Another Question About Christianity...

[Nienna]

The commandment is: "you shall not murder." This type of killing is different than capital punishment or war. Nowhere does the Bible say in general terms "you shall not go to war" or "you shall not execute criminals."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If Bush claims to talk to God and Osama Bin Laden claims to talk to God they are both making the same claim.

If we don't accept that the terrorists are talking to God we shouldn't accept it from the leader of the most advanced country in the history of the world. If he wants to think he's talking to God, fine, but he should keep it to himself and make his argument in favor of the war based on reason. If he must resort to appealing to the supernatural to justify his actions, that's weak. We need strong leadership.

you need to objectively evaluate the types of societies the two seek to create when the violence ultimately stops. Muslims want a society where women have their fingernails pulled out for wearing nail polish, we don't want ......that. You decide.

 

[Nienna]

As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder."

 

[Bonnie]

" Bonnie Many people think that because Jesus turned the other cheek he was advocating being a door mat. That was not the case at all, when he said "turn the other cheek" he was instructing people to stick up for themselves as turnning one's cheek was considered a defiant response in those days."

Liberalogic I find this to be quite weak. There's a difference between standing up for yourself and warfare. War encompasses the killing of countless amounts of people-- even the innocent. Turning your cheek, while defiant, lacks any connection to murder or murder on a large scale, aka war.

Sometimes standing your ground calls for war. If you want to argue that you disagree with the Iraq war fine, however many wars were undisputedly just...Civil War, War of Independance, WWII, WWI, and even invading Afghanistan was self defense. The situation in Iran may head that way as well. No one really wants war especially christians, sometimes due to the sin of evil people it is necessary. How many people's lives were saved because of war????

 

[liberalogic]

The commandment is: "you shall not murder." This type of killing is different than capital punishment or war. Nowhere does the Bible say in general terms "you shall not go to war" or "you shall not execute criminals."

I'm pretty sure it's "thou shall not kill." Regardless, though, "Murder" connotes a sense of legality. God is not subject to the law. So just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right or just in the eyes of God (ie- abortion, premarital sex, etc.). And you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "don't execute criminals, etc.," but that's the point of my previous post. If it's as simple as don't kill, then that extends itself to EVERY situation. Since there are no stipulations, it's unfair to make it applicable to what one sees as "just." It's a matter or choosing life over death in every situation.

"As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder.""

It's unintentional, true, but by starting the war in the first place, you are allowing this to happen. God values life, so even if the death of the civilian was unintentional, war itself will inevitably cause many civilian deaths. Intentionally going to war is knowing that there will be colateral damage, which means that life is not valued as much as God intended it.

Sometimes standing your ground calls for war. If you want to argue that you disagree with the Iraq war fine, however many wars were undisputedly just...Civil War, War of Independance, WWII, WWI, and even invading Afghanistan was self defense. The situation in Iran may head that way as well. No one really wants war especially christians, sometimes due to the sin of evil people it is necessary. How many people's lives were saved because of war????

That's quite an extrapolation to make. So you've deduced that Christ would sanction warfare because he turned his cheek in defiance? I would say that he would sanction warfare if he slapped people across the face or used any sort of violence to convey his message. You can't make such a drastic conclusion from such little evidence.

And by the way, I'm not saying war hasn't saved lives. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just questioning how a Christian can uphold their beliefs while endorsing war and that question has yet to be answered.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm pretty sure it's "thou shall not kill." Regardless, though, "Murder" connotes a sense of legality. God is not subject to the law. So just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right or just in the eyes of God (ie- abortion, premarital sex, etc.). And you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "don't execute criminals, etc.," but that's the point of my previous post. If it's as simple as don't kill, then that extends itself to EVERY situation. Since there are no stipulations, it's unfair to make it applicable to what one sees as "just." It's a matter or choosing life over death in every situation.

"As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder.""

It's unintentional, true, but by starting the war in the first place, you are allowing this to happen. God values life, so even if the death of the civilian was unintentional, war itself will inevitably cause many civilian deaths. Intentionally going to war is knowing that there will be colateral damage, which means that life is not valued as much as God intended it.

