show the others what you have too publicly. I don't mind anyone believing in any religion, as long as what I believe or don't believe in, isn't being told "wrong". Live and let live. And the same for about all in politics (not just war)


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

Unless you believe in the true messiah, you are all wrong. 

There... did I offend anyone?


----------



## edX (Mar 24, 2003)

Larry et al- what i'd really like to hear are your beliefs and how they pertain to the war. offered not as rebuttal but as insight. While i would agree with Scott that everyone has the right to present any proofs of disagreement, i have asked that we not take that approach with this thread. 'proof' in a religious/spiritual context is a hard thing to offer. as of yet, science hasn't found much of it in this arena. 

i don't want anyone to be afraid to post here because it will open them to attacks and being forced to defend their position. we have plenty of threads already going for that approach. keep in mind that most religions (not all) start with the assumption that theirs is the one true way. we aren't here to debate whether that is true of any of them. but no one should be kept from expressing that as part of their belief either. better to have faith and confidence in one's beliefs than to worry about what others believe in contrast to them.


----------



## chevy (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *let's just remember to keep this a discussion. it is not a debate. this thread is not about being right or wrong. it's about understanding how each of us applies our core belief system, i.e. their religious/spiritual beliefs, to the war and is able to reconcile those beliefs with the results of war. please refrain from stating one's views in terms of another's views being wrong. challenging or asking for clarrification of someone's beliefs is ok as long one does it without attacking the other person for having a different perspective.
> one of the first steps in human relationship is gaining understanding of our individual differences. my own feeling is that none of us have a monopoly on 'truth', but that each of us would be lost without some set of truths to guide us. Better to understand another's truths than to judge them without knowing how they arrived at them. *



What followed your remark is what I tried to avoid... It's not you, it's just that speaking about things as sensible as religion on an open forum is quite difficult. But if we once have the opportunity to have a beer together, then I've no objection to go into further details about what I think and how I came to this type of thinking, and I would listen to your path...


----------



## acidtuch10 (Mar 24, 2003)

Man ~ this is interesting reading  ---  I love to sit back and read, and watch others take part and debate whats right / wrong, Offensive / not offensive.  Especially over such a controversial issue as religion and ethnicity


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by acidtuch10 _
> *
> Especially over such a controversial issue as religion and ethnicity *


Yes, one of the two things that should never be discussed in public. The other is politics.  Guess we don't go by that rule here do we? 
Honestly though, I usually don't try to get involved in this kind of thing. The problem is that some un-named parties seem to not be completely open to other people's views, and, as it seems to this person's method of thought, seem to try to downplay them.
I do, in-fact, agree with most of Scott's views, but I do not think that he should be 'imposing' them on other people of other religions who don't always agree with them.

*NOW,* I will post my stand on the subject.
First, a little background: I am a youth who is currently going through confirmation in a United Methodist church. I am having some issues with faith, but that is not something I wish to get into here. I shall write this as though I am a devout Christian.
My mother is/was a Quaker by upbringing, and as most of you probably know, Quakers are _completely_ anti-war. They are not even supposed/allowed to sign up in any of the armed forces. This gives me a strong anti-war foundation to build off of, and right now I am fairly strongly influenced by this.

My opinion is that you cannot use war to teach peace. If you want peace to must be prepared to cooperate with your enemy. Sure, you can go in and kill Saddam Hussein and tear down his government, but if you don't fix the underlying problem of anti-U.S. sentiment in most of the world (and particularly in the Mid-East) then the same thing is just going to happen all over again. I recently saw some figures to effect of only about 10% of the world's population, outside of the U.S. and Israel (which is, by the way, the only country in the world right now where the majority of the population supports the U.S. And this only because the U.S. has been perfectly _nasty_ to all of Israel's neighbors) support the U.S. and it's policies.

I do not go in for this 'preemptive action' thing from Mr. Bush, and I think that the arms inspections should have been allowed to continue. After all, Iraq had not, as of when the war started, attacked us, or anyone else. (And no, do not bring up the first Gulf War, etc.)
Now, if Iraq _had_ attacked us, then I think things would have been different.



> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> * I would bet $$$ that 95% of those who show up at a anti-war debate, don't really know all the details... they are only followers, with nothing better to do. *


I take offense to this. I am fairly certain that I know pretty much everything that is/has going/gone on in Iraq. Yet, I am still a confirmed anti-war protester.
I wear a button. It says 'War: not in my name' I have had many people come up to me and say 'Can I get one of those?' or 'I agree' or even just 'Thank you'. Things like that. I haven't had anyone come up and debate me or anything yet. (Maybe they just have the sense to keep quiet though  ) Now, I trust most of these people, and I do not think that they do not know the details. If anything, I would say that they probably know more about this thing than most pro-war people do. Of course most of these people are part of either my Quaker Meeting, or my Methodist church. Which leads me to my next point: I think that those Christians who are pro-war are significantly outnumbered by their anti-war brethren. Scott, you can argue this until the end of time, but I doubt that there are many people in either of my churches who are pro-war. Now assuming that these churches are even _close_ to a representation of most parishes out there, I would say that you are probably in a severe minority. I think that every person must make a choice some time or other. Having said that, I don't think you will be damned until the end of time because you are pro-violence. 

Bad things would probably have happened if Saddam had remained in power, but bad things will certainly (and are already) happen from this war. These things that will cause great damage that will not always be easy to repair. But I am sure that we, with whatever God we choose to worship (or not, as the case may be) will find a peaceful solution in the end!


Okay, I think I am finished now!


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

Hmm... Let's see. I hang around w/ a bunch of people who are by their nature anti-war... therefore, I will cast a stone and vote that MORE people are anti-war than those who are anti anti-war.

::rollingeyes::

Man, good thing I don't need some quarters, cause not much cents is being made here.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 24, 2003)

I've kept quiet up til now on this topic, but will now say my piece, for what it is worth 

The assumption is here that everyone professes a religion.  I find that very presumptuous.  Sure, most people do but a lot don't nor should religion be equated with morality as they are two separate things.  

The natural order of things is THE only way to approach life.  Darwin got real close to explaining the situation but he was troubled too much with his religion.  Anyone who believes otherwise is simply too scared to face the fact that there is no God.  That life on this planet is the beginning and the ending, that life itself, whether it be of a star, a dinosaur, a river, or man is simply part of a long process that will not and cannot be altered by the intervention of a divine being. 

How does war fit into the above?  As with any system there needs to be a balance.  When the wolves die off, the deer multiply until there is not enough food and then they begin to die off until balance has returned to that ecosystem.  War is how we as humans have always tried to maintain that balance and it can be military, economic, social or environmental.

We are animals first, "humans" second.  

The animalistic side of me wants to see every dictatorship in this world destroyed no matter how great the cost, the humanistic side of me says there are better ways to achieve it than the way GW has.


----------



## edX (Mar 24, 2003)

ugg- i would argue that you are still coming from a religious/spiritual point of view when reasoning this. there is no assumption that religion/spirituality must have a banner or organization or even a name. certainly atheisim is a 'religious' perspective. it just supposes the lack of a God rather than the existence of one. many athiests accept this as witnessed by previous discussions here in the past, while many do not. for those who do, i welcome their input. for those who don't and just want to gripe about this subject not being for them, too bad. i don't participate in threads about laptops, pdas and cellphones. it doesn't bother me though. 

i would also consider science a 'religion' if one uses it as their primary way of informing their views of what is and what is not. at any rate, i appreciate your contribution and feel it makes perfect sense in the context of this thread.


----------



## edX (Mar 24, 2003)

actually everybody but noah, his family, and 2 animals of each kind missed the boat.


