Should the U.S. act to stop Genocide?

[SOIL]

Something written way back in 1999 - worth a quick read (IMO) -

 

-Dennis

[Japedo]

Sorry, but it's not our Job to baby-sit the world. This administration is already using that lie to invade countries left and right. In a perfect world there would be none of this.

 

Perhaps you should focus on the killings the United States is doing in the name of Freedom and liberation before you start asking for their 'help'?

 

Yes the genocides are horrifying, organizations such as the United Nations, Red Cross and what not have my full support. The reality of the United States is in no position to force, aid or imperialize itself any further. We are already infringing on sovereign nations and dictating who their leaders are, what laws are in place and what not. It's not our job or our right.

 

We are not the caretakers of the world, we can't afford the men or the cost as a government. Now that being said, Independent private groups again I fully support going to aid.

 

Also it's going to take quite a few generations to rid these countries of Tribal mentality. The key is education. The tribes get the loyalty there, opposing tribes need to be destroyed. Until you eradicate this mindset, you're going up against a brick wall. IMO.

[SOIL]

...

We are not the caretakers of the world, we can't afford the men or the cost as a government.  Now that being said, Independent  private groups again I fully support going to aid.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Japedo,

 

I think I can understand where you are coming from - I have certainly felt those same sentiments at times.

 

I am curious, have you seen the movie : "Hotel Rwanda" ?

 

-Dennis

[Japedo]

Yes I saw it.

[SOIL]

I encourage (any and everyone) to read (if you have not seen the program), this transcript, below is a very short excerpt:

 

NARRATOR: Back at the airport, French soldiers were escorting their citizens to safety, along with French diplomats and the embassy dog. They did not evacuate the embassy's Tutsi staff who, were later murdered. The Americans, too, were airlifted out. [www.pbs.org: More about French actions in Rwanda]

 

-Dennis

[chefranden]

Something written way back in 1999 - worth a quick read (IMO) -

 

-Dennis

 

The UN Charter has a section that calls for the establishment of military forces under its control for just this sort of thing. However, the United States has been the leading opponent to actually instituting the force. If it were established we would loose the ability to act unilaterally while blaming the UN for lack of action.

[Japedo]

I encourage (any and everyone) to read (if you have not seen the program),  this transcript, below is a very short excerpt:

-Dennis

 

 

 

 

Soil,

 

My heart breaks for these people, I'm truly sorry for the horrific atrocities that they are going thru. We as a Government can legally do Nothing though. You or I as individuals are welcome to join causes to help these people. We are welcome to give every cent of our earnings, Jump on a plane and fly over there et al.

 

What about the homeless here at home? What about abused here at home, what about blatant corruption in our very own government? It's our reasonability as Americans to take care of our neighbors. It's not the governments job. Same goes for foreign neighbors. I understand your heart goes out to these people, I think all of our hearts do. You need to separate the governments Job apart from volunteering for a cause, they are not the same.

[SOIL]

The UN Charter has a section that calls for the establishment of military forces under its control for just this sort of thing.  However, the United States has been the leading opponent to actually instituting the force.  If it were established we would loose the ability to act unilaterally while blaming the UN for lack of action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for mentioning that Chef, can you find a link for me (or I can also do some google-ing) - I would like to use that info (from the UN Charter) maybe in an editorial or something.

 

Also, can you find anything to show that the U.S. has been opposing instituting such a force?

 

I don't know if I should/would draw the same conclusion as to WHY? the U.S. would oppose such a force - but I can understand why you do - maybe I will understand even better if you can supply some links to sources showing how the U.S. has been opposing such U.N. forces.

 

( again, however - I suppose I could do some searching for myself! )

 

Again - I encourage reading The Triumph of Evil - Frontline Transcript - I first heard this when I was listening to a presentation Gary Haugen gave at a seminary in St. Louis (via cassette tapes).

 

The part about putting the embassy dog on the "flight out" while leaving the non-white folks (people) to be immediately murdered - really struck me.