Sometimes standing your ground calls for war. If you want to argue that you disagree with the Iraq war fine, however many wars were undisputedly just...Civil War, War of Independance, WWII, WWI, and even invading Afghanistan was self defense. The situation in Iran may head that way as well. No one really wants war especially christians, sometimes due to the sin of evil people it is necessary. How many people's lives were saved because of war????

That's quite an extrapolation to make. So you've deduced that Christ would sanction warfare because he turned his cheek in defiance? I would say that he would sanction warfare if he slapped people across the face or used any sort of violence to convey his message. You can't make such a drastic conclusion from such little evidence.

And by the way, I'm not saying war hasn't saved lives. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just questioning how a Christian can uphold their beliefs while endorsing war and that question has yet to be answered.

uh--ya it has---several times
Think self-defense and let the Chistians interpret the 10 commandments for you since it is THEIR perception that you are supposdly interested in.

 

[Nienna]

I'm pretty sure it's "thou shall not kill."

The only version that says "kill" that I know of is the KJV, in which, the archaic language makes it difficult to interpret correctly. The other translations all say "murder."

Regardless, though, "Murder" connotes a sense of legality. God is not subject to the law. So just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right or just in the eyes of God (ie- abortion, premarital sex, etc.).

Most of our laws BEGAN (at least) with the Judeo-Christian morality. God is not subject to the law; of course not! Laws are created to point people to Him through the process of codifying morality.

Murder has other connotations besides legality. Why is murder illegal, anyway? Intent is one reason. Malice is another. War and capital punishment are not malicious actions. They are carried out for the PROTECTION of other innocents.

And you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "don't execute criminals, etc.," but that's the point of my previous post. If it's as simple as don't kill, then that extends itself to EVERY situation. Since there are no stipulations, it's unfair to make it applicable to what one sees as "just." It's a matter or choosing life over death in every situation.

Look at the different translations. They say "murder."

It's true that death is the opposite of what God desires. But God, Himself, instituted capital punishment. Humans were created to live forever, but death is the punishment for sin.

If you examine the OT, you will find many examples of God supporting war. It is one of the consequences of humankind screwing everything up. God does not desire death, that is very true. But look around. It's a fallen world.

"As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder.""

It's unintentional, true, but by starting the war in the first place, you are allowing this to happen. God values life, so even if the death of the civilian was unintentional, war itself will inevitably cause many civilian deaths. Intentionally going to war is knowing that there will be colateral damage, which means that life is not valued as much as God intended it.

Once again, it's a fallen world. WE CANNOT HAVE PERFECTION. Many times, we are forced to choose, not GOOD, but LESS EVIL.

And by the way, I'm not saying war hasn't saved lives. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just questioning how a Christian can uphold their beliefs while endorsing war and that question has yet to be answered.

"Matthew 10:34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Jesus is fully aware that following Him will cause unrest, turmoil, death, etc. There is a spiritual battle going on, and we are called to fight those who oppose Him, whether spiritually or physically.

 

[Gunny]

I'm pretty sure it's "thou shall not kill." Regardless, though, "Murder" connotes a sense of legality. God is not subject to the law. So just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right or just in the eyes of God (ie- abortion, premarital sex, etc.). And you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "don't execute criminals, etc.," but that's the point of my previous post. If it's as simple as don't kill, then that extends itself to EVERY situation. Since there are no stipulations, it's unfair to make it applicable to what one sees as "just." It's a matter or choosing life over death in every situation.

"As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder.""

It's unintentional, true, but by starting the war in the first place, you are allowing this to happen. God values life, so even if the death of the civilian was unintentional, war itself will inevitably cause many civilian deaths. Intentionally going to war is knowing that there will be colateral damage, which means that life is not valued as much as God intended it.

Sometimes standing your ground calls for war. If you want to argue that you disagree with the Iraq war fine, however many wars were undisputedly just...Civil War, War of Independance, WWII, WWI, and even invading Afghanistan was self defense. The situation in Iran may head that way as well. No one really wants war especially christians, sometimes due to the sin of evil people it is necessary. How many people's lives were saved because of war????

That's quite an extrapolation to make. So you've deduced that Christ would sanction warfare because he turned his cheek in defiance? I would say that he would sanction warfare if he slapped people across the face or used any sort of violence to convey his message. You can't make such a drastic conclusion from such little evidence.

