(V): Funny how times have changed.... if it was Bush and not Obama, seriously???

Czuch: If you are referring to Bush I then yes.. funny old world. After the war to free Kuwait the Iraqi's were encouraged to rebel with the understanding they would get support when they did. They didn't get the support.

So not exactly the same.

""....it's absolutely laughable. i watch MSNBC every now again for entertainment purposes... a majority of their talking heads actually support obama's actions in libya. unbelievable. now on the other side, most talking heads at fox of course condemn obama's actions. it just shows are easy this is to spin to match one's political agenda.""

“Yes, Lincoln had the Civil War. FDR faced the Great Depression, Nazi Germany, Pearl Harbor. But look at the daunting set of challenges President Obama faces today: wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya; a runaway deficit, unemployment at record levels, a health care reform bill that special interests are trying to destroy — all of that, plus the irrational hatred of the bigots in the Tea Party who want nothing more than to see him fail. All of that has arrived at, at the Oval Office, at the same time. He deserves a Nobel Prize just for showing up each day.”
— Tom Brokaw on NBC’s Today, April 1

Religious zealot Terry Jones wanted to burn the Koran to commemorate the 9-11 attack. After much criticism and even Robert Gates talking ot the man, he backed down.

But then this true Christian decided to burn the Koran after all. He and his zealot church buddies decided to put the Koran on trial and burn it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/terry_jones_finally_got_that_k.html

Here is an excerpt of the article:

"Sunday's event was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found "guilty" and "executed."

The jury deliberated for about eight minutes. The book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the center of the church, and Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter."

Now, there is a really fair trial, with the accused soaking in kerosene for one hour before the jury passed its veredict.

"Notably, nobody really cared this time. Only 30 people were in attendance, and the media didn't even notice until today."

The reporter who wrote that was unaware that people in other countries do pay attention. As a result of this pointless book burning, a protest erupted in Afghanistan. The protest started peaceful and turned violent when the protesters approached a UN compound and armed guards tried to stop them. The protesters quickly took the weapons from the guards and killed 8 UN workers inside.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_4

Way to go Pastor Terry Jones. You are a real Christian hero. I suppose "We told you so" will mean nothing to him and he will sleep soundly knowing that his actions caused the deaths of 8 people.

(V): Doesnt even mention that Bush had 9/11.... makes me want to puke the media hypocrisy!

Übergeek 바둑이: he will sleep soundly knowing that his actions caused the deaths of 8 people.

Really?? He pulled the trigger? What is it with liberals who just wont hold anyone accountable for their own personal actions?

So when someone in Afghanistan burns an American flag, it is their fault that I kill some innocent Afghan over here??

Czuch: What has 9/11 got to do with Kuwait? Apart from being an excuse for the Americans to clean away their previous lackey Saddam and get a good oil supply.

Czuch: He knew the reaction that the burning of the Koran would produce. Their would be a similar reaction amongst zealot Christians if some Muslims held a trial for the Bible and then judged it guilty and burnt it.... .. yet there have been attacks on some Mosque's here based on some other Muslims being bad men.

Artful Dodger: Did the Republicans announce Palin was running for VP on April 1st?

Artful Dodger: Yes... many many cases over the last 1400 years odd since Muslims have been on the scene.

Artful Dodger: So.. you are saying you have emotions and react to people dissing your idols?? Dan... I thought that was crazy talk!!

Artful Dodger: I thought you were over Palin?

Artful Dodger: Compared to whom.. The pastor?

"some made up book by some false prophet." .. some Christian?

Artful Dodger: You must live in a strange place for that to be true!!

Oh btw... Ever hear of the Army of God?

One of those wacko pro life groups that think wacking people is justified.

.. ie anyone can distort a religion.

(V): He knew the reaction that the burning of the Koran would produce.

So what?? Does that absolve them of their own actions?? Thats the point.... we are each responsible for our own actions. He is his own idiot for burning it, you could blame someone else for inflaming him couldnt you?