 

I can't seem to shake the feeling in the pit of my stomach.

 

.... even now - several months after I first heard that piece.

 

-Dennis

[chefranden]

Thanks for mentioning that Chef,  can you find a link for me (or I can also do some google-ing)  - I would like to use that info (from the UN Charter) maybe in an editorial or something.

 

Also, can you find anything to show that the U.S. has been opposing instituting such a force?

 

I don't know if I should/would draw the same conclusion as to WHY? the U.S. would oppose such a force - but I can understand why you do - maybe I will understand even better if you can supply some links to sources showing how the U.S. has been opposing such U.N. forces.

 

( again, however - I suppose I could do some searching for myself! )

 

Again - I encourage reading The Triumph of Evil - Frontline Transcript - I first heard this when I was listening to a presentation Gary Haugen gave at a seminary in St. Louis (via cassette tapes).

 

The part about putting the embassy dog on the "flight out" while leaving the non-white folks (people) to be immediately murdered - really struck me.

 

I can't seem to shake the feeling in the pit of my stomach.

 

.... even now - several months after I first heard that piece.

 

-Dennis

 

I think it is Article 7 of the charter. I'm just using my memory from my collage political science days.

 

I'll look it up for you later today. You are busy. I'm retired.

[SOIL]

...

... It's our reasonability as Americans to take care of our neighbors.  It's not the governments job.  Same goes for foreign neighbors.    I understand your heart goes out to these people, I think all of our hearts do.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(I added the bold and italics for emphasis)

 

Japedo,

 

Again I understand where you are coming from.

 

I emphasized that word "reasonability" because I think it embodies the spirit from which some Christian people approach this sort of thing.

 

Christians think that Biblically based DOCTRINE helps them/us to have a "reason" to be our brother's keeper. Some Christians don't understand what "reason" is motivating exchristians to act that way.

 

I am still in the process of thinking about what my take on this way of viewing things is.

 

-Dennis

 

(Sorry I need to get back to work now - I'll check back after normal work hours to see what more you folks have to say.)

[Japedo]

(I added the bold and italics for emphasis)

 

Japedo,

 

Again I understand where you are coming from.

 

I emphasized that word "reasonability" because I think it embodies the spirit from which some Christian people approach this sort of thing.

 

Christians think that Biblically based DOCTRINE helps them/us to have a "reason" to be our brother's keeper.  Some Christians don't understand what "reason" is motivating exchristians to act that way.

 

I am still in the process of thinking about what my take on this way of viewing things is.

 

-Dennis

 

(Sorry I need to get back to work now - I'll check back after normal work hours to see what more you folks have to say.)

 

 

Yeah, the Majority Christians only care about taking care of fellow Christians. They feel one must be 'saved' first before they receive any sort of gods benefits, forget mans. Other wise the suffering is due to lack of trust in god or sin et al. (I refer to statements made by some popular Christians after 9/11 , The tsunami, and atrocities going on in the Middle east as examples)

 

It motivates me as a Human being if I'm able to help my fellow human being, (regardless of religious conviction) I help them. I don't need any such rewards and brownie points from a god to show me it's my responsibility. * Perhaps some of your fellow Christians can't understand what it is to help someone with out some sort of reward and that's why they don't understand why anyone not getting a reward wouldn't help? Just goes so show how self absorbed they are. IMO

 

 

* I understand not all Christians have this mindset, but it's by and far the way many of it's leaders believe. They also relish in the fact that people who they perceive as 'sinners' suffer and take some sort of sick glee that it's their gods justice.

[Cerise]

1. America can't do jack until they stop dicking around in Iraq. Think that'll happen?

 

2. Rwanda asked for assistance many many times. And some countries did promise they would help, and those promises never came through. Why do you suppose that was?

 

 

 

Unrelated (or maybe it isn't) question for you, Dennis. I asked this in another thread and not one christian answered, so I figure it must be a toughie.

