Evidence for God from Science

August wrote: Would you rather, as a Christian, see that dictators continue to murder, rape and torture? How is that justifiable in your opinion? Would you not have gone to war against Hitler?

Ask me this 8 months ago I would have said heck yea! get in there and kick um you know what LOL.

With Iraq it was the United Nations responsability to act, and the USA and other nations got sick of them pussy footing around.

What I am saying is when we deviate from his word, do we not stop walking in his light? Untill we are back on track again ?

Deborah wrote:

Mastermind wrote:I am rather certain the turn the other cheek part was referring to not hitting back over something stupid. An attack on your country isn't a slap in the face.

am not going to get into a 9/11 - Iraq debate here.
What I am saying is I don't think god indorses wars, he certainly wouldn't take sides. War is purely a human trait. When you look into it the basis of the teachings of Christianity is love for mankind and therefore peace.

I stand my Albert who said Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding. and I myself shall add Patience.

Another point to be made is when they took Jesus, Jesus did not allow his disiples to fight for him.

Joh 18:10-11 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, took it out and gave the high priest's servant a blow, cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then Jesus said to Peter, Put back your sword: am I not to take the cup which my Father has given to me?

Mat 10:12-13 And when you go in, say, May peace be on this house. And if the house is good enough, let your peace come on it: but if not, let your peace come back to you.

1Th 5:15 Let no one give evil for evil; but ever go after what is good, for one another and for all.

First of all, it was for their own good that they did not fight. The Romans would have likely won and Jesus would not have been sacrificed(which is what He came on earth to do to begin with). In addition, one situation of peace does not mean we should do the same in every situation. Stating that war is against the word of God is absurd. Far too many people do not understand the difference between evil and war/destruction. War is not evil. Our entire universe exists because of conflicts, be it between atoms, or particles, or good and evil. Violent conflicts keep the universe running. To claim it is evil is to claim God doesn't know what He's doing. Now that we have that out of the way, Jesus THREW out the merchants from the temple. God ordered the Israelites to go to war many times. This shows that there are situations where violence is necessary. Whether Bush had a real reason to go to Iraq or not, we don't know. I assume he really believed he had weapons of mass destruction, as did Kerry(who APPORVED of the war). My point is that war is not inherently evil. The reasons of one side(or both) may be evil, but war itself is part of nature.

It's the human acts of the war that are evil.
Murder by Bombings and shootings, and that leads to retaliation, it's one thing to surgically strike back, (meaning NO innocent casualties except by complete accident) but often we have seen blind retaliation that kills and/or injures more innocents than guilty.
The two most important commandments are love god with all your heart mind and soul and love humanity.

Mar 12:30-31 And you are to have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, Have love for your neighbor as for yourself. There is no other law greater than these.

To me not taking due care not to hurt innocents is against one of the two most important commandments from God.

I agree, but I highly doubt Bush orders soldiers to kill civillians at random. It's not really his fault if a soldier goes crazy, and when they do commit atrocities, they are punished severely. If you want an example of a terrible army, read news on the Israeli one. Soldiers getting high and shooting kids. A couple of them got a girl high on crack and has sex with her in somebody's attic while on patrol duty. A sniper shot through two little girls having dinner, killing one and wounding the other in the leg. A scared little girl got lost on israeli military territory, the turrets shot her down(still alive). A soldier goes to "inspect" her, sees that she has no bomb, yet takes out his gun and empties it in her head. All of these I've seen on news in various forms, yet those soldiers usually get penalties like "disrupting the peace". Yet when an us soldier does something not even remotely close to something like that, they end up with at least 10-15 years in prison after being court marshalled. People complain way too much about the united states.

Deborah, I get what you are saying, and I agrre with you that war is a horrible thing.

Do you agree that sometimes war is justified?

August wrote:Deborah, I get what you are saying, and I agrre with you that war is a horrible thing.

Do you agree that sometimes war is justified?

Reluctantly yes if no other way is possable,(I am reluctant because I sincerly believe that all avenues should be explored first) and mastermind I agree whole heartedly that what the Israeli forces do is among the worst in the world. I make no excuse for their actions because there are none.(and that is as far as I wish to take this because it could get nasty)
I know some some soldier going nuts is not Mr bush's fault, I have never said or thought it was. I believe that the war was handled wrong.
Whos fault it it? It's the United Nations fault for not acting correctly, and it's the fault of the countries in the UN because they did not give the UN a good kick up the rear. The United Nations is there to provide a service but they too often sit on their hands.
ok I am getting off my soap box now.