(V): What has 9/11 got to do with Kuwait? Apart from being an excuse for the Americans to clean away their previous lackey Saddam and get a good oil supply.

Nice to see you havent lost your ability to confuse yourself..... The point had nothing to do with 9/11 and Kuwait.... it was simply that he mentioned what other presidents had to endure, yet he didnt mention anything about Bush enduring 9/11, why would he intentionally leave that one out?

Czuch: After the cancelling of the previous burning knowing the reaction..... I'd call him more than an idiot. Yes what the rioters did was wrong and the killing was their doing. But why burn the Koran knowing that it will cause riots? As a 'man of God', I would thought he would have had some sense.


"yet he didnt mention anything about Bush enduring 9/11, why would he intentionally leave that one out?"


9/11 was not a military or economic disaster, or a war. It is not the same.

Artful Dodger: Utter rubbish. The Koran forbids suicide on pain of ending up in Hell. It only states that regarding a war or battle their are rules of combat.. and killing innocents is not allowed. I remember going over this with you and some other people years ago.

As mentioned.. The army of God and other violent pro life groups have killed, maimed, kidnapped, arson and used fake anthrax letters and other stuff all in the name of God.

... perversion, just like the Witch hunters of Christian past and a certain passage to do with getting a woman preggo whilst not in wedlock!

(V): 9/11 was not a military or economic disaster, or a war. It is not the same.

It is the same in the sense that it is something that placed a serious burden and focus of attention on the President.

Artful Dodger: No... you are. If it was so as you say.. why isn't the whole of the Muslim world at a state of war with the rest of us?

It seems on most Muslim minds recently was the outcome of the cricket.

Czuch: On attention grabbing.. granted. Yet that only logically led to Afghanistan.. he seemed to lose focus after that!!

(V): But why burn the Koran knowing that it will cause riots?

There you go again.... do you know what the word 'cause' means? Nothing I do will cause a riot... only the people who actually riot 'cause' the riot themselves. We are each solely responsible for our actions. Its called personal responsibility, and liberals love to avoid it and to place false blame to make sure everyone feels so good about themselves.... 'its not your fault, it was that preacher that caused you to riot'!

Czuch:

> What is it with liberals who just wont hold anyone accountable for their own personal actions?

The point is this. He had been asked not to burn the Koran because he would put other people at risk if he did so.

This reminds me of the Wikileaks man. He is accused of putting secret services people at risk for releasing those documents. Now he is crucified in the media and faces trials and prosecution of all sorts. So far nobody has died because of Wikileaks.

But this pastor was specifically told that if he burned the Koran it would undermine all the efforts in the Middle East. He was personally requested not to do it by Robert Gates. He went ahead and did it knowing fully well what would happen.

Maybe we can call him a provocateur. But his provocation did have lethal consequences. That is what I am trying to get at. It is like instigating somebody to violence. Of course the insurgents who infiltrated the protest are to blame for the killings, but the pastor should at least accept that he is responsible for trigerring that violence when there was really no need to do so.

Czuch: Yes I do know what the word means. It's like with the Orange loyalists from NI... when they did their marches they knew they would cause and get a reaction. They knew innocent lives by their actions would be at risk or lost.

But they didn't care.

Do you understand care?

Artful Dodger:

> They burn our flag. If American't retaliated and killed a bunch of Muslims, I doubt you'd post something blaming the Muslims.

I think that terrorists are the second biggest idiots in the world. The only ones more stupid than them are satanists. If somebody burns the American flag, what is the point? It changes and achieves nothing.

> The pastor, idiot that he is, has every right to burn the Koran.

Then anyone has the right to burn anything. If somebody wants to burn the American flag, then they have a right to do so according to that logic. But then, burning books is the recourse of the ignorant and the fearful, just like flag burning is.

> He could be ignored. But the radical idiot Muslims think less of innocent lives than they do some made up book by some false prophet. They are nuttier than that pastor every was or will be.

I know a lot of good Christians who thinks it is OK to send war planes and send 400,000 Iraqis to their deaths. But then I think Jesus did not exist, and if he existed, he was a false prophet too, because the actions of Christians show that the Bible is wrong and made up of a bunch of self-righteous lies.