----------



## Androo (Mar 24, 2003)

dlloyd: i didn't read your entire post. I will print it out and drink it before i go to bed to make me sleep. It is like warm milk.
nah, i'll read it now


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *Hmm... Let's see. I hang around w/ a bunch of people who are by their nature anti-war... therefore, I will cast a stone and vote that MORE people are anti-war than those who are anti anti-war.*



Ooookay, where to start....
First off, I did not say that anti-war people outnumber pro-war people, I said that I think that anti-war _Christians_ outnumber pro-war Christians. There is a major difference, please read things more carefully!
I guess this brings up the topic of who is really a 'Christian'. I believe that true Christians have a personal relationship with God. Therefore, although George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist, I don't believe that he has a personal relationship with God. Now, I don't _know_ this for a fact, but based on what he has been doing lately, this is my conclusion.



> *Man, good thing I don't need some quarters, cause not much cents is being made here.*


I won't even start in on your grammar 
However, this statement is implying that you think my opinions are worthless.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but as Ed said, this thread was started for posting opinions and not having to worry about guarding against those who would attack us for what we posted.
I therefore respectfully request that you please refrain from doing this.
I apologize if I made you feel like you had to defend yourself, it wasn't intended that way.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *Ooookay, where to start....
> First off, I did not say that anti-war people outnumber pro-war people, I said that I think that anti-war Christians outnumber pro-war Christians. There is a major difference, please read things more carefully!
> I guess this brings up the topic of who is really a 'Christian'. I believe that true Christians have a personal relationship with God. Therefore, although George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist, I don't believe that he has a personal relationship with God. Now, I don't know this for a fact, but based on what he has been doing lately, this is my conclusion.*



Well, considering that only God knows our hearts, I really don't know how you think that GW is NOT a born-again Christian. I would have to say that I do believe he is a Christian. He is a sinner, as I am as well. I see more actions in the public eye that show he is a Christian, than I do see that would point to that he is not. (haven't found any yet).

Scott


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

There was one thing that I forgot to say in my first and second posts: Scott mentioned that 
"We are not saved by our works, but by faith alone."
Now it is probably not necessary to this thread that I say this, but I do not agree (again!!  ) with this.
I believe that Mother Theresa, as nice as she was, could not have got into heaven if she didn't believe in God. 
Returning to the Scott's earlier example of Hitler, I think he could have become a Christian right before he died, and he would have gone to heaven, dispite all the atrocities he had commited. Unlike Scott though, I believe that you must 'live your speak' to some extent. In other words, I do not think that Hitler could have been a Christian _while_ he was doing those dastardly acts.
I guess this means that I don't think that you can get into heaven on faith alone if you are torturing people at the same time.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

dlloyd...

Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

I know, you said that. The thing is that I think you only quote those verses which serve you. I'm sure I could find verses in the Bible which support my side of the argument as well, but quoting those here would make me as bad as you.
I don't want to preach, I just want to state my views. Like this thread was originally intended for. Why can't you do that too, Scott?

_Edited for spelling_


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

I'm not the one stirring the pot here dlloyd. You make statements you can't back up. You find me verses that "support" your view point, I would be interested in viewing them.

BTW - All the verses I use are used in context of what they are written.

Also, you changed the statement earlier... I said *IF* Hitler had been a Christian and did all that bad stuff, he still would be saved.

The statement (of which you changed it too) was not, "If Hitler had been a Christian, would he had done those awful things?" I agree with you, I doubt that he would have, but that is a different discussion, not my original statement.

You twist and turn things around.

You opened a can of worms... time to starting eating. So, go ahead, post your verses, even if they "serve your purposes" as you say.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 24, 2003)

For everyone else in this thread... you may freely state your beliefs and opinions w/o feeling like you will need to defend yourself.

The certain gentleman who happens to claim to be a "Christian (pending)" who is discounting my views... must stand up to a debate among "similiarly grouped" view points.

Anyone who claims to be part of a "religion" or belief system, yet discounts it... really needs to back up what they are saying.

It would be like Ed saying... I'm a athiest, but I really don't agree with the athiest beliefs. Makes no sense.


----------



## kenny (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *I'm not the one stirring the pot here dlloyd. You make statements you can't back up. You find me verses that "support" your view point, I would be interested in viewing them.
> 
> BTW - All the verses I use are used in context of what they are written.
> ...



