A cultist is....

[kingoftheforest]

Dead end

So we can invade all the countries we want as long as lots of people agree? How does that make it more moral?

So answer the question about the USSR and Afghanistan. Who would you rather be forced to face? A nuclear power with a massive bio and chemical weapons program, or some religious fanatics that have thus far been unable to cause even 4,000 casualties in two different theaters over four years? I maintain we made the right choice, and I'd fault any leader who chose differently.

And the fat dumb rant is not the fault of industry or government. Try to imagine the bitching and complaining you'd hear (or participate in?) if the government tried to regulate what kinds of food you could eat, what kinds of appliances you could use, and what kinds of industry you were allowed to participate in. You're acting like one of those people who bails the water out of the boat without turning off the faucet. Do you think any of those industries would exist without lazy people running around demanding them? What came first? This massive training program by industry and government to teach us all to be slobs? Or was it the slobs that made industry figure out that there was money in giving slobs what they wanted in the first place? There is no supply without demand. People made their choices, and industry catered to that - not the other way around.

I acknowledge freely that there are all sorts of screwed up people in this world that do reprehensible things. I'm not arguing that point. What I am arguing is that the things that they choose as tools for their misdeeds can just as easily be used for noble purposes by others. You started off by saying that a list of six items is always immoral and wrong. My argument is that your statement was far too sweeping and limited in view. Are priests that rape little boys good people? Hell No! They ought to burn in the hottest, most fiery part of their hell for ten eternities. Are murderers justified? Not always. But sometimes, murder is not only a tool to be used for higher purposes, it's the only tool that will work.

And J-Luck:
I knew you'd say Christ. That means that the only example you can muster is not only someone who is hard to verify as a historical figure - at least inasmuch as nothing except the gospels talk about his miracles, and only a few otside sources even mention his existence - but someone who hardly led nations during his lifetime. In short, the only example of a leader that did not rely on the list that KOTF posted was God himself (if you believe the Bible is true), or a great teacher who had but twelve disciples during his lifetime.

My point is that you are relying on an example that may or may not have been real, and is most likely steeped in fable as much as historical fact. You've also chosen someone who travelled with a small group - not a leader of nations. And if you intend to make the case that Jesus Christ's influence is the thing upon which he should be judged; the thing that proves his legacy rose above the six items in KOTF's list, then I highly suggest that you research papal indulgences, the Inquisiition, the Crusades, and many other things done in the name of Jesus Christ.

And in any event, you've picked one person out of tens of thousands of leaders. Am I to believe that only a God in the flesh can embody the things that KOTF says are imperatives for a good leader? And if that's the case, we have a horrible conflict, don't we? Didn't Lucifer find himself cast from heaven for wanting to be like God? What does that say about man if the only moral and ethical model we can find to emulate is God in the flesh? What kind of trouble would we bring on ourselves for wanting to be just like Him?

Care to try again?

I can see by the fact that you missed many answers to your questions already in my last post. it appears that this argument is over.

I say this with all due repsect, but you have missd many of the points in my post because you have allowed yourself to be blinded by your own hope that waht you believe in has to be right. I don't disagree with everything you have said but our points aren't made on what we think is moral or not. I understand that doing the right thing all the time is impossible but you fail to see the blatant disregaurd that many of the leaders you boast on here, have for thier fellow man.

You make your points as if the people who you approve of as leaders never commited a henious act that wasn't necessary. Alot of what falls out everytime they turn the White House over and shake, is unecessary scams and coverup's that some government leader or another's dirty laundry. Covering up the existence a whore or mistress to keep her from blabbing on you is not a matter of national security. And thats just an embarrassing one nobody died there that I heard of. There are many other stories not so nice.

If your idea of a moral leader of a country is someone who will do whatever it takes to get ahaed as thecurrent leader has shown numerous times, then we have nothing furthuer to discuss. We are apparently two people who stick by our opinions strongly and I understand that you feel my opinion is stupid. That's fine but also understand that we see the world as two diffrent places. Your world is much larger than mine but I can't agree that what I see happening on either side right now is right.


Thank you for your conversation I am all typed out.

[BoarSpear]

and those religious zealots you seem to think so highly of have failed to produce a body count in all their efforts (to include 9-11)

You MIGHT wanna reword that ...On memorial day of days

If Bush didnt disallow it I would post you pics of the body count that hasnt been racked up on bush's TWO fronts...Pat Tillmans family might diasagree also...oh wait , fellow Army rangers blew his head off.