And by the way, I'm not saying war hasn't saved lives. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just questioning how a Christian can uphold their beliefs while endorsing war and that question has yet to be answered.

Why is it that you attempt to literalize every word to suit your argument? This question sounds like your last question.

It is wrong to kill. War is a necessity of the last resort. In this, Man's instinct for survivial is in conflict with Christianity. Only Christ was perfect. We are not.

If you are going to attempt to literalize and define Levitican law, and confuse it with Christianity, God obviously differentiates between killing in war and murder.

Your argument assumes God does not differentiate, and is not understanding of our motives because it is not specifically spelled out in those words. But the Bible is full of examples that suggest otherwise. Moses, Sampson, Saul, David to name a few. In each person's case, God commanded them to wage war against enemy armies by means of force. Saul actually fell into disfavor with God for NOT annihilating every living thing in a Philistine village; rather, he kept the livestock for himself.

So, while Levitican law states "thou shalt not Kill" and Christ exhorts us to "turn the other cheek," I don't think God expects us to stand motionless and be slaughtered like sheep.

Lastly, while you may question another's relationship with God (Bush's in this example), you are NOT privvy to that relationship. Your opinion of what it is and is not is pure speculation.

 

[Nuc]

you need to objectively evaluate the types of societies the two seek to create when the violence ultimately stops. Muslims want a society where women have their fingernails pulled out for wearing nail polish, we don't want ......that. You decide.

RWA, I am against Islamic imperialism as much as anybody. Which is why I think we should avoid any religious connotations in our opposition to them. That way we do not sink to their level. I'd like to see Western culture prevail, but there's a lot more to Western culture than Christianity.

 

[Emmett]

I am amused by folks who try to state reasoms why we should not have removed Suddam Hussein from power. He was a tyrant.

However....... Here in lies the problem! There are tyrants in power all over the world. Why do we not remove them all? TODAY!!!!!

WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO BE THE WORLD'S POLICE OFFICER as we are learning that the World Policing business ALWAYS leads to a civil war immediately afterward, either militarily or economically.

How many folks did the Khmer Rouge kill?

How about deaths in Korea since we left?

China?

Oh by the way, after we kicked the Japs asses, they kicked our economic ass! What kind of cars are all over our roads? Stereos? TVs?

 

[liberalogic]

It is wrong to kill. War is a necessity of the last resort. In this, Man's instinct for survivial is in conflict with Christianity. Only Christ was perfect. We are not.

Very fair and reasonable response. I can't take issue with that in the isolated context of war. You're saying that we're not perfect, that we as humans are prone to flaw, therefore, war is inevitable, even though it conflicts with Christianity. What troubles me, though, is that when it comes to war, you're okay with acting against christian conduct, but when the social issues arise, then we are supposed to follow the values of Christ. My point is that the argument that we are imperfect can extend itself to anything-- woops, I made a mistake, I'm imperfect, let's get her an abortion. or Someone has the desire to be gay, recognizes it as an imperfection, but is still sexually active (because he's not perfect). You say that war is okay because Christ was perfect and we're not, but then you condemn other "social practices." You can't have it both ways-- either we're all imperfect and we act accordingly and we condone war, and we let God judge us in the end OR we follow Christian doctrine to perfection and all achieve salvation (which is obviously not possible).

Lastly, while you may question another's relationship with God (Bush's in this example), you are NOT privvy to that relationship. Your opinion of what it is and is not is pure speculation.

If I'm speculative, then what do you call yourself? Religious? I think they're synonyms.

And you're damn right I'm going to question that...in the world of reality, we call that schizophrenia. Or maybe God just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and gave the president some bad advice. I'm glad I'm not "privvy" to that relationship...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA, I am against Islamic imperialism as much as anybody. Which is why I think we should avoid any religious connotations in our opposition to them. That way we do not sink to their level. I'd like to see Western culture prevail, but there's a lot more to Western culture than Christianity.

There IS no religious connotation to wanting to NOT be dominated by Islamic Imperialism. YOUR bringing christianity into it.

