Red: That was the COOLEST story I have heard! That was really amazing.
Thanks! Sure beats my Debbie-Dissed-Me story.

Anyone else?

A parent forsee's all the bad that will happen to their child. A parent
knows full well, even before birth, that there will be many boo-boos,
scraped knees, bad report cards, bad words, defiant behavior, arguments,
broken hearts... all these things WE can reasonably forsee - and yet, we
are fully willing to stand behind the child anyway.

Even knowing these things would we choose it any other way? Would we
want to construct a future so perfect that no harm will happen to our
children? No. Because then it wouldnt be THEIR future. Parents have to
establish a framework, offer advice, and eventually hand the reigns
over.

I would say God does the same for us. Lets say, for argument sake, he
"Knows" the future, and could "do something" about it, but, for the
reasons listed above, would he move to do something? Why should he -
Creation is YOURS, life is YOURS - you have the power to make the
future. Its your responsibility, for the same reasons that a parent
allows their child to do something that will potentially harm
themselves.

Doc:

Thanks for the clarification. I do stand by my statement that Bush is a
liar based on the WMD issue. I would have supported him if he had said
outright "...there is unfinished business in Iraq, containment is
failing, and there is a real threat to the security of the region".

I retract my point - I had not read DaVinci's point that he couldnt find
the stats to back him up - round of applause for an honest man! (that
was sincere)

DaVinci: I disagree with your numbers. The number of civillians killed
by US action is no where near that percentage. I think its 5 to 10k
depending on how closely you slice the definition of "millitary action".

Yes, I have heard wild stories of "10s of thousands per month"
slaughtered by US forces. I also heard stories of "10s of thousands
starving indirectly because of US forces" - simply doesnt apply.

I will say that 10k civillian casualities by US forces is unnacceptable,
and THAT has to be addressed. But, to stretch it into genocidal
proportions is a distortion that is irresponsible.

Um, what happenend to b1tching about Iran??

ha ha

Red: I agree with your frustration. Interestingly, it goes both ways.
The religious conservatives would say that the erosion of religiously
based morality has caused great social problems in our country.

The liberals will counter that its the assertion of the conservative's
views that is causing the strife and dysfunctionality in our culture.

Frankly, I think its television.

We all sit around and fatten our minds on the things we dont have,
fatten our minds on the things we dont do, fatten our minds on the
behaviors we dont dare...

Red: I would like to add a thought, that the entire purpose of the
Bible, is that there is NO LAW upon christian ppl. Thats the WHOLE
intent of the Messiah - to free all ppl (particuarly Jews) from the Law,
(which according to Paul's words "was given for the sake of Sin").

So, a person 'professing' to be christian, cant cite any biblical 'law'
that would be applicable.

-Mike

If my Torah is placed at the right of the Bible, is that offensive? If
the Torah has less dust than the Bible, is that a good sign, or a bad
sign? Now, I have a real problem, where do I place the Koran - above?
below? betwixt? <grin>

Hey Hubey,

You ask the question that everyone asks themselves at some point. I will
throw out my personal answer that came to me a couple years ago. Your
milage may vary, exclusions and black out dates may apply, tickets are
non-refundable.

When my daughter was born I understood why fukced up things happen in a
fukced up world, to good ppl, and to bad ppl. When we had rushed to the
hospital to give birth, I had the understanding that this child could be
butt-ugly, horrible person, and might even become a person worse than
hitler. But, still I loved her - sight unseen. Future unknown. The
ability to create life, and cherish life became the understanding
moment.

It isnt about being "all powerful", no more than comparing my personal
"power" to give/take the newborn's life. If I thought enough about the
future, and the hardships she will endure, and the chances that she
might get raped, murdered, disfigured in a car accident or terrorist
plot - or worse, that SHE would do these things - would I have
terminated the baby? NO WAY. Chance, hope, and the unknown - thats why
we love, thats why we give life, and thats why sometimes we must take
life.

In summary, I beleive this understanding is an insight into the mind of
God. Life is given for the sake of love, what we do with it, and what we
do to others, is our choice. Our responsibility. But its still a
precious gift.

I would say it gives a guide line to how you live your life. Nobody has
to follow any of its rules, unless, you do something grossly immoral.

For example, from Adam till Moses, there was no "Law". There was no
"dietary requirements", no list of "Thou Shalt", "Thou Shall NOT". Nope,
it was very simple. Live peacefully, respectfully, and in grace. Eat
what you want. As often as you want.

At the moment of salvation from slavery, the Jews worshipped the golden
calf and so earned the punishment of the Law. The Law, harsh, and
demanding, has a deeper meaningfulness to it that reveals a great deal
of wisdom. It also demands punishment, but, more importantly, it
demanded consideration of mitigating factors, and scaled punishment to
the offense. Brilliant, generations beyond any other civilization at the
time. The Law ONLY APPLIED TO THE JEWS - the gentiles were still living
in their grace as did Abraham. No rules, Life's Good. Party On!

The Law was in force until the Messiah arrived. When Jesus arrived the
Law was finished. Back to the "Noah Days" of law.

