Religion is Evil!

Phatboy,I tend to use "gods" as a generic term, and God to refer to the monotheisitic notion. The lower case applies to anyone who plays in the role of god. I agree that affirming the three-in-one notion is important. The standard for love.Stephen

Schraf': No. I said he doesn't have to follow the Commandments because he is not under the law, if he is saved by grace then he has recieved the fruit of the spirit and the fruit of the spirit fulfills the law, or is not against it. More is written about this in Galatians. Well, if they think killing is justified and partake in such activity they are not Christian to me. People who read Jesus's words can in no way justify killing without having to miss out, or get rid of some of the other teachings. Here is an example of taking the whole book into account - which infact is an axcellent point, did you make that point?
A so called "Christian" says that his wife blasphemed and so he says, like in Leviticus he shall stone her. He will have to now get rid of Jesus's teaching: " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ". Also many other teachings... " If you're even angry with your brother you're in danger of the Commandment ". And there are the obvious teachings about forgiveness etc. So you see, these people cannot justify there actions. You ask: Christ said people will claim to know him and he shall say " I never knew you " - You're indeed intelligent, I'll let you figure that one out. One thing is for sure, the New Testament is incredibly packed with teachings from Christ, I sometimes wonder if I am truly saved or born again. If I think it is hard for me to qualify then believe me - a murderer and doer of atrocities, in my opinion stands no chance of being saved. And those kind of actions are gonna be kinda hard to justify on judgement day. But have you read when the Son of man shall seperate the sheep from the goats? Or Revelation concerning the fait of murderers? Ofcourse it is only my opinion that murderers have no chance of being saved and that is where I could be wrong. So you can see how it is very easy to say you are Christian but Christ indeed let's us know that you have to mean it. My Bible quotes were from memory and may not be entirely accurateSo, when defining a sheep from a goat I guess that will be left for the Shepard to do.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-26-2004]

and finally... OK, so say it was Israel. Are we responsible in that we look the other way when Israel does such things?Is the war about religion, or politics? Does anyone believe the trustworthiness of Leon Panetta?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

It depends on whether we knowingly gave them assistance and encouragement. Both. You cannot separate the two. Even in the USA, where we have a very deliberate separation in the first amendment, religion is deeply involved in politics. I don't speak for "anyone". However, I never did trust the guy - even back in the Clinton era.

Who's looking the other way? I think we should applaud. Everybody knows I'm no booster of Israel - quite the opposite - but I think assassinations are the one thing they get exactly right. How can it be worse to kill one man than to allow the entire region to descend into nuclear holocaust?If people who build nuclear weapons at the behest of madmen are given cause to think twice about the prospect of leaving their children fatherless, I see that as a good thing. Killing people who cannot seem to be dissuaded from a path that leads to widespread devastation isn't something you have to be religious to see the merit of.Anyway to say that we "looked the other way" suggests that Israel asked our permission. I don't think for a minute that it works like that.

You've resussitated an 8 year old thread. Is this a record?

Wow, a post from you that actually makes sense and isn't wreaked of liberal commie BS. I agree completely.Let the politically correct people cry bloody murder all they want. In this case, I'd rather have a few assassinations than a nuclear holocaust.

Well, unless it's convenient for us.

"Liberal commie BS"?

In all honesty, i expected you to take a stance that principle dictates you'd rather have a nuclear war than assassinations. Practically all liberal commies I've talked to about this issue has taken such stance. It's hard to wrap my mind around this, but they truly honestly believe assassination is worse than a nuclear Iran and possibly a nuclear confrontation between Iran and Israel.Like I've said many times, a lot of what the extreme liberal views just don't make sense to me anymore. And I consider myself a liberal. I think the problem is people want to be more politically correct than they want to make sense.I know this is going OT, but talking about nuclear war is already OT. At one of the group discussions I attended, some people, including myself, started to get annoyed at all the fuss with politically correctness. Someone, an asian guy no less, said the statement "east asian people tend to eat rice". Immediately, the liberal crowd descended on him, telling him such a statement is offensive. Myself and several others started questioning their reaction. Is there something wrong with eating rice? It's a statement of fact, not stereotype. If you look at the statistics, east asian countries really do consume a hell of a lot of rice, way more than anywhere else. So, to me, by being politically correct, the liberal crowd is becoming nonsensical. It seems to me like they care more towards not offending people than making sense. What's funny is their reaction towards the statement about rice eating actually couldn't be more offensive to asian people. The extreme reaction tells the rest of us the liberal commie crowd think there's something wrong with eating rice. It's like trying to avoid talking about down syndrome in front of someone with down syndrome or someone who's got a loved one with down syndrome.That's what I mean by liberal commie BS.Added by edit.More along this line. I am absolutely convinced that the reason the current gay rights movement is gaining so little ground is because of the politically correct approach by the liberal commie. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

