Just A Couple Of Thoughts

[DRMIZER]

It is now commonly understood and documented that Geroge Bush was "told by God" to invade Iraq.

1. If this IS true, then is this another historical holy (religious) war?

2. If this IS true that God told Bush to Invade Iraq, apparently God is setting on his throne in heaven just watching a movie or taking care of another universe or, what ever Gods' do.

Why do I write this? Seems to me that with the recent event of the beheading of Paul Johnson that He could have heard the prayers of many of the Christians in America, including the Johnson family and "interrupted" in some way so that he would not be beheaded. Afterall, this war was "God's" idea, according to our president. He hasn't been there for all the dead soldiers in America, why couldn't he just spare one?

I guess we have to go back to that old catch-all phrase which excuses everything about God that doesn't make any sense to us at all. . . . . .God works in mysterious ways. Yes He certainly does.

[xexon]

This war is run by crazy people, on both sides.



x

[cpwill]

oh, you want life to be perfect and easy?:)

[cpwill]

or is it that you just want God to answer every prayer with "yes".

[pragmatic]

.

It is now commonly understood and documented that Geroge Bush was "told by God" to invade Iraq.

Believe the assertion is a distortion. Can you cite what you are basing the statement on....?


.

[JD3]

While I think Bush inappropriately brings God into this, he wasn't told to invade by God. He merely believes he is doing God's work, or more percisely, being and doing what he thinks God wants him to do and be. That is if we are to take him at his word.

None of this relects on God or anyone's beliefs except that maybe people who make these decisions should seek a secular rationale.

[Duo_Maxwell]

.

It is now commonly understood and documented that Geroge Bush was "told by God" to invade Iraq.

Believe the assertion is a distortion. Can you cite what you are basing the statement on....?

.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[Missouri Mule]

Well, I don't know for a fact what God spoke to Bush or if this is all just fanciful reporting. But it seems that I recall the Civil War was fought over a belief that slavery was evil and needed to be eradicated. Many people went to their deaths believing they were doing God's will. Has Bush ever specifically said that he speaks with God on a personal basis? If not, then it would seem he is merely acting on his interpretation of what the Bible teaches. It would follow that any person who professes to be a person of religion that they would base their acts on such interpretations, otherwise they would knowingly be committing acts of evil.

[up2date]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Duo, that story was demonstrated to be less than reliable. The last time this came up it sounded too fishy, and upon researching I found there were all kinds of potential holes. In the morning I'll try to find my old post, but as I recall it was an eyewitness account translated several times to and from three different languages before finding it's way into the press. I find it difficult to believe Bush would say such a thing.

[up2date]

I did a little digging, and I found my old post. It was based on this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer) in the Washington Post. The original translation was that he was inspired by God, which is a completely different thing from being told by God. Even then, there are serious questions about that translation as well. Here's a relevant clip from the article:
Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.
I think it's safe to say there's no story here.

[DRMIZER]

I may have to stand corrected corrected on the quote that Bush uttered these words. It apparently cannot be confirmed as fact which does not change my original question or statement:

"Why do I write this? Seems to me that with the recent event of the beheading of Paul Johnson that He could have heard the prayers of many of the Christians in America, including the Johnson family and "interrupted" in some way so that he would not be beheaded. Afterall, this war was "God's" idea, according to our president. He hasn't been there for all the dead soldiers in America, why couldn't he just spare one?"

[heel31ok]

Who says God has not spared "just one '' soldier?

[DRMIZER]

Who says God has not spared "just one '' soldier?No one has said that. But if God has saved a few, then why not all?

God works in mysterious ways.

[heel31ok]

So are you saying your original question was not what you meant?

[DRMIZER]

So are you saying your original question was not what you meant?I was referring to the 4 beheaded innocent lives taken for no reason whatsoever.