In fact, maybe I should just host my own Bible burning trial. I will put the Bible on trial, and hold it guilty of having caused a hell of a lot of religious wars, not just between Christians and Moslems, but also between Catholics and protestants. Then having found it guilty of war crimes, i will incinerate the Bible with kerosene. Then when Christians get mad and protest I will say: Why are you angry? The book was written by a false prophet, or even worse, false god.

If I went downtown here and burned a Bible in our central square, I am convinced I would be dead within minutes, because when it comes down to it, there are Christians who are fanatics too and who act out of fear and ignorance, and who will justify killing in the name of higher principles.

As an atheist, all I see are religious hypocrites. People who claim higher moral principles, but who conveniently put them away for the sake of money and power. That pastor burned the Koran, not to prove that he is a good christian, but for the notoriety he would gain. He did not care if people got angry or died because of his actions. He got his 15 minutes of fame, and 12 people are dead because of it.

(V): On attention grabbing.. granted. Yet that only logically led to Afghanistan.. he seemed to lose focus after that!!

Again, off the point of the topic. The point was that he was praising Obama and these others in the face of trying circumstances, and left out Bush and 9/11... was 9/11 not enough of a trying circumstance to be mentioned?

Czuch: .. actually you changed the point to this. I recon a certain Hurricane was more as such a trying circumstance.

9/11 was just a wake call to the matter of the USA leaving loose cannons around.

(V): Nobody can say my actions caused you to do something, and it is not my responsibility what you do... these guys could have chosen not to riot if I do burn the Koran and they can choose to riot if I dont burn the Koran... its their ultimate choice, and they chose to excuse their actions on the fact that some guy burned a Koran, and their actions have no excuse!

Czuch: So if you crashed into my car due to you being on the phone and not paying attention to the road I wouldn't be after claiming against the insurance??

.... I wouldn't be after your details?

(V): LOL! Funny you should say that. I was down Stoke and they were walking round the block with flag cheering!

Artful Dodger:

I know that my last post sounds harsh, but I am trying to get a point across. Book burning of any kind is wrong. A person could burn a Bible, a Koran, etc. It is nothing more than ignorance and fear.

>> " But then I think Jesus did not exist, and if he existed, he was a false prophet too ..."

> Utterly false. Jesus DID exist. It's an historical fact.

My point is, calling Mohammad a false prophet might be OK is you don't believe in his teachings, but to somebody who does it is rather insulting. It is like saying that Jesus was a false prophet and did not exist. My sentence questions Christian faith at its core. For most Christians the existence of Jesus is a given and central to their faith. It is immaterial that there is no historical proof of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible (as an aside, there is no historicity to the existence of Jesus and there are no confirmed literary descriptions of Jesus outside the Bible). It is faith that makes Jesus real in the eyes of a Christian believer. Likewise, it is faith that makes Mohammad a prophet in the eyes of Moslems.

> Bibles are burned everyday somewhere. Flag burning bothers me more but I don't take to the street for it.

The answer is that burning the Koran was a symbolic act, just like burning a flag is. In reality burning the Koran makes no damage to Islam, just a burning the flag makes no damage to the country it represents. It is symbolic act of disapproval, anger, defiance, and in some cases even hatred.

> Even atheists are hypocrites.

Hypocrysy is EVERYWHERE. A catholic priest will go and preach on a Sunday to his congregation, then he will go and abuse a child. An evangelical pastor will preach to his congregation, then he will ask them for money and use that wealth to maintain his mistresses. An imam will preach of moslem piety, then send young men and women to die in a suicide attack. A politician will talk of freedom and democracy, then send troops to kill thousands in another country. A communist will talk of equality and the rights of the working class, then arrest his opponents and send them to prison. Humanity is eternally caught in its contradictions and its hypocrysy. That hypocrysy will go from petty, every day acts, to the biggest and most horrendous crimes.

> The actions of ONE man do not reflect on an entire group.