If the victims of these attacks was indeed building nuclear weapons, then I'd be in agreement with you. All I know is that Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan worked at a non-secret Uranium Enrichment site that may have been subject to international inspections and the public face of which is to create fuel rods. I don't know he was making weapon grade Uranium. Maybe someone else did. His only confirmed crime seems to be that he probably knows how to make weapons grade Uranium, and probably has the capacity to do so.This strikes me as an unusual quirk in your character. You made it very clear that you were suspicious of the motivations of moderators on the grounds that power has a corrupting influence, when that power is limited to suspending someone from an internet forum. But when someone else has the power, and exercises it, to have a professor killed, you seem to be interpreting them as having the very best intentions rather that suspecting the worst.

Modulous, do you have some source of info that the CIA or the Israeli intelligence don't have privi to?

No. It appears you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that the assassinations are automatically bad because I know more about the situation than the culprits, or those that ordered it. Rather I was saying that the assassinations are not automatically good because the victim works in a Uranium Enrichment Plant.My point was that crashfrog seemed to have information that I wasn't privy to, not that I had information that crashfrog wasn't privy to.We don't know the full extent of the intelligence that exists on the guy, and I prefixed my comments with

quote:

---

If the victims of these attacks was indeed building nuclear weapons, then I'd be in agreement with you.

---

But we don't know that is the case. Crashfrog seems willing to assume that the intelligence did support this and trust those in power to make the decision to kill someone, even though he has previously stated that the motivations of those in power should automatically be suspected.Crashfrog has assumed those in power have the best intentions in mind (the prevention of nuclear holocaust), rather than the worst intentions (for example: harming a legitimate Iranian business, killing someone who could conceivably make weapons grade Uranium if he so chooses - just in case) without any particularly compelling evidence that I have myself seen.Indeed - I haven't even seen it claimed that the reason for the killing was because he was working on building nuclear weapons, crashfro seems have simply made this assumption - though he is certainly not alone in this speculation.

Evidence that an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons would actually spark a nuclear holocaust?You make the assumption that the man assassinated was key to Iran's nuclear weapons program (assassinating one of a dozen nuclear engineers wouldn't do much to curb Iran's nuclear program, and would simply be a pointless murder) which may or may not be true, and then further assume that a nuclear Iran would likely result in a nuclear holocaust.If Iran were to use some future nuclear capability against, well, anyone, Iran would itself be nuked to glass. If they launched against Israel, Iran would cease to exist (both from an Israeli counterattack, because they have nuclear weapons already, and from the US, who doesn't take kindly to Jerusalem mushroom clouds).Your nuclear hyperventilating stinks of cold-war-era paranoia. Mutually-assured annihilation has prevented every single nuclear power (with the exception of the US, when we were the only ones with nuclear weapons and therefore were not in a state of mutually-assured annihilation) from the USSR to modern Russia to Pakistan to India to Israel and even North Korea from actually utilizing that nuclear capability.Why do you believe that Iran, if it were to possess nuclear weapons, would for some reason break this pattern and initiate what could only possibly result in its own destruction? Do you believe all of the leaders of Iran to be suicidally stupid?

In a blatant attempt to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.... I am sure the Iranians aren't too happy with a nuclear US.If they started assassinating US nuclear scientists and researchers into other areas of science that could be used for warfare do you think this would be justified?