 

Given the choice, would you rather save a life or a soul?

[SOIL]

1.  America can't do jack until they stop dicking around in Iraq.  Think that'll happen?

 

2.  Rwanda asked for assistance many many times.  And some countries did promise they would help, and those promises never came through.  Why do you suppose that was?

Unrelated (or maybe it isn't) question for you, Dennis.  I asked this in another thread and not one christian answered, so I figure it must be a toughie.

 

Given the choice, would you rather save a life or a soul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cerise,

 

I don't remember reading that question before.

 

My quick (shoot from the hip) answer is .......

 

Well maybe I don't have one.

 

I probably need to go look up the words "life" and "soul" in some good dictionaries (oops, sorry I forgot who I am talking to for a sec -- lol - < inside humor only old-timer ex-c hanger outers will understand>).

 

If by "life" you mean only this physical life before a person's body stops breathing and/or our/their mind stops producing brain waves on some monitor - well, I reckon every person is going to die once - no matter what I'd personally "rather" - or even what I do - I can do no more than to prolong a "life".

 

Now if by "soul" you mean to imply that there is some essence to a person that continues after their/our physical body stops functioning - then it would seem (almost by definition) that I should rather try to influence that essence for good - since my efforts could prove more effective over the long haul, (so to speak).

 

I think Jesus taught us that the physical can teach us about the spiritual - and hence both are important. When Jesus spoke of feeding and giving a glass of water to "my brothers" - I suspect he had in mind ministering to their "life" - and when he got mad about folks who would have better off had a millstone tied around their neck and had their bodies thrown into the sea ..... I think he was referring to how they had influenced "one of these little ones" in a spiritual (soul?) manner.

 

-Dennis

[chefranden]

Sorry it is Chapter 7 of the UN charter.

 

CHAPTER VII

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

 

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

 

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

 

Article 43

 

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

 

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

 

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

 

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

 

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

 

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

 

Article 47

 

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

 

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

 

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

 

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

 

Article 48

 

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

 

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

 

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

 

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

 

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[SOIL]

Sorry it is Chapter 7 of the UN charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Randen,

 

Do you know if there was any talk of abiding by that in 1994 when as many as 10,000 Rwandans were being murdered per day?

 

I don't remember seeing anything mentioning any main "champion" in the U.N. crying out for immediate help for the Tutsis- but I must admit - I was pretty much oblivious in those days. I lived in Colorado up close to Estes Park, and I spent a bunch of my free time hiking in the Roosevelt National Park. I don't remember even following that news story at all - (actually I almost never have watched news on TV - and I didn't even read a paper regularly in those days) - I mainly just worked - or hiked in the woods - and that was about all.

 

Lately, I have been at least trying to keep a little more informed - especially about that type of thing.

 

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

If by "life" you mean only this physical life before a person's body stops breathing and/or our/their mind stops producing brain waves on some monitor - well, I reckon every person is going to die once - no matter what I'd personally "rather" - or even what I do - I can do no more than to prolong a "life".

 

Now if by "soul" you mean to imply that there is some essence to a person that continues after their/our physical body stops functioning - then it would seem (almost by definition) that I should rather try to influence that essence for good - since my efforts could prove more effective over the long haul, (so to speak).

 

I think Jesus taught us that the physical can teach us about the spiritual - and hence both are important.  When Jesus spoke of feeding and giving a glass of water to "my brothers" - I suspect he had in mind ministering to their "life" - and when he got mad about folks who would have better off had a millstone tied around their neck and had their bodies thrown into the sea ..... I think he was referring to how they had influenced "one of these little ones" in a spiritual (soul?) manner.

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So theoretically, you would be in support of killing newborns in order that they might go straight to heaven and not get the chance to become apostates or heathens...yes?

 

Think of all the souls you would save, regardless of the "lives" lost, Dennis.