[heel31ok]

I am sorry, but that is not what you said. You asked if God could spare just one. But in reference to the beheadings, I think there were reasons and they are plain to see. The definition of terrorism should be inserted here!
John the Baptist was beheaded that does not mean God was not with him or that He is not real.God gave man dominion over the eath and then man gave it to satan. Satan became the god of this world and ruled here with men who follow God as the resistence to him.God chose man as the way through which he accomplishes His purposes on this earth. That is why He had to become a man , so he could legally come into this world and show us what He wanted us to do and be. That is why he had a chosen people. God put into motion His plan on this earth and it must play out in the legal manner under the rules of that plan. He will not violate His own plan and governmental order of this earth. Men choose good or evil and pretty much can do what they want for a while but the law of sowing and reaping comes into play .those who choose to believe in God do not automatically receive a get out of jail free card and are immune and spared from every form of distress and violence. These are not mysteries as you say, at least not to those who know him and listen to his Word. The Holy Spirit is given to those who are His and He interprets and reveals the " mysteries" that you speak of. After revelation there is no more mystery.The Bible says death is appointed unto every man and then the judgement. The common feeling is that death is the tragedy, but in reality the real tragedy for some is in the judgement. This is not to make light of death which is sad and even affected Jesus to the point of weeping for his friend Lazerus.If death was the very end then it would be unjust for a being with the power to deliver from this death to withhold that deliverance. This is why God has not left us without deliverance from an eternal death but has provided a way to be "saved'' .The bible says for us not to fear what can kill our bodies but fear that which can destroy your soul. The destination of these victims is not known but there are a few scenarios that could have played out for them . You say they were innocent victims but what does that mean and how do you know their innocence? Those who choose to live without God cannot expect Him to come to their rescue when it comes to crunch time. This is not to say this is the case but it is one option. When a person chooses to live without God,they are pretty much on their own and at the mercy of the winds of change and their own ability to live and survive.Whatever happens ,happens. Another option is that a christian under this kind of circumstance can receive grace to go through death. Stephen was stoned to death but his face was as an angel as he looked into heaven and saw Jesus at his death. In Foxe's book of Martyrs an account is given of a christian being burned at the stake and in the flames with only nubs remaining for arms raising them in victory . God is with all those who are His. He said He would never leave us nor forsake us, even in the time of our physical death. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.So to make a long story longer , for those who knew God He was right there with them. For those who did not maybe they called on Him in the last moments and believed and were saved from the second death. For those who chose not to believe even to the end God honored their choice and left them to themselves.

[Michele]

It is now commonly understood and documented that Geroge Bush was "told by God" to invade Iraq.

1. If this IS true, then is this another historical holy (religious) war?

2. If this IS true that God told Bush to Invade Iraq, apparently God is setting on his throne in heaven just watching a movie or taking care of another universe or, what ever Gods' do.

Why do I write this? Seems to me that with the recent event of the beheading of Paul Johnson that He could have heard the prayers of many of the Christians in America, including the Johnson family and "interrupted" in some way so that he would not be beheaded. Afterall, this war was "God's" idea, according to our president. He hasn't been there for all the dead soldiers in America, why couldn't he just spare one?

I guess we have to go back to that old catch-all phrase which excuses everything about God that doesn't make any sense to us at all. . . . . .God works in mysterious ways. Yes He certainly does.


you are kidding right. Did you read deuteronomy? God is a psycho, artist perhaps, who is mad at himself because he can't seem to get his creation the way he intended it to begin with. and what now? you expect some form of logic? didn't you read he slew whole kingdoms men women and children for a people who couldn't follow God's law. What kind of a message is that? and we wonder where evil resides.

[Michele]

The definition of terrorism should be inserted here!


wow you make it sound like terrorism is only inherent to man.... god sanctioned it with his very actions afterall. How can we be screaming so indignantly about the targeting of innocent children when God killed all men women and children in whichever kingdom he wished to conquer on his way to waltzing the chosen unto their promised land? It is in the holy book. do you not see this as problematic, if not inherently flawed in maliciously evil ways, particularly if embraced by corrupted minds that come to some of this stuff?

Not only that people today actually interpret this in a way to insist this is a prophecy that must take place. The chosen must have that land! I say if they didn't grasp that land when God was slaying everyone for them THEN... hell... obviously it was not meant to be. But now we sanction more terrorism because the GOOD BOOK SAYS SO? And people wish to tell me this ISN'T A FLAWED INTERPRETATION?