Ah, but Hitler did _claim_ to be a Christian in Mein Kampf -  http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

I guess, though, that by the precepts of Godwin's Law, this thread is already dead...


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 24, 2003)

My Dad is making me go to bed now, but know that I have read your posts, Scott, and will respond to them in full tomorrow morning.


----------



## macavenger (Mar 25, 2003)

I would make a distinction between what is required of us as Christians, and what is required for salvation. As Scott has pointed out, and quoted a number of good verses to support, salvation is by faith alone. Someone who has faith in Jesus, regardless of what they have done or will do in the future, is saved. Once saved, however, God does expect us to do good works. For example, Ephesians 2:10 says "For we are... created in Christ Jesus for good works..." please note that this comes right after verses 8 and 9 which state very clearly that "by grace you have been saved through faith...not the result of works" just so that there is no confusion. So essentially, while we are saved by faith, we were created to do good works.

To put it another way, which might make more sense, I would use the father/child analogy which appears many times throughout the Bible. The day I was born (actually, more like the day I was conceived, but that is totally immaterial  ) I became my fathers son. As I grew, he required certain things of me, such as cleaning my room, taking out the garbage, etc. Now I may or may not have actually done them, but regardless of this I was still his son. Even if I never cleaned my room a day in my life, I would still be his son. As Christians, our relationship with God is much the same. The day that we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior, God adopts us as his children. This adoption is permanent (although I do believe it is possible to give up your salvation, that is another discussion). However, like any good father, God does have certain things he requires of his children. One of these is doing good works. It is not a requirement to BE a child, but it is a requirement AS a child. And again, like any good father, if we do not live up to his requirements (as we won't) while he may be saddened and angered, and may even punish us for not living up to his requirements, he WILL NOT disown us.

So yes, good works are required, and you can find verses in the Bible to support this. However, they are not SALVATION requirements. That is by faith alone.

I hope I made some sense here. I don't do this sort of thing very often


----------



## lurk (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *I guess this means that I don't think that you can get into heaven on faith alone if you are torturing people at the same time. *





> _Originally posted by scottw _
> *Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks. *



/stirring pot

I think one of the problems here in all of this quoting and hypothesizing is that people are overlooking the bit about how one must "repent" their sins in order to be forgiven for them.  Just saying "forgive me" is not enough - you have to appreciate the fact you screwed up and accept your actions for what they were.

Now one thing that I think Scott's quotes imply is that you can do anything you want with the expectation of forgiveness for your sins.  "Oh it's OK I am a sinner and God knows that, sorry."  This I think is what dlloyd is objecting to since it doesn't seem right, somebody is getting off on a technicality.  But actually in the absence of some epiphany later on such premeditation precludes repentance - you may say your sorry but you don't mean it - you don't really repent.

When you think about it repentance is really a high mark to reach.  Keep in mind that being sorry for having to face the consequences of your actions, be it through hellfire or afterschool detention, is not the same as repenting the actions themselves.  


-Eric


----------



## edX (Mar 25, 2003)

kenny - this thread was predestined to make mistakes as soon as it started. i knew that. yet one more resaon i asked that this not become a debate about 'facts'. of course adding in other info and alternative interpretations as you and others have done is a good thing i think. still, the question is about personal beliefs, not 'facts'.

so kenny, macavenger, and lurk - what are your answers to the original question(s) i asked?


----------



## chevy (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *dlloyd...
> 
> Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks. *



ScottW, you are not quoting the Bible. You are quoting one English translation of one version of the Bible.

I would suggest that all Christian (and Christianity interested people) study a little bit of (ancient) Hebrew. This is full of information. The way the language has been formed, it's capabilities and limitations that are different from modern English or French should lead us to some distances with direct quoting.

(I don't pretend to be an expert in languages, and for sure I'm not an expert in ancient Hebrew... )


----------



## ScottW (Mar 25, 2003)

Hebrew would cover uhmm... The Old Testament, and Greek would cover the new. So, I guess no matter how you look at it, whether Greek or Hebrew... conversion must be done for either or.

