Buffman

Ab_Normal

Thank you. Accuracy is not one of Rad's fortés.

Rad

He was not murdering them, which is my interpretation of the commandment

Your "interpretation?" Since when did you decide that your Godhead was incapable of saying what he means and meaning what he says? What other "interpretations" do you have to share?

It is hypocritical to say "Amie, God wants us to kill our enemies," and then interpret the scripture legalistically when it suits.

Please get your act together! I will gladly take credit for what I post, but not for the posts of others.

Make up your semi-principled, legalistic mind and we'll talk.

Why does that seem to read like the remark of a desperate individual? One who must resort to derogatory innuendo when they lack the accurate knowledge and logic to present their opinions in a reasoned and calm manner? IMHO, you do not serve your Master, or yourself, well with statements like that.

BTW, we note that it is a Christian who wants to do something about nutballs with nuclear weapons, while atheists whine about it. Yes, I am against a preemptive strike (depending on evidence) but a rational person would think Bush's initiative would be welcomed here, considering atheists depend on human inititative to solve major dilemmas.

Perhaps you know something that no one else does. What "nuclear" weapons? It is Kim Yong-Il of North Korea that has the "nuclear" weapons, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq. It was the government of that other "good" Christian President Ronald Reagan (and his "good" Christian VP, GWB), that supported Saddam's war effort against Iran...when the Iraqi "first" used chemical weapons of mass destruction against the Iranian soldiers and then their own Kurds. Where was your Christian outrage then...and during the subsequent Irangate?

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/use.htm

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/e.../m0020627.html

(Extracts)
The Congressional Joint Investigative Committee reported in November 1987 that the president bore ultimate responsibility for allowing a cabal of zealots to seize control of the administration's policy, but found no firm evidence that President Reagan had actually been aware of the Contra diversion. Reagan persistently claimed to have no recall of events, and some evidence was withheld on grounds of national security. The hearings were criticized for finding that the president was not responsible for the actions of his subordinates.

Former defence secretary Caspar Weinberger was pardoned in 1992 by President George Bush to prevent further disclosures.

(End extracts)

(Personal, off-subject, political commentary)

Doesn't that last item sound much like what this current administration is doing regarding the ENRON-Energy, and so-called Iraqi smoking gun, evidence...."National Security considerations prohibits release of the information to keep the American public accurately informed about the actions being taken in its name"...but it is just fine to send our military into battle because we trust GWB Jr. Get real or you go into the streets of Baghdad and hope that you come back alive simply because you accept everything GWB says on faith.

Saddam should have been removed in 1991 when we had the full support of the world. Why wasn't he? Who actually controlled the decision not to take him out? GWB, not the U.N. The U.N. will not be able to stop this GWB from taking out Saddam regardless of how many people have to die to successfully accomplish his family's 'Jihad." Just ask yourself how many other countries have weapons of mass destruction that might sell them, or lose control of them, to terrorist organizations.

We live in a very dangerous world. Accurate facts, not blind faith, are the keys to our survival as a nation.

(End political commentary)

Sue Sponte

That christian IS a nutball with nuclear weapons.

Ab_Normal

Glad to help, Buffman. Most of the time I feel too intimidated to contribute, but nits I can pick (oh, wait, that's another thread down in Misc Disc).

Radorth

Oh I say these things quite calmly Buffman. And let me calmly say I don't think you are worth arguing with, mainly because you keep asking the same simplistic, rhetorical and pedantic questions which I've answered a several times. You post attacks on my integrity and make assertions about what I said 3 months ago with no evidence, quotes or examples. You consistently misrepresent me and you come across as incredibly patronizing and snooty.

So if you get any more responses from me, they will greatly resemble your own. Or we can just stop responding to one another. It's totally up to you.

Rad

Dr Rick

pot, kettle, black

Radorth

And this pot will be holding up a mirror again as the kettle has no clue.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

This is not meant as an attack Radorth. It`s a serious question as I`m honestly wondering what it will take to stop this daily nonsense and tit for tat bickering you never seem to get tired of.

From what I can tell you believe we are ALL hypocrites,but unlike you,WE refuse to admit it.
You also seem to believe that we are ALL sinners,but unlike you,WE refuse to admit it.
You also seem to be saying that we ALL have faith,but unlike you,WE refuse to admit that we accept evolution simply on "faith" and this faith of ours is no different than your faith in a Christian god-made world.

I`ll go on,but first I`d like you to tell me if my above observations are correct.

Thank you.

Joseph Backs

I believe the constant tittering is a result of the young Rad having no interest in the bible he so lauds, afterall, if he did, he would not spend considerable amounts of his time and effort on yipping and whining on this site while consistently having nothing to say, really.

Rather, such time would be spent treasuring the name of Jesus and holding the golden chords attached to his Mother Mary lockets tightly to his yearning breast.

He would be praying for our souls, he would be thinking on heaven, he would be remembering the last time he felt the overwhelming wave of serenity that whispers in brisk breezes his humble name, calling him to weep and scratch at the locked doors of any of many Catholic churches.

He would be reciting the good word, and not blaspheming both god, and nonsensically reiterating his ridiculously obscure interpretation of even the weakest of philosophical arguments.

Is it not so?

sincerely (hoping others will speak and not rad)

J.B.

Joseph Backs

It's true. Aimie is a ski-diiving temptress who wants us to maim.

J.B.

Joseph Backs

By the way, Rad should not be spouting about his religion on this thread. He should be spouting his philosophy (god forbid). And it should make "sense" sans desperate bible touting.

sincerely

J.B.