Thats an unreal statement!!! It's right in line with the master of disasters quotes of "Mission acomplished" and my Favorite dumbass, thoughtless cowardly statement of all time, "Bring it on" From a puss bag without even a relative in the fight

Failed to produce a body count??? well they certainly havent killed as many of us as we have of them...what about the 24 civilian MURDERS that are currently being covered up like the chemical attacks? Yeah I guess compared to the whosale SLAUGHTER Bush has orchastrated the terrorists aint done shit, good point.

[BoarSpear]

Also, lets not forget the HUGE number of civilian contractors working in Iraq and elsewhere you are aware halliburton is under investigation for UNDER REPORTING contractor deaths arent you? so far they admit to the fact that their losses are 20% of the Military's....that means they are MUCH higher than reported...also contractor deaths have QUADRUPLED in the last 13 months....hmmm yeah way to hide the deaths.

[kingoftheforest]

I'm game

Which is precisely what you are doing as well. You have said that you disapprove of leaders who use the tactics on your list to gain power. I maintain that every leader of nations in the history of man has relied on one or more of those items. Jesus was neither a leader of nations, or a man so frankly, it is an invalid example. However, even if it were a valid example, his singular uniqueness in that respect serves to prove rather than refute the point.

I agree with you that many (if not all) leaders have shown painful and even reprehensible disregard for some people in the carrying out of their duties. I have bnever argued against that. You and I see eye to eye entirely on that point. The difference is (and you're still ignoring this) that you have listed six things that you claim you'd rather become a subject than utilize to lead people. You see those things as totally immoral, all the time for leaders. I merely made the case that any tool and nearly any act can sometimes serve a productive purpose, even if it is an act generally considered undesirable. Please point out where I have defended actions by my leaders that have blatantly and irrefutably been immoral and destructive to the people they are supposed to be serving. I have not defended these actions, and I wouldn't. In cases where we disagree as to the moral grounding of a particular issue, I simply offered up the possibility that maybe neither of us is privy to all of the information that went into a decision. You apparently wish to totally dismiss that point as well.



So what this really comes down to is that you hate Bush. Why didn't you just come right out and say that in the beginning? Here all this time I thought you were trying to illustrate morals and ideals that all leaders should follow, when in fact, you were just trying to slam President Bush. That indeed changes the discussion! First and foremost, I do not believe for an instant that the President is doing what he's doing to "get ahead." He's already the President. You don't get much farther ahead than that. And if he were truly interested in power, he'd be doing more to raise approval ratings despite his own personal convictions. If he were just a power-monger, don't you think it would make more sense to cater to all of those who currently diapprove than to maintain his own ideals in the face of such overwhelming resistance? Power is something that allows you to accomplish your own ends, and Bush has clearly lost far more of that than he's gained - both with the American public and the Legislature. I think we can both agree on that. It's like I told BoarSpear - I have found myself disagreeing with his decisions more lately than I agree with him, and I am a part of a growing tide. That doesn't sound like the effects of a power grab to me. Or am I missing something obvious?

See, the problem I have with this discussion is the same problem I often have with people who use morality to attack the actions of a single leader. First, your moral arguments don't stand up. I've shown that each and every instance you listed can also be a tool for good - for moral - outcomes. I have also illustrated that the only historical example that has not used those means to achieve their golas was God Himself. So even the leaders you admire - if there are any at all - have used the same tactics you criticized. Your only counterpoint to that was that if enough people approve, then it's okay. That is shaky at best.

Second, even the rational end of your argument falls apart when confronted with basic assertions. You're saying that the reason we can't see eye to eye is that I'm biased and blind, but you won't even consider the points I've made in contrary to your previously held beliefs. So far, I've said that I agree with you in many cases. I have looked at your ideas and given both examples and further questions to explore them. When it comes to my ideas, you dismiss them and say we can't see eye to eye. Your rationale that Bush is deceiving and misleading the American people in some kind of attempt to get ahead proves itself flawed the second you realize that he is at the pinnacle of political power and achievement, and he cannot hope to stay in office for another term. He's gotten as "ahead" as an American can get. It falls apart even further when you assert that his actions have been some kind of play for power. His actions have almost universally turned his power base against him, and they've done so at nearly every turn. One has to suppose at that point that either he's collosally stupid (not likely, since he managed to "fool" enough people along the way to become President in the first place - and for two terms), or he really believes in what he's doing. Now I'll allow that his belief in what he's doing may be totally out of touch with the people who put him in office, but standing for what you believe in the face of a near total collapse of your personal power and influence can hardly be considered a grab for power. Your argument just doesn't hold up. And if you think that's me being blind, please explain how I'm wrong.