 

[Nienna]

What troubles me, though, is that when it comes to war, you're okay with acting against christian conduct, but when the social issues arise, then we are supposed to follow the values of Christ.

War does NOT conflict with Christianity. When you become a Christian, you enter a war.

 

[liberalogic]

War does NOT conflict with Christianity. When you become a Christian, you enter a war.[/QUOTE]

Lol, I like the way you phrased that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberalogic
I'm pretty sure it's "thou shall not kill."

The only version that says "kill" that I know of is the KJV, in which, the archaic language makes it difficult to interpret correctly. The other translations all say "murder."

Quote:
Regardless, though, "Murder" connotes a sense of legality. God is not subject to the law. So just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right or just in the eyes of God (ie- abortion, premarital sex, etc.).

Most of our laws BEGAN (at least) with the Judeo-Christian morality. God is not subject to the law; of course not! Laws are created to point people to Him through the process of codifying morality.

Murder has other connotations besides legality. Why is murder illegal, anyway? Intent is one reason. Malice is another. War and capital punishment are not malicious actions. They are carried out for the PROTECTION of other innocents.


Quote:
And you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "don't execute criminals, etc.," but that's the point of my previous post. If it's as simple as don't kill, then that extends itself to EVERY situation. Since there are no stipulations, it's unfair to make it applicable to what one sees as "just." It's a matter or choosing life over death in every situation.

Look at the different translations. They say "murder."

It's true that death is the opposite of what God desires. But God, Himself, instituted capital punishment. Humans were created to live forever, but death is the punishment for sin.

If you examine the OT, you will find many examples of God supporting war. It is one of the consequences of humankind screwing everything up. God does not desire death, that is very true. But look around. It's a fallen world.


Quote:
"As for "collateral damage," or the tragic loss of innocent civilian life, it is not intentional. It does not fall under the category of "murder.""

It's unintentional, true, but by starting the war in the first place, you are allowing this to happen. God values life, so even if the death of the civilian was unintentional, war itself will inevitably cause many civilian deaths. Intentionally going to war is knowing that there will be colateral damage, which means that life is not valued as much as God intended it.


Once again, it's a fallen world. WE CANNOT HAVE PERFECTION. Many times, we are forced to choose, not GOOD, but LESS EVIL.


Quote:
And by the way, I'm not saying war hasn't saved lives. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just questioning how a Christian can uphold their beliefs while endorsing war and that question has yet to be answered.


"Matthew 10:34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Jesus is fully aware that following Him will cause unrest, turmoil, death, etc. There is a spiritual battle going on, and we are called to fight those who oppose Him, whether spiritually or physically.

I think you did an amazing job with this response and I would've rep'd you for it, but the thing said I have to spread it or something and I don't really give out enough reps to do that. But I still think you made some great points.

First off, I did attend catholic instruction, I received my communion and confirmation, and the only version that I heard was "thou shall not kill." I'm not arguing this (I'm sure you know more about God than me), but I've never heard it with "murder." I'll take your word for it though.

Perhaps the most valid point you made was about choosing "less evil." That makes perfect sense to me. However, does "less evil" justify the killing of innocent civilians? The only way that I can see that happening is if war is the last, and I mean last, option that needs to be exercised out of self-defense or the preservation of humankind. To me, for George Bush to believe that God sanctions the war in Iraq is absurd because it wasn't our last option at that point and many innocent civilians have died.

"It's true that death is the opposite of what God desires. But God, Himself, instituted capital punishment. Humans were created to live forever, but death is the punishment for sin. "

I don't know what you mean by this, but it intrigues me. I would think God would be against the death penalty. Christianity is about repenting your sins-- capital punishment disregards this notion. Also, who are we to play with life and determine who should die and when? If God created capital punishment, then he should exercise it himself.

(By the way, I'm completely for the death penalty...I was just wondering how that fits into christianity).