That is the reason why any religion survives. If we were to judge Christianity for the actions of those who do wrong, then Cristianity would fail to pass the test. Chirstianity has been mired in inquisitions, witch hunts, religious wars, hatred, intolerance, etc. People like Terry Jones are passing judgement on Islam based on the actions of what in essence is a very small minority of fanatical terrorists. It would be like passing judgement on Christianity based on the actions of the Borgias or the Holy Inquisition. It would be like passing judgement on all Marxists based on the actions of Joseph Stalin. Or like saying that the criminal jailers in Abu Graib represent ALL the American people. Those generalizations are destructive, and obscure the good things that people have done irrespective of religion or ideology. We insist on passing absolute judgements of good and evil, and we are unbale to acknowledge that there is good in Christianity, as there is good in Islam, Judaism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.

> If that is your standard, then you have to accept the fact that you too are a hypocrite.

Nobody is immune from hypocrysy, and I am the first to admit my own failings. I know that in some ways I am good, and in others I am wrong. I am not one to quote the Bible much, but "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone."

In the eyes of the fanatic, his/her actions are ALWAYS right. The hypocrite sees himself as always in the right, and when he doesn't, he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. When caught doing something bad, the hypocryte will blame somebody else, or blame the circumstances around him. When there is nobody to blame but himself, he will fall down on his knees and beg for forgiveness. He will even try to be sincere in his repentance, but deep inside he will callously ignore that what he did was wrong. He will make excuses and find religious or ideological justifications for his actions, and when that fails, he will call to higher moral principles and impose his views in a rigid, fanatical way. He will exploit fear to promote hatred, and then use that hatred and fear to further his own ambitions and greed. When asked to justify himself, his rethoric will fall on self-righteous ideology and the higher principles that everyone aspires to or admires. Those who believe in him will follow him blindly, because following blindly is easier than accepting that they must use critical thinking and avoid being duped by a fanatical demagogue.

Mousetrap: Went into a local shop and they were watching the match on the laptop. When they won!!!!

Artful Dodger: Hmmm that many of the passages you'll probably find on your sites promoting hate of Muslims and the Koran will not quote the history of the writings. That at the time of Mohammed and the formation of the Islamic faith they were fighting for their lives yet.. Allah saw it wise to promote something akin to the Geneva Convention over a thousand years before we Christians did.

Artful Dodger: Historically Jesus did not (why the Jewish do not recognise him as Messiah) fulfil all what was prophesied he would. In fact according to the Jewish historians another bloke came up as fulfilling the Messiah role better.. at least for the Jews.

.. The intepretation that many Christians hold is it is God's plan (who Jesus is the Son of and must obey the word of God.. him being the Father) to kill and destroy most humans on this planet (no accounting for other planets it must be said) ..

Revelation 21
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

.................. Rather violent that of our God isn't it?

http://www.armyofgod.com/


... Rather violent are they not?

...getting away from the topic a bit?

Czuch: Yes and no.. Historically the God of Jews and Christians as laid down in the Bible is a mass murderer. He has wiped out nearly all life on this planet (according to a literal interpretation of the story .. and according to a literal interpretation of Revelations a great deal of humans are going to die rather violently.

But that is a literal interpretation (black/white) with no allowance for interpretation based on the history of the matter written.


Some elements in all religions go by that literal and try hard to do God's will based on that literacy...... seeing as God kills... as God's children..

Perversion ..

As such even if a fellow member of the faith (eg is ok with gay but does not like abortions) they would be considered a heretic and condemned to a life ever after in "hell"

.. yet forgetting that one part of the original names for hell has gone being it a historical place at the time of writing.

Try telling that to the likes of the Phelps family.

Female.... homosexual.... sex change operation.... is now a man....plays basketball in college for the woman's team.....

I say as long as she is not taking testosterone, she is still a woman, and it is ok.

But.... if this person says she is really a man and she is no longer called a she but now he, why still get the benefit of playing on the girls team?
Why not go all the way, and play for the boys or just dont play at all?