God was a psycho terrorist who backed a flawed proposition. And then he has the audacity to send down his son, so that his son, who actually makes some sense regarding love and peace, can be nailed to a cross. God engaging in what is it patricide.

That book is screwy.

[DRMIZER]

Michele,
I know. It was a question which can't be answered with any logic with respect to how God really intervenes in our lives. He let's this soldier live (who should have died) but will allow an innocent person to die who should have lived. Happen stance is a sound explanation. He (allows) the rapist, terrorist and murderer to live while he allows a child with cancer to die. Looks to me he's either sleeping on the job, or allows natural circumstances to rule. Or, "He acts in mysterious ways."

We all have heard of miracles performed on people with afflictions, and has invervened on the part of truly "religious" people. In prayer lines people have been cured of cancer, legs restored, etc. And yet, all the others croke who are in dire need. Some have been healed through watching television of a recorded program. If he does all that, then why not intervene in the lives of soldiers fighting in his name? But, "He acts in mysterious ways."

Just a glaring inconsistency in how God really works and how the bible tells how God will help us in our hour of need. Got it, it's what God determines what our hour of need is. Reminds me of a recent event in our political history, It depends on what IS means.

[Redheat]

Here's a thought

OBL claims God is guiding him to overthrow the infidels

GWB claims God is guiding him to overthrow the infildels

Now who's God would be correct? and how do you tell?

[DRMIZER]

Count the fundamentalists on both sides. The side with the most WINS!

[Michele]

Here's a thought

OBL claims God is guiding him to overthrow the infidels

GWB claims God is guiding him to overthrow the infildels

Now who's God would be correct? and how do you tell?

you know I don't know how to answer that. I only know this. I have never depended on God or anyone helping me in my hour of need. I don't feel myself at this stage of life special in this regard that God would come intervene in any special way. So I don't utilize my understanding of God in this manner, even if I may speak to him directly. I do not expect any of my personal burdens will be eased by anyone outside of myself unless of course it happens that I provide a service that another needs or I motivate whatever change is necessary to impact my so listed burdens. Sometimes no matter what I do my burdens will remain my burdens. So I weather them through or I don't. When I don't accept what comes my way bad or good. I feel happiness or sadness. period.

It seems obvious to me that the invocation of god for the purposes of alleged defense is a matter of perspective. Clearly within all books is the telling of war and God is invoked in all conquest. The truth is that where conquest or exploitation is involved there is truth and lies on both sides. And I will never be led to believe that those two kingdom God destroyed men women and children were wholly evil. that is too much of man speaking for god created all supposedly correct all in his likeness right? Deuteronomy is a perfect example of men manipulating truth to conform with their own wants and greeds wherein others stand outside themselves. It has little to do with loving they neighbor as thyself wherein if that had prevailed over this highly mortal and maligned sense of god and evil the world might just be a better place for it. What is it that maligns truth... the lack of equity and the utter lack of understanding for otherness.

The very act of conquest or exploitation does cause a corruption in the mind of those conquered or exploited and it is then from that corruption that righteousness is bred along with all the justifications needed to excuse further corrupted actions that will take place in defense.

Who is defending themselves in this scenario (Bush vs. OBL). The real truth is both are. Obviously we were just attacked. But that does not mean OBL when his seed began to germinate decades ago is not coming from a need to defend his. Which is why to heal wounds of this nature accountability and negotiation would have been a better salve than the pigheadness of adding more insult to injury. We can not negate the fact that exploitation is evident in that region not just from the local pathology as we wish to believe to sanctify our every action, but from the outside... those on the outside being the UK, the US, the Zionists and this was even before the Cold war, and each of these outside intruders had their very own goals, aims, logics, and justifications and sadly none of them wish to account for their doing of harm... rather instead they wish to justify their doing of harm as I must tell you now that is how I read deuteronomy. that chapter has nothing to do with God. It has to do with the Chosen's attempt to justify their actions even in the face of their lack of righteousness.