Finally, you've gotten lost in some cases for ways to refute my points. Rather than cite, for example, how allowing the Soviets Union to take over large pieces of the Middle East, become a solidified world power controlling the world's largest nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons stores along with half the world's oil reserves, and undoubtedly gaining enough economic influence to topple the US as a competitor would be preferable to fighting the Taliban, you fall back on media pop headlines. Religious zealots may be scary, but they've been pretty ineffective compared with wide scale nuclear assault. You can't justify why it would have been better to let the soviets take Afghanistan, so you resort to scare tactics like "religious zealots who gain more by dying," and "dirty nukes." The simple facts are (and these are not blind or biased opinions, mind you) a dirty bomb is no real national or strategic threat, and those religious zealots you seem to think so highly of have failed to produce a body count in all their efforts (to include 9-11) as your average US metro city loses in a year due to household accidents. Now, I can cite those facts and numbers if you'd like, just to prove that it isn't "blindness" or "bias." These statements are my opinions, and they are based on facts that I have seen. If you show me facts that prove them wrong, I'll happily re-evaluate my stance. But you haven't done that, have you. Instead, you've given up on debating, since you have no facts to support your side of these issues (and mind you, I have agreed with you on the ones you can support). You'd rather call me names, insult my willingness to hear other viewpoints, and bow out in a rebellious tizzy than man up and try to prove your points.

King, you've got some strong points here. You really do. I'm not arguing just to argue - I'm discussing my own viewpoints and trying to be open about why I believe what I believe. I'm also attempting to show where I think the faults in your logic might be. I don't expect you to change your mind, but in the interest of learning, I'd expect anyone to do the same. I'd like it very much if you'd give me some proof to back up your opinions because contrary to what you seem to think, I really am a student of people, the world, and the history that I am living right now. I would really welcome facts to back up your rhetoric, because you obviously feel passionate about your ideas to start the discussion in the first place. But I am also a pragmatist, as I've said many times before. Philosophy, theory, and rhetoric are enough to start a discussion, but they are not enough to prove anything. I need hard fact to go along with them. Right now, I feel like you've covered the former, but you've fallen short on giving me any of the latter. More, I think your instinct to duck out of the discussion right when it's getting tough is telling.

I'd like to hear what you have to say, and I'd like to discuss it some more. However, I'd like to agree that we have covered the theoretical and the philosophical well enough to proceed. That being said, let's take the discussion one step at a time and see where it goes. Just to be fair, you pick a starting point, and we'll study, from a historical and pragmatic point of view, together. That's what a forum is for (that and taking cheap shots at assholes like ntter), and it's why I tend to get so much out of my discussions here. So please, take a breath, do some research, and let's learn from each other.

First of all as far as I'm cocerned Jesus is a fictional character so why you keep using his name is beyond. I'll make it clear how I feel. Fuk Jesus. There that said.



You fail to realize the possibility of a wrold without subjects and rulers. Not using the means to gain more power than I need was what my list was about.
If you want to be assanine enough to believe that how the world is will be the be all end all that's your problem.

Since you fail to recognize the fact that people aren't here to rule over and control each other then as I said before my argument is wasted on you.

And if you think I'm just Bush bashing then damn read something before you make up your mind man. You jump to soon to answer things I think.

I bet there are a few and a very few leaders in the world who didn't use the means that Georgie boy did. But those are few and thats why the world is as fucked as it is now. Nothing will fix the problems we've created for ourselves but putting a positive spin on horse shit doesn't cover the smell. You can hope all you want that things will righten themselves and they will. But I doubt it will be any of our ideas as to what right is.

I'll bite on your point by point but I'd like to state that in my previous post I declared that I myself am sumwhat biased do to input.