After reading all these posts on this issue I realise just how little people actually know about the matter. This is not to condemn, nor criticize any of you. Far from it! In fact it shows me that those of us in the game are not relating to the constituents as they should be. I, myself after having been in the political game for many years and coming from a political background going back two centuries am very careful about which political party I support.

Although I was brought up in a very christian family, I would never vote for any form of theocracy. It is just far too dangerous to have the church and state connected to each other. That doesnt mean that christian values cant be part of a political party. Of course they can! The danger lies in the possibility of the corruption of power. Just suppose a church (any church for that matter) decided to form a political party so that they could enforce some of their values onto the rest of society. So far there doesnt seem anything wrong with that. Lets take this one step further. What if that same church was catholic and it was attempting to enforce values onto protestants. Can you imagine the outcry of discrimination from them, and they would be justified for feeling that way too! If they were a radical new age church the same thing would apply.

I have observed how in both Australia and the US christian parties form, are often very corrupt and are only interested in themselves. An example I can give is that of a certain christian church here down under who are only interested in their own agenda and definitely not intergrating christian values that apply to everyone. This group received funding for a signficant amount to be used for assisting Aboriginal people find employment. Not one cent of that tax-payer funding ever went near those people, but went elsewhere. Aside from that the people from that church would walk past the very people they were meant assist every Sunday and ignore them. Their justification was that because they were middle class they should only worry about middle class problems and not anyone else.

In other words, the danger lies in a party who uses its power for its own financial gain against the democratic wishes of the rest of society. Would any tax-payer be supportive of a church using funding solely for the purpose of building itself a church for its members only?

There is also the fact that votes can be brought leading to an undemocratically elected government. In Australia the possibility of this occurring is extremely remote because of how our system is structured. Unfortunately this is not the case in the US and corruption is a very real possibility.

For example in Australia we have a bi-cameral (two houses of Parliament) two party preferred system of government elected on the principle of both preferential and proportional representation. As such elections and how people vote here is very different to how one votes in the United States. Also for our system to be truly democratic voting is compulsory for every adult over the age of eighteen. Therefore every person has their say in who they want to be governed by.

Also one other thing, to 'reap what you sow' has been one of the most misused quotes from the Bible from supporters of a Liberal democracy. They mistakenly believe that it refers to the making of profit. It actually means that how you live will have consequences for your life. How this mistaken belief came about is because very often people take a verse from one part of the Bible and put it together with one from another part. By doing this they have taken everything out of context.

As well please do not mix up religion with christianity. Just because someone goes to church does not mean they are a christian. A christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and died to redeem us from our sins. However it doesnt end there anybody can say they believe that (and many do). To actually be a christian one also has to follow the principles and values he taught. Remember if you will what Christ taught in Matthew 25 regarding the sheep and the goats.

Deborah wrote:What I am saying is I don't think god indorses wars, he certainly wouldn't take sides.

As with Israel and the Midianites. God remained perfectly neutral.

Deborah wrote:I agree whole heartedly that what the Israeli forces do is among the worst in the world. I make no excuse for their actions because there are none.

The atrocities listed are terrible, but I really doubt whether Islamic terrorists in the region are very sweet deep down, just reacting to oppression at the moment. The Israelis do not normally target civilians (soldiers may, but it's not army policy, unlike that of Hamas and Hezbollah c.s.), nor do they aim for the total destruction of the Islamic countries.

Deborah wrote:Whos fault it it? It's the United Nations fault for not acting correctly, and it's the fault of the countries in the UN because they did not give the UN a good kick up the rear. The United Nations is there to provide a service but they too often sit on their hands.

You know, that starts sounding like a victim mentality. People should not blame the UN for anything, but take responsibility for their own actions.

Michelle wrote:Although I was brought up in a very christian family, I would never vote for any form of theocracy. It is just far too dangerous to have the church and state connected to each other. That doesnt mean that christian values cant be part of a political party. Of course they can! The danger lies in the possibility of the corruption of power.

A Reformed theocracy means that God's Law is the ultimate authority, not Church or State. However, Church and State are connected in obedience to God's Law. There is freedom of conscience (no religious oppression), but no public freedom of religion.