But, then if you feel this way, what if a guy says he is a girl, then do you make/let him play with the girls?

I think I am with the if they are born a girl, they play with the girls, and visa verse, exception, if they take 'illegal' sports enhancing drugs IE testosterone, then to me too bad so sad, you are a dude, and play with the dudes or dont play at all!

Czuch: only her "bits and pieces" have changed...her ability to run, play etc is still female ability....let her/him play with the girls.....might get hurt playing with the boys LOL....
I agree with you tho...born a girl, play with the girls.
Testosterone don't count.

Artful Dodger:

> That Jesus the man existed is a well established historical fact. You make the same mistake many make in regarding the Bible as something other than a historical text, which it clearly is. It passes the same historical tests other ancient document must pass.

This is an issue of faith, and it is complex. Outside of the New Testament there is no mention of Jesus during his own lifetime. The New Testament itself has a colorful history and the Gospels describe some historical events described by other sources outside the Bible, albeit with contradictions, ommissions and no sense of dates other than vague references to some of the events. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek and not Aramaic. This has caused scholars some concern because Jesus and the Apostles spoke aramaic rathern than Greek. Scholars believe that the gospels proceed from one and possibly two earlier sources which could have been documents but most likely were an oral tradition. The oldest extand copies of the New Testament proceed from nearly 200 years after the death of Jesus. Then there were many versions of the Gospels and the church did not fix their form until the 4th century AD, nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus.

Outside of the New testament there are basicly 3 extremely small descriptions of somebody who could be interpreted as being Jesus. Pliny the Younger wrote in 112 AD that Christians were worshipping Jesus rather than the Roman emperor. Tacitus wrote in 116 AD that Nero prosecuted Christians in 64 AD and blamed them for starting the great fire that burned Rome. Suetonius wrote at around 120 AD that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome at around 50 AD because they were causing disturbances by a man who called himself Chrestus. These three Roman sources speak of events that had happened 50-70 years earlier, and the events were recorded over 110 years after the death of Jesus.

Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD, and he mentions Jesus there. However, most scholars believe that the passage was rewritten by a later scribe and dismiss the passage as either partially corrupt or entirely false.

Other mentions of Jesus such as the Talmud, Thallus, Lucian and Celsus are vague and even later, dating to near 200 AD.

Most of the documents outside the Bible were translated from Greek into Latin during the Middle Ages, so they in essence represent translations of vague references and second-hand evidence. Most scholars struggle with this, in particular those who are not skeptics but who are looking for corroboration outside the Bible.

Whether the Bible is a historical text is a matter of faith because the life of Jesus cannot be corroborated unambiguosly from other sources. The evidence outside the New Testament is very weak. Those who have faith see the Bible as a fully historical document. Those without faith see it as best a weakly historical document. Archaelogical evidence can show the life of Jews at the time of Jesus, but it cannot prove whether Jesus lived or not.

Evidence for the Old Testament is even weaker. To date scholars cannot prove at all that the main figures of the Old Testament existed. There is no proof at all of the existence of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Saul. As for David there is a stone tablet that could be interpreted as having his name. Nothing else beyond that. Scholars have been looking for archaelogical evidence from solomn's reign but have found nothing conclusive yet. Some day perhaps.

> To what code do you appeal in your protest against hypocrisy?

To the simple code that people claim to follow a higher moral principle, and then contradict themselves with their actions. Then when confronted with the contradiction, they go on to make excuses. I see it as simple: "I am a good Cristian, but it is OK to send our soldiers to kill somebody in another country". "I believe in democracy, but it is OK to prop up a fascist dictator if it is politically and economically convenient." "I believe in human equality, but it is OK for a rich to use others to make himself richer." When confronted with a simple, straight forward contradiction our most cherished principles fall apart, so we proceed to make excuses. "We are sending soldiers because they are evil and we are not. So what if we kill 4000,000 of them? I am still a good Christian." "So what if some dictator in Latin America killed 200,000 people? They were probably communists and our companies are still making a big profit." "So what if a lot of people end up poor? Businesses are still making a profit and we are still all equal, right?"