First historical fact if you're more afraid of the U.S.S.R or a war with them...but you would rather fight the Afgans. Then explain to me how the U.S.S.R. or some form of russians, have been trying to subdue these people right on thier border for thousands of years. And you want to ship people half way round the world to do it.

Claiming superior technology and military won't work because I'm sure the V.C. didn't have as much technology as we did in 'Nam.

[BoarSpear]

Boar, you know full well that I'm right. And as a soldier, I stand by it. How many died on those civil war battlefields that brought about Memorial Day, anyway? How many would have died in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union? How many would have died just because they chose not to export oil to heat homes of run the food delivery transport ships? I think that any soldier, knowing intimately the personal cost of war, would rather see several thousand of his comrades die in war than several million. And any leader worth a damn would make a decision to fight based on the option that cost fewer lives and still got the job done.

So go on and try to evoke hateful emotions all you want. The fact - and it is utterly undisputable fact - is that far fewer US soldiers have died in this war than ever before in a war of the same duration. That may not mean anything to the families of those who have died, I'll grant you. But think of how many more of those families there would be had this been a nuclear war with the Soviet Bear. Why don't you go ahead and post those numbers while you're at it. Show us both sides to the argument, and explain how staying out of Afghanistan would have been the better choice. Better still, explain to me how you'd have done it. With the priorities that sat on the strategic planners' tables back then, explain to me how you'd have made and justified a different call.


Memorial Day was established to pay homage to those who died fighting for this nation and its Unity. I'm frankly both surprised and a little disgusted at the idea that you think it would have been better to allow the Soviets the ground, resources, and the means to kill millions - hundreds of millions - of Americans over the possibility of going to war with tribal zealots at a cost of several thousand soldiers. I really didn't think that was you.

BS ... you said they failed to establish a body count. ONE dead person IS a body count...You were exagerrating for effect, I pointed it out and you try to put the disgaceful comment on me...I see why you're a Bush supporter.

Besides Neither Iraq nor the afghans were a nuclear power or threat...that was another Bush lie flail away dude but comparing vietnam to Iraq is sorta funny comin from a bush supporter, is that really the fight you wanna use? Or was there some other war where all these American soldiers died defending us from the soviet nuclear weapons? christ you're really reachin for straws these days...I see the programing is wearing off, confusion and panic is normal, depression and disgust is next when you realize you were a pawn, then you just despise the scumbags running the game, so hang in there, it gets better

[stabbychick]

.............................

[BoarSpear]

Are you reading my stuff Boar? (Dude, I just re-read your post, and I'm really worried about you. I didn't say any of that stuff you attributed to me!)
I didn't compare Vietnam to Iraq or Afghanistan, and I can't find where I said "they never established a body count."

how about HERE?

and those religious zealots you seem to think so highly of have failed to produce a body count in all their efforts (to include 9-11)

Uh huh, thought so.

Which threat do you think would have been greater: A USSR that included Afghanistan and all its assets, or the Taliban?

Simple and direct, no bullshit. Just a single answer and your justification for that opinion.

Well lets see, we trained the talibans fighters who used that training to facillitate 9-11...so exactly how was that benificial? and here we are now 30 years later embroiled in the same battle the soviets were...Hmmmm yeah...

BTW WTF does that have to do with anything? you said the terrorist failed to produce a body count....now you wanna argue the soviet invasion of afghanistan? that somehow proves you right? Well hell dude Iraq was at war with Iran, maybe we shoulda let that one alone too, after all next invasion Iran. Besides seeing as the soviet union failed due to the cold war... Or are you saying the afghans beat the soviets and made their nation fail?

[kingoftheforest]

I still maintain completely that pressing the Soviets in Afghanistan made perfect sense then, it contributed greatly to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that a USSR that contained Afghanistan would have been a much greater threat than the Taliban ever was. Are you arguing those points? Since you're talking about confusion, I think you might ought to re-read my words. In fact, go back to some other threads where we've had this discussion. I have always been someone that said, "If you compare this war to Vietnam, you clearly understand neither." Let's part with tradition for a second. I'll make a statement, and you try hard, through the bong haze, to focus in on just that one point. I know that's rare for us, but let's give it a whirl, shall we? Here's the $64,000 question:

Which threat do you think would have been greater: A USSR that included Afghanistan and all its assets, or the Taliban?

Simple and direct, no bullshit. Just a single answer and your justification for that opinion.

Now, on to KOTF.