I think it is pretty safe to say that Jesus was neither a Democrat or a Republican. I also find it so interesting why so many Christians defend nearly ALL of George W. Bush's actions. Is it simply because he says he is a christian and is against abortion? Is it possible that a person who is against abortion, may also be a great deceiver? I am beginning to wonder......
For me, I will no longer vote for the lesser evil. After all, I would still be voting for evil. Therefore, I simply may participate with a "write in" vote. As a christian, I will stand independent. Neither party represents me.
My platform:
pro environment
anti-abortion
pro-education
pro-family: Tax cut to those who are in their first marriage. (Family is the nuclei of society).
reasonable gun control: No grenade launchers, and AK's.
Strict Border control
Elimination of welfare (with very few exceptions)
Foreign Policy: War only against those in self defense. No more precautionary killing or scapegoats. It's too darn expensive!!!! Plus, it feels like murder to me.
Catch and Release Bass fishing only!!!!
Now that I have turned off both the Rep. and Dems., I think I better stop here.

I came across something two nights ago that I found very interesting regarding Christianity and politics. I am currently reading a book called Democratization in the Middle East. It mentions some very interesting facts regarding politics in the West. It states:

In the liberal tradition, traditional religious values are seen as obstacles to modernity and modernization.

I have found this extremely interesting because I am aware that there are many Christians who a liberalists. What I have found during my political studies is that there seems to be some kind of shifting of values when it comes to political alliance. The liberal ideology has always been based a dual system of democratic governance combined with free enterprise for economic reasons. In this liberalization of politics there is often what is termed a privileged position of business. This results in some companies having autonomous power over the government policies being implemented. Taxation, and foreign affairs legislation are some examples. Free trade agreements are often implemented only when these business groups are consulted on what they feel is best for them.

What is interesting is that liberalism is often greed orientated which is a value that goes agains the Christian philosophy. Furthermore socialism which is more structured around Christian values is often frowned upon by many Christians. Often these Christians see it as being based on evil communist principles. Nothing could be further than the truth! Even the Communists themselves counld't get it right! It is interesting that the two political idealologies have had a complete change in the social cleavage of personal interpretation of their principles.

I am not fully aware of the situation in the US, however (as paparalph has said when he wrote about having no party alignment), in Australia there seems to be an increase in the number of young people doing the same thing.

Anyway that is not why I wrote this post. I am actually trying to point out that it is rather amusing that in the Middle East they view democracy as important but believe it must be combined with religious principles and control. In the West we have a Christian based society but want to have seperation of church and state (and with good reason too). It is rather amusing that in a way isn't. Both societies believe in democracy yet have a different view of it.

If you are looking at Middle Eastern countries where the dominant religion is Islam, then except for Turkey (which is a different case entirely) government by democratic principles is really not possible.
Islam dictates rule by theocracy - from Allah downwards to the people.
The various forms of democracy are rule from the people upwards, at least in principle where we have elections to select our representatives who have some kind of declared agenda (to make certain laws) which we choose with the majority decision granted.
Islam does not allow a separation of church (read mosque) and state.
Allah will not allow a choice - you, the people, must follow his dictates as set out in the Qur'an, that is, Shar'iah law.
In the western world, our Judeo-Christian heritage supports choice - God allows you free will so you are able to decide whatever.

This is one of the factors that is making it difficult, if not impossible, for democracy to be put in place in Iraq at present. The various Islamic groups vigorously oppose democracy, insisting on Shar'iah law instead.
On the basis of this, one can question the sense of any of our troops being deployed there to bring about a democratic government. If Iraq is hoping for something like what is working in Turkey, then they need to secularize their state - remove the control from islamic clerics - as did Attaturk through his reforms following WW2. If the clerics will not give up power, then democracy is not a compatible option for their citizens.

I'm not sure who you are meaning when you reference Christians and liberals together. The term "liberal" when applied to Christianity usually refers to a form of revisionism that subjects traditional/orthodox Biblical Christianity to the new ideas of postmodernism - ideas such as moral relativism, multiculturalism, pragmatism, utopianism, etc.
Christianity becomes re-defined to suit modern opinion, the supernatural components removed because they couldn't possibly be true "according to science" and therefore should be regarded as myth.
This revisionism is ripping through all mainstream denominations of Christianity at present causing a lot of strife and division. Through the effect of postmodernist philosophies our Christian heritage is being deconstructed in a deliberate attempt to destroy it.
Economic marxism has given away to cultural marxism whereby pluralism, supported by relativism, is favoured.

How do these ideas fit with what you are reading, Michelle?
I am not a political scientist, but these ideas interest me inasmuch as I see what harm they are doing to Christianity, to our culture, and to the lives of people generally.
I also see them as creating the cultural vacuum into which Islam may be sucked without sufficent opposition to stop it engulfing us in time. And that really scares me.