 

[Gunny]

Very fair and reasonable response. I can't take issue with that in the isolated context of war. You're saying that we're not perfect, that we as humans are prone to flaw, therefore, war is inevitable, even though it conflicts with Christianity. What troubles me, though, is that when it comes to war, you're okay with acting against christian conduct, but when the social issues arise, then we are supposed to follow the values of Christ. My point is that the argument that we are imperfect can extend itself to anything-- woops, I made a mistake, I'm imperfect, let's get her an abortion. or Someone has the desire to be gay, recognizes it as an imperfection, but is still sexually active (because he's not perfect). You say that war is okay because Christ was perfect and we're not, but then you condemn other "social practices." You can't have it both ways-- either we're all imperfect and we act accordingly and we condone war, and we let God judge us in the end OR we follow Christian doctrine to perfection and all achieve salvation (which is obviously not possible).

Lastly, while you may question another's relationship with God (Bush's in this example), you are NOT privvy to that relationship. Your opinion of what it is and is not is pure speculation.

If I'm speculative, then what do you call yourself? Religious? I think they're synonyms.

And you're damn right I'm going to question that...in the world of reality, we call that schizophrenia. Or maybe God just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and gave the president some bad advice. I'm glad I'm not "privvy" to that relationship...

I was waiting for the punchline.

I did not state that war was okay because we aren't perfect. I made the point that I believe God differentiates between just and unjust killing, and that there are examples of it.

And yes, I CAN have it both ways because instead of literalizing as you are doing in order to make a dishonest argument, I apply common sense, logic, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Using abortion as a means of birth control -- escaping the consequences of ones irresponsible actions -- is WRONG. You try and argue "thou shalt not kill" applies to all, then YOU quit trying to have it both ways. Abortion is murderering an unborn human being -- nothing more or less.

Homosexuals are an abomination according the same Levitican law you are trying to use.

So .... because YOU are not privy to something, it's subject to YOUR judgement? If YOU can't see it, it doesn't happen.

Tsk tsk .....

 

[liberalogic]

I was waiting for the punchline.

I did not state that war was okay because we aren't perfect. I made the point that I believe God differentiates between just and unjust killing, and that there are examples of it.

And yes, I CAN have it both ways because instead of literalizing as you are doing in order to make a dishonest argument, I apply common sense, logic, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Using abortion as a means of birth control -- escaping the consequences of ones irresponsible actions -- is WRONG. You try and argue "thou shalt not kill" applies to all, then YOU quit trying to have it both ways. Abortion is murderering an unborn human being -- nothing more or less.

Homosexuals are an abomination according the same Levitican law you are trying to use.

So .... because YOU are not privy to something, it's subject to YOUR judgement? If YOU can't see it, it doesn't happen.

Tsk tsk .....

Tsk? Tsk? lol, what is that?

First of all, I'm not advocating Christian beliefs such as "thou shall not kill" (I'm for the death penalty and I'm not a pacifist). I'm speaking through them to further the discussion.

The reason why I'm pro-choice is because I don't see value in a bunch of cells that have not yet developed early on in the pregnancy. Those cells need the woman's body to grow and therefore are a part of her body. She should have the right to destroy those cells if she'd like, just like she should be able to cut off her arm if she wants to. It's her body, it's her choice. I am not for partial birth abortion because once it is a baby and can survive without the mother's body, then it is a human being or an individual. This has nothing to do with the christianity part of the discussion, this is just my general opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

By saying you're against abortion, you're saying that we have no right to toy with God's creation. In other words, who are we to play with life and death? The problem with war is that we are doing the same exact thing when innocent civilians are killed. They are just as innocent as that baby that you want to protect, yet it's just to kill one and unjust to kill the other. The point is that if you're pro-life, then you should be pro-life for everything-- not just abortion. That includes war and capital punishment (especially if the killer repents his sins in the name of Christ).

To contradict what I just wrote, you said you utilize reason and logic to determine what's just and what isn't. Fair enough, but if God is the creator of all, if he is the one who is supposed to take us from this Earth, you are then taking his power into your own hands (by advocating war and the death penalty) and basically telling him to go fuck himself under the premise of justice. How do you know he did not have plans for those civilians? How do you know his light would not touch the heart of the man on death row? If he is supreme, he will handle the justice in the after-life, there's no need for you to handle it now.

 

[Gunny]

Tsk? Tsk? lol, what is that?

First of all, I'm not advocating Christian beliefs such as "thou shall not kill" (I'm for the death penalty and I'm not a pacifist). I'm speaking through them to further the discussion.