 

Of course, that brings up another good question, as your murder of newborns might put your own salvation in jeopardy (though perhaps not. It is debatable that Truechristians cannot also be murderers). So the next question would be, are you willing to give up your own salvation in order to arrange the salvation of others?

 

Hm...I wonder if this needs to be in another thread. Mods?

[SOIL]

Cerise,

 

You bring up interesting things (as usual). I will quickly respond now - and maybe I'll come back with a better thought out response when (if ever) time allows.

 

First, (a long time back - maybe two releases of software ago) - I think I mentioned I don't see a strong case in scripture for the idea of "all babies go to heaven". Actually I don't like the idea of getting too much involved in trying to figure out for myself which people will go to heaven and conversely, which of us will go to hell - as I think that job is best suited for Jesus and His Father alone. Like Job, I prefer to trust that the God of all the earth will do right.

 

Also, (as I have said in previous threads) I don't like using the term "murder" in cases like abortion (if that is what you are referring to). As far as my views about whether being involved in an abortion would put my own salvation in jeopardy - I thinkI am by default, regardless of whether I have murdered anyone, (I have most certainly been angry toward my brother), am not suited for salvation - it is only through the grace of God - because of what Jesus did for me, that I can have any hope of salvation.

 

...

 

As far as the question goes - concerning whether I would be "willing to give up my own salvation in order to arrange the salvation of others?"

 

Now THAT is a very good question! ... (there you go again Cerise!)

 

Some Biblical passages have come to my mind now that you have raised that question: The apostle Paul addressed that to some extent, I think - when he was talking about his fellow blinded Jewish brothers and sisters. I also remember Moses, when he was pleading for God not to destroy his fellow Jewish brothers and sisters. .... Hey, now that I think some more about this question - I even remember Jesus giving up his "life" - for my "soul" - and in that process he experienced what it feels like to have his Father God forsake him - (sounds a bit like one losing his "Salvation" to me).

 

As for me though - I'm not sure Cerise - I'd like to say that I would do that for you.

 

One of the reasons I have told myself concerning why I stick around this site - is because I would like to see you (and people like you) gain back the joy of your Salvation. To tell you the truth, I have sometimes felt - I may be close to losing my joy - by hanging around here.

 

Sorry for rambling .... actually, I don't even know if this post is "off topic".

 

(I guess maybe we can just let the mods sort that out).

 

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Cerise,

 

    You bring up interesting things (as usual).  I will quickly respond  now - and maybe I'll come back with a better thought out response when (if ever) time allows.

 

First, (a long time back - maybe two releases of software ago) - I think I mentioned I don't see a strong case in scripture for the idea of "all babies go to heaven". Actually I don't like the idea of getting too much involved in trying to figure out for myself which people will go to heaven and conversely, which of us will go to hell - as I think that job is best suited for Jesus and His Father alone.  Like Job, I prefer to trust that the God of all the earth will do right.

 

Did you actually read the story of Job, Dennis? If you did, you might have noticed that the God of all the earth did not "do right" and it wasn't about that. It was about fucking around an innocent man and his entire family in order to prove some kind of point to a devil. It was about taking a man out, beating him almost unto death, asking some meaningless questions and then saying "see? this is why you shouldn't question me! ....by the way, sorry about your family here's some of your stuff back."

 

The story of Job doesn't say "the God of the earth will do right" at all. The story of Job says that God will sometimes go bugfuck and wreck your life without any explanations. For a bet. Not exactly reassuring.

Also, (as I have said in previous threads) I don't like using the term "murder" in cases like abortion (if that is what you are referring to). 

 

No. I was referring to newborns. As in, children who were just born.

 

As far as my views about whether being involved in an abortion would put my own salvation in jeopardy -  I thinkI am by default, regardless of whether I have murdered anyone, (I have most certainly been angry toward my brother), am not suited for salvation - it is only through the grace of God - because of what Jesus did for me, that I can have any hope of salvation.