Judah wrote:If you are looking at Middle Eastern countries where the dominant religion is Islam, then except for Turkey (which is a different case entirely) government by democratic principles is really not possible.
Islam dictates rule by theocracy - from Allah downwards to the people.
The various forms of democracy are rule from the people upwards, at least in principle where we have elections to select our representatives who have some kind of declared agenda (to make certain laws) which we choose with the majority decision granted.
Islam does not allow a separation of church (read mosque) and state.
Allah will not allow a choice - you, the people, must follow his dictates as set out in the Qur'an, that is, Shar'iah law.
In the western world, our Judeo-Christian heritage supports choice - God allows you free will so you are able to decide whatever.

This is one of the factors that is making it difficult, if not impossible, for democracy to be put in place in Iraq at present. The various Islamic groups vigorously oppose democracy, insisting on Shar'iah law instead.
On the basis of this, one can question the sense of any of our troops being deployed there to bring about a democratic government. If Iraq is hoping for something like what is working in Turkey, then they need to secularize their state - remove the control from islamic clerics - as did Attaturk through his reforms following WW2. If the clerics will not give up power, then democracy is not a compatible option for their citizens.

I'm not sure who you are meaning when you reference Christians and liberals together. The term "liberal" when applied to Christianity usually refers to a form of revisionism that subjects traditional/orthodox Biblical Christianity to the new ideas of postmodernism - ideas such as moral relativism, multiculturalism, pragmatism, utopianism, etc.
Christianity becomes re-defined to suit modern opinion, the supernatural components removed because they couldn't possibly be true "according to science" and therefore should be regarded as myth.
This revisionism is ripping through all mainstream denominations of Christianity at present causing a lot of strife and division. Through the effect of postmodernist philosophies our Christian heritage is being deconstructed in a deliberate attempt to destroy it.
Economic marxism has given away to cultural marxism whereby pluralism, supported by relativism, is favoured.

How do these ideas fit with what you are reading, Michelle?
I am not a political scientist, but these ideas interest me inasmuch as I see what harm they are doing to Christianity, to our culture, and to the lives of people generally.
I also see them as creating the cultural vacuum into which Islam may be sucked without sufficent opposition to stop it engulfing us in time. And that really scares me.

I totally agree with you about the Shar' iah and its affect on democracy in the Middle East. Especially with fundementalists and extremists. Actually I was trying to point out that isn't it strange that we come from a society that insists that we are Christian while at the same time we are wary of having any political association with it. Like I said there is good reason for that too.

Also it must be remebered that democracy is not infallible and is not always the best political system available for all societies. We have only had a few hundred years to test how well it does work. Other political systems have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. I wonder how we would view our system if we were brought up how people in the Middle East were!

Michelle wrote:Also it must be remebered that democracy is not infallible and is not always the best political system available for all societies. We have only had a few hundred years to test how well it does work. Other political systems have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. I wonder how we would view our system if we were brought up how people in the Middle East were!

First of all, we aren't a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Big Difference. A true "democracy" is nothing more than mob rule.

Second, who cares what they think of our form of government? If theirs is so wonderful, they can keep it (as long as they quit killing us in the process).

Judah wrote:If you are looking at Middle Eastern countries where the dominant religion is Islam, then except for Turkey (which is a different case entirely) government by democratic principles is really not possible.
Islam dictates rule by theocracy - from Allah downwards to the people.
The various forms of democracy are rule from the people upwards, at least in principle where we have elections to select our representatives who have some kind of declared agenda (to make certain laws) which we choose with the majority decision granted.
Islam does not allow a separation of church (read mosque) and state.
Allah will not allow a choice - you, the people, must follow his dictates as set out in the Qur'an, that is, Shar'iah law.
In the western world, our Judeo-Christian heritage supports choice - God allows you free will so you are able to decide whatever.

This is one of the factors that is making it difficult, if not impossible, for democracy to be put in place in Iraq at present. The various Islamic groups vigorously oppose democracy, insisting on Shar'iah law instead.
On the basis of this, one can question the sense of any of our troops being deployed there to bring about a democratic government. If Iraq is hoping for something like what is working in Turkey, then they need to secularize their state - remove the control from islamic clerics - as did Attaturk through his reforms following WW2. If the clerics will not give up power, then democracy is not a compatible option for their citizens.