I'll start with the obvious -


I fail to see anything in nature, let alone human society, where some are not subject to others. And I fail to see any society in the history of civilization (not just the way the world "is," but the way it has been since the dawn of history) where one or more of those items was not used to gain power. Further, I can cite many times when those same items were used for good and noble things. Further still, I have repeatedly invited you to cite for me even a single example that you would consider worthwhile for us to follow or emulate. Now, I have explained my failings again. I have told you I am lacking information - again. And I have invited you to clarify your views with some examples - AGAIN. And again, you have responded with more emotional nonsense and unsupported bullshit. You're being a crybaby,and it's a little irritating. Now are you going to back up your points here or are you just going to whine like a six year old? Give me an example, would you?! Give me a single example of the kind of leader you think isn't a shitbag, and tell me why you think that. Please. I'm telling you that I am ignorant, and that I want to learn. Stop beating me up because I can't read your mind, and educate me as to why you believe what you believe.

That said, I will try and explain the point you brought up. Here it is:



I am going to try and restate it so that I'm clear in my understanding of what you're asking me. You're asking me if I'd rather fight the Afghans than the Soviets? My answer to that is an unequivocable "yes." The Soviet Union during the Cold War was a threat the likes of which are hard to fathom. The single greatest policy point in US Foreign Affairs was the containment of the USSR and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everything else we did was geared toward making that happen. Next point: I am assuming you are trying to say that the Russians have been trying to subdue Afghanistan for thousands of years? First off, that's a falsehood. There have been all manner of conquerors that have tried to unite Asia under their rule, but real wars between Russia and Afghanistan only go back about as far as the 1880's. Further, WE were a big part of the reason that the USSR could not defeat Afghanistan. I thought you were aware of that. We provided weapons and training to the mujahideen to fight the Soviets on what was then called "peripheral battlefields." The theory was (and it proved correct) that if we could get the Soviets fighting in deep, dirty, nasty conflicts in places like Afghanistan (a major strategic jewel for them), we could force them to overcommit to their military efforts, and their economy would crumble. In case you had a cheap seat for those years, that's pretty much what happened. We managed to put so much pressure on them that they couldn't keep going, and in so doing, we eliminated the single greatest threat to our way of life that has yet exoisted in the short history of this nation. Now on to your last point. No, I do not want to ship people half way around the world to conquer Afghanistan. That's not what we're doing there. See, that's the big difference between the USSR's efforts and our own. We went there to get rid of a group of religious oppressors (admittedly, our own mistake - you aren't seriously going to fault us for trying to correct a past mistake, are you?), turn the country over to its own people, and leave, knowing that we've built stronger relations with the people of Afghanistan in liberating them. Russia just wanted to own the real estate. I won't go into all sorts of geo-political information on why it's important that we keep a presence in Afghanistan (the Reader's Digest version might read: Containing Russia and China while giving us the ability to pressure and watch Iran). What I will tell you is that a Soviet Union armed with the world's largest stockpiles of nukes, chemicals, and uber-germs would have been a much, much larger threat to us than the Taliban. Until either you or BoarSpear can prove me wrong on that (and neither of you can or will, from what I've seen) you'll just have to simply trust that when it comes to this single point, I am smarter than you are. After all, you're getting so frustrated your sentences are falling apart, and Boar can't even tell who he's quoting anymore.

Now, the floor is yours. Please discuss how I am wrong in my above assessments (since you no doubt think I am), and then answer my point. That point is, you have said that there exist some leaders, albeit very few, who are worth modelling in order to fix the world. Please name one or two of them for me and tell me why they do not fall under the categories in your list.

P.S.
I was referring to Jesus because J-Luck entered the discussion on that "platform." You aren't the only person here, you know.

Instead of writing books on online forums maybe you should read one and take your own advice.

The Russians had been trying to sub due the Afgans forever. All we did was speed up the process of the Russians getting whooped so they could concentrate on us. That's smart???

What about Iraq and Iran?? We stopped them from fighting giving Iran the free time to pursue the means to whooping the ass of anyone who opposes them.

Who would you rather fight a big guy who called you a name (Russian).
Or a mother who thinks you stole her baby (Muslims)?

What are you nuts people have been trying to conquer Afghans for years like 100's of years and continue to fail. It's in the history books guy!!!