> It always surprises me when an atheist talks about personal failings. What they really mean by this is what we all mean when we talk this way: We have failed to live up to some sort of accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard comes from God. But what's the source for an atheist?

Is it possible for a sense of right and wrong to come from something other than religion? Is God the only source of good? No offense, but Christians are not the great arbiters of good and evil. There is extensive literature about good and evil OUTSIDE of the Bible. Philosophers have grappled with the questions for thousands of years. In the end everybody has a sense of right and wrong, even Atheists. We all have set rules for our behaviour (except maybe for psycopaths). Otherwise society would not function. Approximately 15% of the population of the world is atheist. Does that mean they are all evil? Without a sense of right and wrong, or remorse? If religion is the source of good, then why do religious people do wrong? Religion gives people some set of ethical standards. It does not mean people will follow them. Likewise atheists have ethical standards too. It might not come from religious faith, but it does not meant it is less valid.

Bernice: Oh Bernice... you always agree with me, just to be equitable ;)

Artful Dodger:

> the Koran burning upset our Muslim allies in Afghanistan

The truth is that this points to the sorry state that Afghanistan is in.

This is all the product of our western desire to get rid of communism in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan had its socialist revolution, they tried to do away with this kind of ignorance. The climate of fear of the Cold War caused our western governments to provide money, weapons and training to the Moujahaideen. Arab states in the Middle East openly called for a Jihad against the godless communists and over 100,000 volunteer insurgents swelled the ranks of the Moujahaideen. They were provided by weapons, training and military intelligence by several western governments, most notably the USA. Pakistan provided a base of operations from where these insurgents could be trained, armed and sent to fight over the mountains in Afghanistan. The Moujahaideen succeded in driving out the Soviet Union after sending 1 million Afghans to their deaths.

Today the same men who 20-30 years ago were fighting against the Soviet Union are now running the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wanted to create for themselves an extremist, fundamentalist Islamic state and they succeeded. After the 9-11 attacks the USA saw itself forced to take action against these people and now there is no end in sight to that conflict. I consider the current conflict in Afghanistan to be the aftermath of the Cold War. So are the confilcts in Rwanda and the People's Republic of Congo.

The killing of the UN workers was the product of insurgents infiltrating the ranks of what started as a peaceful protest. There have been a lot of protests in other places, not just Afghanistan. These insurgents are using the burning of the Koran as an excuse to terrorize foreign aid workers, and to cement the culture of fear that Afghanistan is grappling with.

According to recent news reports, the rebels that are trying to topple Gaddafi have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. Apparently, Al Qaeda unveiled its full Lybia wing in 2007 and for the last few years has been trying to topple Gaddafi.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110315/ts_dailybeast/12919_alqaedaslibyaplans

Here is an interesting article of how complex the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Lybian people is, and how Gaddafi has tried to exterminate Al Qaeda in Lybia.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=307

There are claims now that the USA and its NATO allies provided weapons to the rebels trying to topple Gaddafi. Since Al Qaeda infiltrated their ranks, Al Qaeda has syphoned off weapons to its own AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). This is the North African army organized by Al Qaeda to topple North African governments, specifically Algeria, Lybia and Egypt. Among the weapons stolen is a cache of surface-to-air missiles.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=76232

If these claims are true, this could seriously jeopardize efforts to support regime change in Lybia because the end result might be not the democratic government that our western governments desire, but rather an extremist Islamic government controlled by Al Qaeda.

Artful Dodger: From long programs here looking at the matter.. it's a gradual process. Any effective change in the mind set of the general population is going to take years if not at least a decade. The effects of decades of manipulation and the support of militant groups does not just dissipate over night.

Czuch: the only reason I agree with you is that every time I disagree with someone in here, my posts either get deleted or changed to fit the "particular persons" ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Übergeek 바둑이: Yes he did.It is a question if he were the son of God or a prophet. But he certainly did exist. Jesus was a well used name in those days so he certainly existed as a man.