 

So in other words, you are damned anyway, but in a way, not damned because of anything you do. Which means technically you could be a Truechristian and still be a murderer, right?

 

As far as the question goes - concerning whether I would be "willing to give up my own salvation in order to arrange the salvation of others?"

 

Now THAT is a very good question!  ... (there you go again Cerise!)

 

I have talked to other Christians about this, and they have all said they would not be willing to give up their own salvation (or God wouldn't want them to...which, hell if I know how they arrived at that) for others. Salvation is, supposedly, the only truly selfish wish that the Bible endorses fully.

 

Some Biblical passages have come to my mind now that you have raised that question:  The apostle Paul addressed that to some extent, I think - when he was talking about his fellow blinded Jewish brothers and sisters.  I also remember Moses, when he was pleading for God not to destroy his fellow Jewish brothers and sisters.  .... Hey, now that I think some more about this question - I even remember Jesus giving up his "life" - for my "soul" - and in that process he experienced what it feels like to have his Father God forsake him - (sounds a bit like one losing his "Salvation" to me).

 

Except Jesus only had three days of it. That ain't "losing my religion" in my mind. I've lost for more then five years now. A lot longer then 3 days of damnation.

 

As for me though - I'm not sure Cerise - I'd like to say that I would do that for you. 

 

I have learned that what you like to do and what you do do are supremely different things. The same way I would like to say that I understand how you can worship at such a strange and (to me) unfulfilling altar after all we have talked about, and yet I do not.

 

One of the reasons I have told myself concerning why I stick around this site - is because I would like to see you (and people like you) gain back the joy of your Salvation. To tell you the truth, I have sometimes felt - I may be close to losing my joy - by hanging around here.

 

Conversely, hanging out here brings me joy daily. It may not be "joy in the Lord" but for some reason, it seems a purer, deeper joy then I ever had when I raised my arms in supplication to the God of the earth.

 

Sorry for rambling .... actually, I don't even know if this post is "off topic".

 

(I guess maybe we can just let the mods sort that out).

-Dennis

 

my thoughts exactly.

[SOIL]

Cerise,

 

Thanks for your detailed response - the great thing about "talking" with you, is this - I don't have to ponder the question: "how does she really feel about this?" !

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Did you actually read the story of Job, Dennis?  If you did, you might have noticed that the God of all the earth did not "do right" and it wasn't about that.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Cerise,

 

I have read the story of Job .... at least a time or two.

 

Here is some of what I got out of it :

 

People may think we know about a lot of things - suffering for instance - like why it happens, and to whom - and when it should or should not happen. However, just as we don't know how to make planets, or the various life forms around (and including) us - we also don't have a clear view about suffering, and we should think twice before telling someone else that they are suffering because God is mad at them.

 

I also remember thinking God can receive glory when a person trusts Him - even though the circumstances would not give that person - rationally scientific reasons to stand up in church and say something like: "God's been good to me, God has always been good" (to quote some lyrics from a popular contemporary Christian song).

 

After reading Job, I have considered that there are more important issues in the cosmos then just my happiness and ease throughout the relatively short duration of my physical life.

 

I don't think the book of Job is trying to teach me that God is trustworthy - rather it speaks of a man who was not willing to just simply "curse God and die" - when things didn't happen in a way he understood (and was happy with) -- instead, Job sought answers from God about what bothered him, fervently - and he didn't necessarily just believe the pat religious answers suggested by his so called friends.

 

Job kept firing his questions at God (very boldly) .... until God eventually showed up ..... and after Job listened to the questions God asked him - he decided he could and would be content - with just trusting that God is good.

 

Hey, maybe I should go back and read Job again - Actually it has been too long ... now that I come to think about it.

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Yes Cerise,

 

I have read the story of Job .... at least a time or two.

 

Here is some of what I got out of it :

 

People may think we know about a lot of things - suffering for instance - like why it happens, and to whom -  and when it should or should not happen.  However, just as we don't know how to make planets, or the various life forms around (and including) us - we also don't have a clear view about suffering, and we should think twice before telling someone else that they are suffering because God is mad at them.