And as for your nice attempt to spin a world of rulers and subjects in the animal kingdom. I don't see birds and beavers building houses for Lions while they try to figure out how to feed thier children.

I don't see any animals creating tributes or palaces to thier leaders. I see a food chain. If you want to tell me that the leaders of the world are at the top of our food chain, then I say no crack for me thanks.

Most animals don't kill other for survival or food. And just to be flip I'll throw this at you. When did we decide that our intelligence and animals could be compared??? That would be your argument if I used that analogy I'm sure.


Spin like a top all you want but to everyone reading this who does the reasearch they'll see Afgahnastan was not in any threat of being overrun anymore than any other time in history. Just like no more so than now. We may kill a lot of people, some may even be terrorist, but we seem to be losing the world population vote on what we are doing is right. So we aren't any closer to "winning" this war.


Funny a friend once said "Why can they negotiate at a table after killing hundreds of each others people, but they can't do it before the carnage.?"

Food for thought. Beddy time for KOTF, I'll read your disertation on world peace that will be posted after this tommorrow when I come home from work Mr. Brewer.

Thanks for the debate.
KOTF

[J-Luck]

In order to keep the discussion separate, I'm posting twice. J-Luck, if this is true



Please cite any ancient text other than the Bible and its gospels that can confirm for me - independently - the existence of a man who was the living God, and who performed the miracles attributed to Jesus Christ. I don't dispute that he lived, nor that he was the most influential teacher in history. What I dispute is that he was what the Bible claims he was (especially if you're reading it literally). For example, if he was indeed God in the flesh, who was he praying to all those times? I am constantly told that Jesus was the son of God, and then by others that the Holy Trinity are merely aspects of the same God. It seems odd to me that one would pray upward to oneself, as if separate from what He was. It also seems odd to me that a man (or a God) who said that the only way to Heaven was through "Me" would go to the trouble of being baptized into a faith that by his own teachings could not be true. I'm not trying to be a prick or sharpshoot the Bible - I just honestly don't understand. And I have read the Bible from cover to cover no less than three times, but despite a lot of effort and many years of study, I have yet to find independent sources that can confirm for me the things the Bible says about Jesus of Nazareth. In any serious research, nothing is considered fact without being corroborated by at least a few other independent sources. In light of the absence of these corroborating sources, I have to believe that Jesus was one of the greatest teachers, examples, and models of all time, someone willing to sacrifice everything, including himself to teach mankind how to be good to one another, and that he was a unique and special man - but a man nonetheless. I'd welcome proof of his divine nature, if you have it.

My problem with simply taking it on faith in the context of this argument is that you then have to allow others that same luxury. If all your own justifications come from a single source (the Bible), then you have to allow for the possibility that you're the one who's got it wrong - that your interpretation isn't the right one. And without any corroborating sources from outside your faith, you also have to allow for the notion that other faiths that draw their ideals from their own holy books may be as correct as you are - or moreso. Refusing to do that seems to me a little close-minded and if you'll forgive the term, "Holier Than Thou."

Like I said, this is another discussion, but for the sake of him being alive I'll site Josephus, a well reknowned historian with great loads of credibility. I'm not sure if you're up to par on your history knowledge, but if you are you know of him. As far as proving he's the Christ, you take that to it's logical conclusion. Have you ever read the Case For Christ? Good book on this topic. A well renowned, award winning journalist investigated the claims of the Bible in order to disprove it, ended up becoming a beliver due to overwhelming archeological and historical evidence, great book. Plenty of outside sources, but the gospels in and of themselves are a good enough source, again, the only reason they aren't taken as seriously as they should be is because of the supernatural nature of them.

The trinity is seperate, and together. Christ was subservient to the father God, and therefore, though being on the same level, conciously lowered him self. I'm not sure why you think it's inconsistent that he say the only way is through himself... explain and I'll help you out.

As far as independent sources... just watch the history channel, and they often don't take the Bible seriously, yet all I ever see when they talk about it is grudgingly admitting that some new dig(archeology) has just proved that a previously dismissed(off hand) place cited in the Bible DID exist. Oh, wait, the census DID take place... The healing pool for parapalegics was really there... and so on, and so on.