In summary: The lesson is: Live by grace, give grace, receive grace.
Fukc up and you'll be punished in a manner relative to your fukc up.
Once the punishment is over, back to grace.

What could be simpler?

Who ever suggested that smoking weed was somehow "religiously immoral" ?
The only thing "immoral" would be becoming lost in irresponsible
behavior (wether it be booze, drugs, sex, wait, scratch the 'sex' item)

Hey you never know, maybe Paul and Silas smoked a bowl of Roman Red on
the way to the Roman Forum? Who knows....

I'm pretty good at stirring up controversey, so here's another. I would
say that the "war" in Iraq is moral, and ethical. I even agree with ppl
who say that Bush lied, and that the "WMDs" never existed. And if
there's any imorality in this mess, its Bush's lie.

Onto my point.

From the mid 80s on, Iraq waged war with each of its neighbors.
Repeatedly. The neighbors brokered a deal with the US to provide
millitary protection incase Iraq tried again. We signed a deal. In the
early 90s Iraq tried it again, this time in Kuwait, and we responded. We
were asked to topple Saddam by the neighboring countries. Bush the First
thought Saddam had "learned his lesson".

During the "Desert Storm I" war, Iraq launched missiles into Israel -
remember that? And they launched 39 missiles into Saudi Arabia. Iraq
posed a real threat, a continuing threat, to each of its neighbors, and
we had signed a deal to keep Iraq locked down for the neigborhood (this
was the Clinton "Containment Policy"). The Containment Policy was
failing, and expensive to maintain.

Bush II inherited this failing policy, and thought it would be best to
conclude his father's efforts. How convient when 9/11 happened. How
convienent when the forged-Uranium Papers were "leaked". We had/have
agreement, and the request, of the neighboring countries to finish the
job started in the early 90s.

What if we did not invade? Saddam would die eventually right? Look whats
happened since his death. 10s of thousands of CIVILLIANS are being
killed by their fellow CIVILLIAN citizens. How many American troops?
3000.

Fact of the matter is: US Troops are keeping the lid on outright
slaughter of Sunni vs Shia in Iraq.

The sectarian fighting ISNT targeting US troops - look how little have
been killed - 3000 in 4 years. Most casualties fell in the initial
invasion - as would be expected.

Without our troops there, the Sunnis would outright slaughter the Shia,
on the order of 100,000s ! Since we stepped into this mess, we have the
moral obligation to remain there to protect the 100,000s of civillians
at risk.

Is 3000 american soldiers worth 500,000 civillians? Need you ask? Yes.
Our soldiers are holding back a potential genocide that would make
Stalin blush.

I despise Bush - he lied, lies, and will continue to do so. But, for
different reasons, I accept that our presence in Iraq, to protect the
civillians, is morally required.

-Mike

I was going by Iran's own claims, and those "semi-confirmed" by the UN.
Its not the "sites" that matter, its the number of centrifuges in
operation.

Thanks everyone, interesting thoughts.

That was "semi-serious", but, on a serious note, if I commanded my
forces into action, I'd ride with them.

i would promise everything to everyone who would vote for me. i wouldn't
be ashamed to be contradictory. I'd sell out to whatever special
interests paid for.

In a word, I'd be HONEST

Mine means "Mike Montana" which means "thats me!"

Seems like we're hell bent on a millitary operation vs Iran. Seems like
Bush is going to pull it off with enough time to help the Elections.
Thats the pessimistic, likely-case scenario.

But, is there some merit to strking Iran?

I say yes. For one, Iran has a stated national policy for the
destruction of Israel. Putting aside the Arab/Jew issue, any country
that has its national goal to be the genocidal destruction of another
country is a real problem.

Secondly, Iran probably ISNT building nuke weapons. But so what? They've
gone from IAEA compliance of 300 nuke-refineries to 3000 refineries. The
300 refineries was permitted under the agreement that THEY signed. With
300 refineries, it would take 10yrs+ to refine enough explosive content.
Thats assuming they were going to persue "civillian only" uses, and this
plan would give them 1 to 2yrs worth of "power-grade" Uranium for
generating electrical power. Seems reasonable.

With 3000 refineries, the production time falls from 10yrs to about 1yr
to make enough material for a bomb. Assuming its for civillian purposes,
that would give enough power-grade Uranium for 50+ years.

Iran has announced plans to scale the 3000 refineries to 30,000 over the
next 5 years. Whats the purpose?


Now, lets compare some timelines. In 1945 the first A-bomb was detonated
in New Mexico. From start to finish, using 13,000 refineries of 1940s
design, it took only 36 months to build enough weapons-grade Uranium for
THREE working bombs. That included all the necessary efforts to figure
out all the things necessary to complete the task [after all, it was a
first time run!]

Hey all ya - I'm in Edison, NJ, but, can I come play too?

Heh, I'm in the city a couple nights a week either for classes (I'm
attending Improv 101), or to catch a friend's show.

I've posted the idea a couple times, but, it never goes anywhere: How
about a group outing to meet & greet somewhere in NYC? C'mon ppl, I dont
bite, and you're probably alot more fun in person!