And that same formula is utilized by all who invoke their books for the sake of the conquests or their defenses. Look at the region in the last century. Prior to WWI... who was indigenous to it and who were the outsiders. Well if important aspects of this history are not to be accounted for.... well then STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT OUR CURRENT HARVEST FOR ALL ARE INNOCENT IN WAYS AND ALL ARE GUILTY but it was the power players from the outside that seem to have the more manipulative justifying to do.... and exploitations of this kind can never be justified. They are aggressive and they create a reaction. And since the west along with the Zionists do not appear to wish to get that straight I do not feel we are in position to judge anyone in that region. We reap what we sow.

I apologize it is not my intention to preach to anyone, but I do not have the words to express just how personally insulting I find this chapter deuteronomy. I feel it wishes to manipulate me at the deepest level of my most unconscious understanding of humanity. I have seen evidence of descrepancy with judeo christian word. I am aware of whole gospels that have been excluded and i will never accept this book as a whole of truth this chapter insults my sense of order to the core, and therefore I do not take it to my heart and continue to seek.

[crawfish]

Just a glaring inconsistency in how God really works and how the bible tells how God will help us in our hour of need. Got it, it's what God determines what our hour of need is. Reminds me of a recent event in our political history, It depends on what IS means.

This is a valid question, and the answer (at least the one that satisfied me) is not easy.

It has to do with perspective.

It's difficult for one who believes that this life is "all there is" to see it anything but inconsistent and evil...but try to look at it another way. Imagine that each person has an eternal soul - in terms of time, the entire length of our life is magnitudes less than a grain of sand on a beach in relative terms (even less, in fact, but forget that for this exercise). Now imagine look at this from God's perspective - he's given us the freedom of choice, he knows what the stakes are, and he's rooting for each and every one of us to make the right choice. Isn't it logical that if something made us more likely to make that choice that he'd support it, even if it meant pain and suffering in this life?

As an analogy - if what I wanted for my kids was for there life to be good now, I'd never punish them, never deny them anything. However, what I want is for them to grow up to be well-adjusted, responsible adults, and I know the behaviors they will have to develop for this to happen, so I do things that sometimes make them unhappy for this end. Do you think they understand my intentions? They might see my actions as mean or cruel, and from their limited perspective they're right. But from my perspective I am doing the loving, caring (and hard) thing for their own benefit.

If you look from a different perspective, many (IMO, all) of the issues raised in this thread can be answered in a logical and consistent fashion.

[booboohead]

As an analogy - if what I wanted for my kids was for there life to be good now, I'd never punish them, never deny them anything. However, what I want is for them to grow up to be well-adjusted, responsible adults, and I know the behaviors they will have to develop for this to happen, so I do things that sometimes make them unhappy for this end. Do you think they understand my intentions? They might see my actions as mean or cruel, and from their limited perspective they're right. But from my perspective I am doing the loving, caring (and hard) thing for their own benefit.Nice analogy, Crawfish. Well done.

[Michele]

in other words and more simply put. the notion that kingdoms are to be slayed to accomodate one people does not ring as an intention of god ... but more as one of politics of those people who it was saw a particular piece of land as theirs.

and now these same people have come back to take this land again at the slaying of other kingdoms and yet refuse to acknowledge the indigenous nature of the land itself wherein those indigenous have no claim whatsoever.... but the israelites who were pushed from this piece of land still do? And to come back based in this understanding which does not base itself on loving thy neighbor as thyself, which is a notion which honors more a sense of equity than: we were pushed from our land and now have returned to take it because god says so? It doesn't make sense. We only wish to be amongst our own at the complete demonization of any other... this is backward thinking based in a grudge.

come on... if we allow this we will never transcend the basest nature of our human beings. and of course we haven't and this will be allowed. at least it seems to me. It is inherently selfish and defies all our ideological progressions in the last two centuries. and then we get mad at the very people who resist what is a corrupted notion to boot?

well no wonder there is no living entity that can fairly broker this region and our only knee jerk response is to drop bombs. And we point at OBL as if he is the ultimate wrong? In the face of what might be merely a political writing of some people back during moses' time that just wished to take back land yet seemed even then to be incapable of living amongst any others but for their own kind.

the messages coming out of this one book are utterly contradictory. And on top of that they defy our own bill of rights and almost everything America says it stands for.