And no, there is no other holy book other than the Torah(part of the Bible anyway) with as much external and internal consistency(required for inagueration into cannon scripture), archeological, and documentation evidence as the biblical books. Nor, where there any books circulating, at or around the time of the events, so that they could be refuted... except for the Bible. Though one could say the Koran, but there was no way to verify any of it took place in other than mohammed's head. Jesus actually walked amongst the people, performed miracles, and those events could be verified and refuted by people of the time who may have seen him, or parents or grandparents may have, something which is a rarity with historical documents. If you are a student of history(i'm assuming you are?) then you will know what im talking about, and how documents taken as fact are often written hundreds of years after the fact with no corroberative evidence. But I'm sure you knew that.

[J-Luck]

Again, Mike, I totally respect you and your posts and your views, I've said it numerous times. I'm not sure if the sentiment is returned, but I'd like to put that out there so you know none of this is malicious and I hope this is a debate for etification, not to get angry about.

[Garland]

The fact - and it is utterly undisputable fact - is that far fewer US soldiers have died in this war than ever before in a war of the same duration. That may not mean anything to the families of those who have died, I'll grant you.

One sad part of that "fact" is that...the war really isn't over. We still have people getting killed in Afghanastan, and regardless of whatever alleged relationship existed between Iraq and Al Queda and the Afgahis...it's all umbrella-ed under the war on terror now anyway. Shit's sliding, man...now we're toying around with the idea to do something in Iran? What's next, Libya? Maybe we'll only kiss ass with the Saudis and the UAE guys...and bomb (with the new nuke program bushy boy is starting up) the rest of the middle east.

Point is...the war barely started...it's international, and it's plateaued out for awhile, but, to be realisic, I think it's going to get much worse before it get's any better.

[Tant01]

..............
The trinity is seperate, and together. Christ was subservient to the father God, and therefore, though being on the same level, conciously lowered him self. I'm not sure why you think it's inconsistent that he say the only way is through himself... explain and I'll help you out.

...................

I take issue with the trinity teaching. While I realize the dogma is firmly established and I have no hope of convincing such a knowledgable christian as yourself that the nature of God is singular I would like to offer one example in the scriptures that clearly defines Christ and his purpose.

It deals with the concept of the ransom sacrafice. In Romans Ch. 5 V 12 we read that sin came into the world through the MAN ADAM... Adam was also God's son was he not?

And a bit further on we read that Jesus himself was a "GIFT" of undeserved kindness on the part of God because he actually provided the "RANSOM" for mankind. Jesus was that MAN, an equal to Adam.
Adam was created "perfect" so ONLY a "PERFECT" MAN could provide the necessary ransom for mankind. No one living can create another perfect man but God did. That doesn't make Jesus equal to or a part of the only true God. It makes him God's son, like Adam, a man.

[J-Luck]

I take issue with the trinity teaching. While I realize the dogma is firmly established and I have no hope of convincing such a knowledgable christian as yourself that the nature of God is singular I would like to offer one example in the scriptures that clearly defines Christ and his purpose.

It deals with the concept of the ransom sacrafice. In Romans Ch. 5 V 12 we read that sin came into the world through the MAN ADAM... Adam was also God's son was he not?

And a bit further on we read that Jesus himself was a "GIFT" of undeserved kindness on the part of God because he actually provided the "RANSOM" for mankind. Jesus was that MAN, an equal to Adam.
Adam was created "perfect" so ONLY a "PERFECT" MAN could provide the necessary ransom for mankind. No one living can create another perfect man but God did. That doesn't make Jesus equal to or a part of the only true God. It makes him God's son, like Adam, a man.

I know you do, you've stated it before, and we've debated it to the point where I felt strongly that my point was superior and vice versa. It's pointless, so I refuse to debate you lol. It's all good thought homie, remember, I'm only 17, maybe I'll change my mind... (prob not).

[Tant01]

The only TRUE God.

I know you do, you've stated it before, and we've debated it to the point where I felt strongly that my point was superior and vice versa. It's pointless, so I refuse to debate you lol. It's all good thought homie, remember, I'm only 17, maybe I'll change my mind... (prob not).

Then there is hope... (prob not)

This means everlasting life>>> John 17:3 Clearly if they were the same person that verse would be meaningless...

[J-Luck]

Then there is hope... (prob not)

This means everlasting life>>> John 17:3 Clearly if they were the same person that verse would be meaningless...

Remember, we won't agree? lol. That whole thing where we literally debated this for days.