I would venture to guess that you will not find enough difference between translations of languages to make a huge difference, like discover that Jesus was really a rock found in the grand canyon. 

BTW - I have my Strongs Concordance, and I do have a Greek version of the new Testament. But, as they say, it's really all greek to me.


----------



## kenny (Mar 25, 2003)

Funny, I had to go back to re-read your original question, Ed... The threads do take on a life of their own, don't they... 

There were, as I read it (correct me if I'm wrong here, Ed), 2 questions/ideas that started this all off - 1. Reconciling personal religious belief and war, and 2. Prophecies of current events - could this be the proverbial 'It'?  That's a lot of ground to cover...

For the first question, it's probably important to understand that I am an atheist.

Now, you've equated science to religion, which I'm going to have to disagree with you on. The strict definition of atheism is a "lack of belief in any god." This also usually refers to all things supernatural, which eliminates pretty much any belief system that is founded on the existence of the supernatural.

Now, theism (the belief in a god or gods), by definition, requires faith for whatever religion that builds around it to work. That is, being a Christian wouldn't really work to well if you doubted the existence of God (that's pretty much what began the end of my Christianity). Science, on the other hand, requires no such faith. Indeed, by its very nature, science requires proof, rendering notions of faith unnecessary.

If it were as simple as this, I'd be done, but these things are often not so simple. There is an alternative view on atheism, wherein the proponents (and, I'm not one of them) count atheism to include the belief that there is no God. It's a subtle, but critical difference, because, as you've pointed out, the second definition _does_ carry with it some notion of belief, where as the first does not. Let me restate them side-by-side, to clarify their difference:

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

I identify with the first definition, not the second. It doesn't invalidate the second definition for some people; it just doesn't apply to me. I don't have a belief system. I do have opinions, which if you must equate to beliefs, fine, but understand that when I say "I believe such and thus," it's based on my understanding of the _facts_, not on an already-established belief system (faith).

What has this to do with the war?

Having no belief in the supernatural/gods/whatever, also means that I do not believe in the notion of an afterlife. This means (to me), that life is that much more precious, since we only get one go at it, and what we do in _this life_ is critical. Mayhem, destruction, and war are in essential conflict with the ideal of preserving life. It would seem that Saddam is responsible for his own brand of mayhem, and there have already been threads about the rights and wrongs of this war, the responsibility of the UN, and US's unwillingness to respect the UN security council. But I'd sweep that all aside, simply putting to you all that the war is unnecessarily costing lives (on both sides) where a peaceful, diplomatic solution was possible. The _probability_ of such a solution is, again, a debate for other threads.

The second question, regarding prophecy, is similarly complicated:

I hold that prophecy is a very dodgy business. It's far to easy to apply the ramblings of a prophet to modern events, simply because the prophecies themselves are generally so vague. After 11 September, there were a lot of misquotes of Nostradamus, attributing to him the prediction of the carnage of that day, but the actual text is a little less clear:

*Century 1, Quatrain 87*
 Earth-shaking fire from the center of the Earth.
 Will cause the towers around the New City to shake:
 Two great rocks for a long time will make war,
 And then Arethusa will color a new river red. 


*Century 2, Quatrain 89*
 One day the two great leaders will become friends,
 Their great power will be seen to increase:
 The new land will be at the height of its power,
 To the bloody one the number reported. 


*Century 4, Quatrain 16*
 The free city of Liberty made servile,
 Made an asylum for corrupt ones and dreamers:
 The King changed, to them not so vehement:
 From one hundred will become more than a thousand. 


*Century 5 Quatrain 65*
 Suddenly arrived, the terror will be great,
 The principal players in the affair are hidden away:
 And the lady in the hot coals will no longer be in sight,
 Thus little by little will the great ones will be angered. 

