Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:08:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated,
|
I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me--
I have no idea as to his motivations.
|
Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were
politically motivated?
|
I don’t know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I
wouldn’t have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated).
I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has
direct access to God without the need of intercessors. So any “Church
Leader” that “speaks out” in my mind is on his/her own and is taking
advantage of their free speech rights rather than as some spokesperson for
the Church as a whole.
|
That’s interesting, but it does not explain your “political” comment,
nor does it answer my question.
|
lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church
leaders’ comments were politically motivated?
|
I do. But you now say “I wouldn’t have any idea as to their motivations”
| |
To which political comment of
mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders’
motivation-- I already answered that. I’ll put it another way: How the hell
should I know?? Ask them!
|
It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say “I wouldn’t have
any idea as to their motivations”!
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
or that killing tens of
thousands in Iraq was a political decision?
|
Many died in Iraq because of SH’s refusal to abdicate his rule.
|
He was under no obligation to step down.
|
You are correct. We threatened him. He thought we were bluffing; turns
out we weren’t.
|
What right did Bush have to threaten him?
|
As leader of the US, he is sworn to defend the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. SH was an enemy and a threat to the security
of the US.
|
I’m just not clear on what the threat was. He was at his weakest when Bush
invaded.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
If he had
stepped down, there would have been no need to invade in order to force
him to leave. In the end it was a decision of national security (of the
US)
|
Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be
starting to wear by now?
|
This topic is pretty well beaten, Scott. If you want to consider the whole
WMD thing a “lie”, that is your right. To me lying implies deliberate
deception; everybody assumed SH still had WMDs (and that is not to say
that they could still turn up in Syria or something).
|
Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little
intelligence fiefdom?
|
Everyone, including Blix and the rest of the world.
|
Most thought he had WMD; not all agreed he was a threat! Understand the
difference!
| |
| |
Having WMD was not the real problem; it was the threat they
supposedly represented.
|
All WMDs are a threat; the degree depends upon the person or persons in
control of them.
|
...and on an ability to deploy them rapidly. Before the war we knew he could not
deploy them in any reasonable time frame.
| |
| |
What was the threat from a man who could not
even police his own borders and had no real links with “international
terrorism”?
|
If you can’t control your borders, then bad people can use your country for
terrorist training.
|
...and we made sure he could not control is borders!!!!
| |
What is a “real link”? The fact is that the guy
supported and sponsored terrorism.
|
In March 2003 which international groups was he supporting?
| |
| |
| |
Even in hindsight I believe that SH’s deposition was still a good thing
because he was a menace and a friend of terrorists. I believe it is
totally appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who
aid and abett terrorists. (Please shock me and refrain from mentioning
Israel...;-)
|
I’m glad SH is gone, but what is now in his place looks 100 times
worse.
|
I’m astounded by that statement. You must be getting bogus information.
Try and obtain information directly from people who are there.
|
You mean Bush’s propagandists?
| |
Aside from a
few “hot spots”, Iraq is moving forward and making great progress.
| |
I’m not sure that the world is a safer place now that he is gone...
|
Well, I do. I don’t think Iraq will be sponsoring terrorism in the near
future; they will certainly be fighting against it, because the terrorists
hate freedom.
|
Groups like the ANC loved freedom... and countries like the UK and USA did
their best to deny them their rights.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Show me specifically where I said that their comments were politically motivated. I think I specifically said that a) they weren't speaking as Christian leaders, because they have no authority (that I recognize anyway) to speak on behalf of (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church leaders' comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders' motivation-- I already (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