The reason why I'm pro-choice is because I don't see value in a bunch of cells that have not yet developed early on in the pregnancy. Those cells need the woman's body to grow and therefore are a part of her body. She should have the right to destroy those cells if she'd like, just like she should be able to cut off her arm if she wants to. It's her body, it's her choice. I am not for partial birth abortion because once it is a baby and can survive without the mother's body, then it is a human being or an individual. This has nothing to do with the christianity part of the discussion, this is just my general opinion.

Perhaps you choose to relegate human life to a "bunch of cells" .... I do not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

By saying you're against abortion, you're saying that we have no right to toy with God's creation. In other words, who are we to play with life and death? The problem with war is that we are doing the same exact thing when innocent civilians are killed. They are just as innocent as that baby that you want to protect, yet it's just to kill one and unjust to kill the other. The point is that if you're pro-life, then you should be pro-life for everything-- not just abortion. That includes war and capital punishment (especially if the killer repents his sins in the name of Christ).

Wrong. I am saying there is right and wrong. To intentionally murder the innocent is nothing but wrong. Innocent civilians in war are not targetted ... at least by us, anyway. Islamofascists are the ones who target the weak and defenseless.

So, my point is while you choose to live in black-or-white absolutism, I do not. You choose to leave out the ability to reason between right and wrong, and what is just and unjust.

To contradict what I just wrote, you said you utilize reason and logic to determine what's just and what isn't. Fair enough, but if God is the creator of all, if he is the one who is supposed to take us from this Earth, you are then taking his power into your own hands (by advocating war and the death penalty) and basically telling him to go fuck himself under the premise of justice. How do you know he did not have plans for those civilians? How do you know his light would not touch the heart of the man on death row? If he is supreme, he will handle the justice in the after-life, there's no need for you to handle it now.

Is this where I roll my eyes?

I advocate war as a last resort for the purpose of survival, and/or the protection of the society in which I live. IF I am wrong, I will surely answer to God for it, but not to you.

But again, I will point out that there are plenty of references in the Bible to God advocating war against evil. And Islamofascists are nothing BUT evil, IMO.

Then there is the fact that we did not choose this war, it was brought to us BY that evil.

 

[liberalogic]

Is this where I roll my eyes?

I advocate war as a last resort for the purpose of survival, and/or the protection of the society in which I live. IF I am wrong, I will surely answer to God for it, but not to you.
But again, I will point out that there are plenty of references in the Bible to God advocating war against evil. And Islamofascists are nothing BUT evil, IMO.

Then there is the fact that we did not choose this I hope you're not referring to Iraq and you are only referring to Afghanistan war, it was brought to us BY that evil.

Very fair. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way (as a last resort), but if that's what you believe as a christian, I can't challenge that and though I know nothing, I doubt that God would either.

It's now a matter of determining the extremes that you are going to go to in order to avoid war, which you have now said should only be a last resort.

 

[Gunny]

Very fair. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way (as a last resort), but if that's what you believe as a christian, I can't challenge that and though I know nothing, I doubt that God would either.

It's now a matter of determining the extremes that you are going to go to in order to avoid war, which you have now said should only be a last resort.

I hope you're not referring to Iraq and you are only referring to Afghanistan war, it was brought to us BY that evil.

Either one works for me. And you don't want to have this argument with me. You WILL lose. At any rate, this not the right thread nor forum.

I do not have to determine the extremes I am willing to go to in order to avoid war. I am reasonable, and am willing to negotiate misunderstanding. I am not an appeaser, and will not be dictated to; especially, by unreasonable, religious extremists bent on destroying the civilization in which I live.

 

[Annie]

Either one works for me. And you don't want to have this argument with me. You WILL lose. At any rate, this not the right thread nor forum.

I do not have to determine the extremes I am willing to go to in order to avoid war. I am reasonable, and am willing to negotiate misunderstanding. I am not an appeaser, and will not be dictated to; especially, by unreasonable, religious extremists bent on destroying the civilization in which I live.

I'll jump in here. Regarding Iran and 'extemes' willing to go to in order to avoid war. The UN attempt at sanctions is as far as I'm willing to wait. If they vote 'no'-meaning China/Russia, we act unilateraly and deal with repercussions down the road.