I'm not sure who you are meaning when you reference Christians and liberals together. The term "liberal" when applied to Christianity usually refers to a form of revisionism that subjects traditional/orthodox Biblical Christianity to the new ideas of postmodernism - ideas such as moral relativism, multiculturalism, pragmatism, utopianism, etc.
Christianity becomes re-defined to suit modern opinion, the supernatural components removed because they couldn't possibly be true "according to science" and therefore should be regarded as myth.
This revisionism is ripping through all mainstream denominations of Christianity at present causing a lot of strife and division. Through the effect of postmodernist philosophies our Christian heritage is being deconstructed in a deliberate attempt to destroy it.
Economic marxism has given away to cultural marxism whereby pluralism, supported by relativism, is favoured.

How do these ideas fit with what you are reading, Michelle?
I am not a political scientist, but these ideas interest me inasmuch as I see what harm they are doing to Christianity, to our culture, and to the lives of people generally.
I also see them as creating the cultural vacuum into which Islam may be sucked without sufficent opposition to stop it engulfing us in time. And that really scares me.

Sorry about my last post not answering properly. I was enjoying (being tempted you might say) a delicious bowl of flavoured ice cream. It is quite a warm night here. So these posts may be quite brief. Mmm choc mint, boysenberry, I cant make up my mind.

Oh yeah, getting back to what you posted. Mmm that ice-cream!

Alright then, first the Middle East view democracy in a different context than we do in the West. They believe it is from Allah down to the people. In other words it is direct opposition to its application in the West. The Shar' iah (comprised of Quran Hadith and Ijma) is quite interesting in that it is interpreted both speculatively and definitively. Speculation and defining law. We in the West may not realise it, but that is exactly what we do when we interpret our common laws. Democracy is still a very real possibility for the Middle East. It would have to be applied differently than we have it in the West.

Also as for Ataturk, he began his reforms prior to WW2 in March 1924 after forming the Republican Peoples Party in 1923. He based his reforms on Swiss civil code, the Italian penal code and the German Commercial code.

Probably why there is much difficulty for the Middle East in democratizing in a similar fashion to the secularized West is because apart from the situation with the religious side of things there is also the economic as well. In the West we seem to be concerned with neo-liberalism. Which is quite interesting in itself because it is a shift away Keynesian economics which was very popular with the West for many years. Actually despite losing favour with economists during the Thatcher years (and a few years after) Keynes theories are once again becoming in fashion! In the Middle East historically trade has always existed, however any economic benefits were first past to the monarchy down to the people just as has been the case with Shar' iah law down from Allah. This must be noted, occurs because they are seen as being divine.

If the issue of the economic situation could be addressed then I dent see any real problem of them having a democracy. They (like many Asian countries) view the West with suspicion. And they have very good reason to as well. Our track record is deplorable. The British, and later the United States are examples of our historical economic endeavours with the Middle East. So it is no wonder they are sometimes suspicious of the West trying to democratize it at times. Terrorism is another issue. The various groups oppose democracy because they have seen what it has done to the West. They see problems with it because they view many of the things we do as being insulting to Allah. The economic global greed of the mainly democratic West, the style of sometimes provocative clothing they frown upon. Unfortunately some of these fundemental extremists have much influence on their fellow country men. Again terrorism!

Once again there is the theoretical possibility of a theocracy and democracy combined. The Shar' iah could be the main law however the people could democratically elect who they want to have govern them. I often discuss this with my associates who are more expert in both economics and international relations than I am. One of my associates (professor of international relations and politics) and I often have debates on how this could be achieved.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, I view everything in the political sense. As for what is occurring to Christianity I don't really see any real problem here in Australia where I am. We need to remember that even in Jesus time the same problems existed whereby some people tried to twist around and change his teachings and that of the Jewish preceding him. A person can become paranoid about Islam coming to take over the West. I live in a city with more than one-hundred and forty-five cultural groups (and that is the official government statistic) and we dont have any problems. In my street we have Muslims, Christians, Hindus (and they normally despise Muslims), and atheists. And we all get on like a house on fire!

puritan lad wrote:

Michelle wrote:Also it must be remebered that democracy is not infallible and is not always the best political system available for all societies. We have only had a few hundred years to test how well it does work. Other political systems have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. I wonder how we would view our system if we were brought up how people in the Middle East were!

First of all, we aren't a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Big Difference. A true "democracy" is nothing more than mob rule.

Second, who cares what they think of our form of government? If theirs is so wonderful, they can keep it (as long as they quit killing us in the process).

You are in a democratic republic, I am not as I live in Australia! And I agree with what you were sayng about their opinions of your government. However I was trying to pont out that the West and in particularly the United States has had a very poor track record of exploitation. As for the killing I hope they do stop killing everyone.