 

Quite right. They should tell them, rather, that they are suffering because God made a little wager with the devil, apparently. I'm sure it would make it all seem so much more in perspective then.

 

The ability to make a planet does not neccessarily grant the right to cause the suffering of others. Otherwise, you might as well be hailing Satan, for all your morality.

 

I also remember thinking God can receive glory when a person trusts Him - even though the circumstances would not give that person - rationally scientific reasons to stand up in church and say something like:  "God's been good to me, God has always been good"  (to quote some lyrics from a popular contemporary Christian song).

 

I really couldn't imagine caring less about whether or not God receives glory.

After reading Job, I have considered that there are more important issues in the cosmos then just my happiness and ease throughout the relatively short duration of my physical life.

 

Like making bets with people about how much pain you can put one of your followers through without making him curse his misplaced trust in you. That's obviously much more important.

 

I don't think the book of Job is trying to teach me that God is trustworthy - rather it speaks of a man who was not willing to just simply "curse God and die" - when things didn't happen in a way he understood (and was happy with) -- instead, Job sought answers from God about what bothered him, fervently - and he didn't necessarily just believe the pat religious answers suggested by his so called friends.

 

Job kept firing his questions at God (very boldly) .... until God eventually showed up ..... and after Job listened to the questions God asked him - he decided he could and would be content - with just trusting that God is good.

 

Or maybe he decided that this particular tyrant was not one to be messed with. Those who question the ways of Tyrants often find their heads rolling on the ground.

 

Hey, maybe I should go back and read Job again - Actually it has been too long ...  now that I come to think about it.

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you ever come to a conclusion about the story of Job that isn't a sickening display of apologetics, let me know.

[necrosmith]

Only if they have oil or if the leader of the country tried to assassinate our President's daddy.

[chefranden]

The ability to make a planet does not neccessarily grant the right to cause the suffering of others. Otherwise, you might as well be hailing Satan, for all your morality.

 

May I rephrase? Who needs Satan when you have God?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Simple answer to question SOIL?

 

"Fuck No"

 

Why involve your and my kids in another un-civil war that knows no boundaries, no friends, no foes, no outcome promised, and certainly no warranty of a positive end?

 

Gee, "Quagmire" comes to mind...

 

If you want things to be "level" on the "playing fields", gather up all the AK series rifles. mags ammo from uS controlled Iraq, drop them to those being prosecuted, let things "equalize"...

 

Go ahead and hope UN has ability and guts to go in and disarm the hardcores and make "peace happen"..

 

Watch UN and/or anyone else get "mogodishu'd"...

 

We'll not solve their ethic and tribal problems with bags of rice and chick tracts..

 

kL

[Ouroboros]

Did you actually read the story of Job, Dennis?  If you did, you might have noticed that the God of all the earth did not "do right" and it wasn't about that.  It was about fucking around an innocent man and his entire family in order to prove some kind of point to a devil.  It was about taking a man out, beating him almost unto death, asking some meaningless questions and then saying "see?  this is why you shouldn't question me! ....by the way, sorry about your family here's some of your stuff back."

 

It was even worse than just making life hell for an innocent dude. Job was considered to be righteous. And his crime was that he was so righteous that the Satan challenged God on a little chess game. The prosecutor (the meaning of the word Satan), asked God for permission to destroy Job, to test him and see if he would hold up his faith.

 

Isn’t that a wonderful God, let’s gamble with this guy and see if we can crack him. We’ll do it by killing all his animals, burn down all his farms and houses, take all his riches, and kill his wife and kids. I just have a hard time associating with Job, I feel sorry for his wife and kids that had to be killed to prove to Satan that Job were this super dude.

 

The most comic part of Job is the ending: “God gave back twice fold to what Job had in the beginning”. So did he get two wives?