(taken from http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/91101.htm)

The thing to get here is that Nostradamus does not specify in C1Q87 what the New City is, nor that there were just 2 towers. Indeed, Nostradamus died in 1566, long before New York was established. York, NY's namesake, BTW, could not have been considered a New City even in Nostradamus' time; it was founded during the Roman occupation, in 71-73 CE (http://wawa.essortment.com/yorkenglandhis_nyz.htm). C2Q89 is completely nonsensical, given that our stated objective is to kill Saddam if he does not leave, C4Q16 could have just as easily applied to Paris in 1940 (funny how the Nazis keep turning up in the thread), just as C5Q65 could have just as easily applied to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942.

With the right "interpretation", I think any prophecy can be made to seem that it applies to contemporary events, and as such, should be treated with the greatest skepticism. Even Jesus was attributed to saying "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" (Mt7:15-16, NIV). Likewise, picking out modern events from the thornbushes of prophecy is not likely to bear any useful fruit.

I apologize for the the sheer bulk of this post, but it turns out I had rather more to say than I'd originally thought...


----------



## ScottW (Mar 25, 2003)

dlloyed,

Before you go off and reply, I am not attacking you, I am challenging you to provide a backup for your beliefs. I grew up in the Lutheran Church, went through confirmation at age 13. Although I knew all the stories in the Bible, and all the different view points that seemed to radiate around me (for & against) and if you would have asked me, do I believe Jesus existed, I would have said yes, and if you would have asked me do I believe in creation, I would have said a "form of it".

But, one thing I never discovered until I was 18, that I really knew very little about the Bible, I didn't know how it applied to me personally, and although I always called myself a Christian, I never really was. 

I don't know your circumstances nor am I challenging whether you are or not, only God knows your heart.

When someone, while defending themselves or challenging my beliefs say in essence, "What *I* believe", without providing the "why" (ie, Bible verses to back it up) really become nothing but personal opinion.

If you will notice, I am not challenging any other "non-Christian" view points, because that was not the reason for this thread. 

Anyhow, I want you to know this before you respond, that I am really not a mean grump... I am just asking you to prove yourself. It was through "proving" my view point (of which I really couldn't) when I was 18 that I discovered how inadequate and how limited my knowledge of the Bible was... that brought me to a saving knowledge.

I always enjoy a challenge or debate... and I enjoy more being the odd one in the bunch... because I find it fun. But, I am more times the odd one in the bunch just because of where I stand, than choosing to stand where everyone else is not.

Scott


----------



## edX (Mar 25, 2003)

kenny - thanks for having 'so much to say'. well articulated and definitly addresing the questions. while i can respect your own position about the religiousity of your views, they still answered my question very appropriatly and i had definitly hoped at least one person would present that viewpoint. 

i'll just add that i agree with most of what you said about predictions and prophecies. i also think they must be taken with skepticism, as most things in life should, even some so called 'scientific facts'.  We are constantly discovering that our knowledge is limited to the 'layer' of something that we are observing and that the next layer offers new evidence of a contradictory phenomenon. 

there is a side of me that says that prophecies or visions are real and have a very scientific explanation if we simply looked at the right layers of the phenomenon - something along the idea of Jung's collective unconscious. in that context i believe that they present possiblities/probabilities rather than unchangable events. a case in point - a friend had a dream in which she was stabbed in a bar during the course of playing pool. a couple of nite's later this dream began to take shape in reality. however, just prior to the point where her knife wielding attacker stabbed her, she changed the outcome by taking an offensive posture, rather than the defensive one she had maintained in the dream. granted, part of the 'proof' here lies in my trust of my friend to be truthful. but i have also had my own 'visions' and have seen other examples of this, my friend's example just makes a better story. among the things i have done in my life is work as a phone line psychic. while i believe that 90% of that is more a cooperative result of the caller's contribution, there is a reasonable amount of 'intuition' and unexplained phenomenon. i was often surprised at how accurate my information was even though it made no sense to me.


----------



## chevy (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *
> ...
> 
> BTW - I have my Strongs Concordance, and I do have a Greek version of the new Testament. But, as they say, it's really all greek to me. *


 

All based on the canonic Bible. Not the catholic one, I presume. And not augmented by the Thomas and other apocriph books that were eliminated between 400 and 800 when the original church and its Pope decided to choose the books to form the Bible. (Indeed were eliminated some books that were redoundants, some that were considere too unrealistic, some that were considered to go against the general message, and some that were not in favor of the current Pope but more in favor of the asian part of the early church).