[MikeD4o7]

This is a valid question, and the answer (at least the one that satisfied me) is not easy.

It has to do with perspective.

It's difficult for one who believes that this life is "all there is" to see it anything but inconsistent and evil...but try to look at it another way. Imagine that each person has an eternal soul - in terms of time, the entire length of our life is magnitudes less than a grain of sand on a beach in relative terms (even less, in fact, but forget that for this exercise). Now imagine look at this from God's perspective - he's given us the freedom of choice, he knows what the stakes are, and he's rooting for each and every one of us to make the right choice. Isn't it logical that if something made us more likely to make that choice that he'd support it, even if it meant pain and suffering in this life?

As an analogy - if what I wanted for my kids was for there life to be good now, I'd never punish them, never deny them anything. However, what I want is for them to grow up to be well-adjusted, responsible adults, and I know the behaviors they will have to develop for this to happen, so I do things that sometimes make them unhappy for this end. Do you think they understand my intentions? They might see my actions as mean or cruel, and from their limited perspective they're right. But from my perspective I am doing the loving, caring (and hard) thing for their own benefit.

If you look from a different perspective, many (IMO, all) of the issues raised in this thread can be answered in a logical and consistent fashion.


I don't think that quite fits. If God is omniscient then he would surely know what would be necessary for each one of us to believe, but many die having suffered a great deal and still not believing. Is it that God didn't see it coming? Or was powerless to convince them that he existed? Choosing to follow God is quite a different thing than acknowledging his existence. God could easily show the entire world that he does in fact exist and still leave us our free will and the decision of whether or not to follow him. In my personal experience, I have never encountered anything that would lead me to believe that God exists. If following God is the most important choice we can make in this life as humans, then I don't see why God would leave the belief of his existence up to hear-say.

[crawfish]

I don't think that quite fits. If God is omniscient then he would surely know what would be necessary for each one of us to believe, but many die having suffered a great deal and still not believing. Is it that God didn't see it coming? Or was powerless to convince them that he existed? Choosing to follow God is quite a different thing than acknowledging his existence. God could easily show the entire world that he does in fact exist and still leave us our free will and the decision of whether or not to follow him. In my personal experience, I have never encountered anything that would lead me to believe that God exists. If following God is the most important choice we can make in this life as humans, then I don't see why God would leave the belief of his existence up to hear-say.

Perhaps because the decision is based on something other than evidence - it's based on faith. I obviously don't have the perspective to say, without a doubt, why this must be, although I could imagine a few scenarios (based on my limited understanding). I have encountered plenty - two major, life-changing situations in particular - that show me God exists. You'd probably call them coincidence, but I believe different.

(I won't bother you with the specifics unless you want me to.)

[MikeD4o7]

Perhaps because the decision is based on something other than evidence - it's based on faith. I obviously don't have the perspective to say, without a doubt, why this must be, although I could imagine a few scenarios (based on my limited understanding). I have encountered plenty - two major, life-changing situations in particular - that show me God exists. You'd probably call them coincidence, but I believe different.

(I won't bother you with the specifics unless you want me to.)


If your experiences were convincing enough to you to believe... then I would say that your belief is indeed based on what we should refer to as evidence rather than faith... even if it's evidence that others may not consider credible.

My problem with faith... well actually, I think we've had this discussion on faith before... and I think you and I define it differently. You believe that faith is something that is built on evidence right? I wouldn't call that faith, I'd call it reasoned speculation if there is evidence that points in that direction. For example, if I had a run in with some person where there was some heated argument, then that night my car was keyed... I may believe that it was that same person... even though I have no proof. I wouldn't call that faith. I would call it faith if, even after that night, I was convinced that it was my next door neighbor, even though there was no reason really to believe it other than some inexplicable gut feeling.

That being said, "faith" has never served me in any way. Reason most definitely has. I see no reason, based on the evidence around me, to believe in God. I don't see anything that would point to that being so or any hints of it. I do however, see plenty of reason to believe that universe is completely indifferent to us, and that intelligent beings here on earth are the only things that both care for us or wish us harm.

[cpwill]

GWB claims God is guiding him to overthrow the infildels


where has bush claimed this.