This is one choice made by one tradition (indeed made by several traditions).

Ok... enough facts. Believes are not based on facts (it would be too easy).

My intimate conviction is that the human being is the part of an evolution that has rules but no own will. As such it is responsible for what it does (and doesn't do) with the limited power that it received.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 25, 2003)

Okay, I could have posted a post about three pages long debating some of the facts in here that have been recently posted, but looking back on Ed's original post, I have decided not to. (I really could! I'm not just saying this to get off the hook)
I don't want to continue posting things that are off the topic of this thread. If anyone wants to continue debating this topic, I will be glad to start a new thread, but I do not think that this is the correct place to continue on this topic.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 25, 2003)

It's too late now... get to quoting the Bible dlloyd.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 25, 2003)

You're out of luck Scott, I don't intend to stoop to your level. Sorry!


----------



## Arden (Mar 25, 2003)

This thread has really made me stop and think about what I really believe.  I am Jewish, and as such, I do not believe we "missed the boat" but we're waiting for the right boat to come, which it hasn't yet.  I could give you lots of information about why Jesus is/was not the Meshiach, but this is not the place for it and I don't want to delve into a deep theological debate like that.

In response to Ed's original postage, I am opposed to having to fight an unnecessary (and possibly losing) battleespecially since I turn 18 this Saturday.  However, now that we are at war, I think it would be extremely stupid to just pull out because that would merely push Saddam on, making him even more arrogant and making us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Since we are at war, we need to strike hard to take him out, even if we lose a few casualties of war in the process.  Since we seem to be losing more troops, equipment, etc. to noncombat means, the Iraqi armies may pose less of a threat than we all thought; however, we must not become lax in our efforts.

I come at this from a logical, reasoning, scientific standpoint.  I consider myself to be a semi-atheistic Jew; I have seen no hard evidence to prove that God exists, and I can't just take His existence on faith alone.  I consider myself Jewish more in the sense of community than spirituality.  Jews are people who practice certain traditions, celebrate certain holidays, speak Hebrew (not everyone, but it's our language), and so on.  I am not a big prayer man, so this is my view on religion.  I also feel slighted when people claim that Jesus is/was God, the son of God, or holy, and that that's the only way it is.  I don't mind you having your beliefs, but I don't want you to assume that they're the only beliefs.

On a side note, and completely off-topic: Scott, can we send cash through the mail to make a site contribution, or do you want Paypal/a check?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *You're out of luck Scott, I don't intend to stoop to your level. Sorry! *



Sounds like a easy way out to me. I'll remember that next time I don't have anything to back up what I am mouthing off about on here.

Scott


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 27, 2003)

Think what you like, Scottie!
Wow, lets see, three days later you finally notice...


----------



## ScottW (Mar 27, 2003)

Umm, wow, let's see... I was out of town.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 27, 2003)

That would explain things


----------



## Arden (Mar 27, 2003)

Oh geez, can't you take it somewhere else?


----------



## ScottW (Mar 27, 2003)

arden, at this point, dlloyd and I are teasing each other. Even though we may not realize we are doing it, we really are.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 28, 2003)

Oh, I realized. 
It's just that Scott is about the only person on this board who is willing to lower themselves to this level and start word-slinging about it. 

Man I feel in a forgiveing mood right now! Must be that domain name I just registered.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 28, 2003)

Yea, dlloyd has an issue with dragging things out, always having to have the last word. Especially when he doesn't have any way to back them up, from a thelogical standpoint. 

Of course, he might think otherwise, and that is perfectly fine.


----------



## kenny (Mar 28, 2003)




----------



## dlloyd (Mar 28, 2003)

_Who_ has an issue with dragging things out?
If I remember correctly, _you_ were one who brought this topic up three days later...


----------



## toast (Mar 28, 2003)




----------



## Arden (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Oh geez, can't you take it somewhere else? *


Read it again, guys...


----------

