http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2857628

Watada apparently makes a habit of swearing to things he has no intention of swearing to. You think he'd learn by now.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Gandhi worked against British impearialism, and Martin Luther King Jr. worked against segregation and for equality. What do they have to do with reconstruction efforts in Iraq?

I'm sure Martin Luther King would support our troops and the efforts there.
Maybe Ganshi would allow himself to get blown to bits by the suicide bombers.

ROTFLMAO. Iraq isn't being "reconstructed." It's in worse shape now than it was in 2003. Bush's "plan" is a complete and total failure, as the following clearly proves:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25389

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25387

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25388


Considering he didn't support the debacle in Vietnam, I highly doubt it:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

http://www.therationalradical.com/ds...artin-king.htm

I wonder what you think Jesus Christ would do? Or will you argue he would scream "Blessed are the warmongers!"

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Lt Watadas father is an an anti war activist (a 60's throwback or wanna-be) & I have wondered if Watada signed up with an ulterior motive. I believe that he's getting exactly what his father wanted, attention. This criminal will go to Leavenworth & leave with a dishonorable discharge, deservedly so.

They don't really prove anything, but that is okay.

I don't know if you realize this, but Saddam is disarmed, deposed, and very dead. This is very different from Vietnam.
He would probably tell the terrorists to stop killing people.
He would probably heal the wounded, feed the hungry, and provide comfort to those suffering.
He would certainly befriend our troops.
He would definitely preach.
I would expect him to do the things he did according to the Bible.

Jesus is not Ghandi, and Ghandi is not Jesus.

I do enjoy talking to people with ZERO comprehension of who Jesus was.
Maybe if you could walk on water, I might think differently.

Take heed Bush if you read this forum (lol) that a whack job left wing nut here has thrown down the gauntlet.

__________________
Hosed Me - http://www.hosedme.com

Actually, they prove quite a bit. And you can't refute those facts. But that is okay.

Meanwhile the insurgency and the civil war are armed, dangerous, and very alive. I don't know if you, or any Neocons, truly realize that.


Not very different. They're both guerilla wars. And we can't secure Iraq just as we couldn't secure Vietnam because of that very fact.

Actually, he'd probably ask the terrorist why they're killing people, instead of just shooting at them. Then, he'd actually listen to them. Then, he'd probably ask the U.S. why we have to have military bases in Saudi Arabia - part of the reason why the terrorists say they're attacking us.

He might also ask military and government officials why they sold weapons to Saddam and gave him millions of dollars.

He would probably try to get to the root cause of the problem and end the suffering. Which would mean speaking to all sides and understanding all the grievances involved. He wouldn't just treat the symptoms - he'd try to cure the disease.

He would befriend the insurgents also - he would "love his enemy." And while he might be friendly with the troops - he would certainly never join them.

Yes, but would Bush listen?

Didn't say he was. But they were both religious men and both believed in the principles of non-violence, first and foremost, before ever having to resort to violence.

No wonder you like to listen to Bush speak...

Walk on water? Sorry. But I am an excellent swimmer. Are you impressed by a strong butterfly stroke?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Guess we're in the clear on that one since Bush couldn't get through "My Pet Goat"...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Perhaps a good blood letting is exactly what the insurgents want.I believe the US won every battle in Vietnam. I haven't seen them retreat in Iraq.
I guess it depends on who believe more.Jesus never opposed Roman occupation, and he didn't oppose paying the Roman tax which was used to fund their war machine.
It was never his goal to end suffering.
He healed those who believed, and wanted to be healed.The meaning was lost in translation. That kind of love is more like a respect rather than affection.Would you listen?Jesus served God first and foremost. He came to serve. He did not come to bring peace.
Stop the confusing the two.I still think it is ZERO.

Wrong

On Paul and Romans 13 and Titus 3:1

It is often claimed that Christians are required to submit to government, as this is supposedly what Paul commanded that we are supposed to do in Romans 13. Thus:

Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

But in actual fact Paul never does tell us in above excerpt from Romans 13 to submit to government!--at least certainly not as they have existed on Earth and are operated by men. In fact, Paul would be an outright, boldfaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such a thing: for Paul himself did not submit to government, and if he had then he would not even have been alive to be able to write Romans 13. For Paul himself disobeyed government, and it is a good thing that he did as we would not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed government. As when Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of Damascus as he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest him in order that he be executed. This was right after Saul's conversion to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing of Sauls conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause in persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the wall of Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in Christ (see Acts 9:23-25). In none of Paul's later writings does he divest himself, or disassociate himself, from these actions that he took in knowingly and purposely disobeying government: in fact, this very event is one of the things that he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering commitment to Christ (see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!

Indeed, ever since Paul's conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the rest of his entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and would at last--just as with Jesus before him--be executed by government, in this case by having his head chopped off. Paul was continuously in and out of prisons throughout his entire ministry for preaching the gospel of Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by the "authorities" for preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the "authorities" for preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of his did he ever disavow: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his commitment to Jesus (again, see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!

But even more importantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many people have said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal, Earthly governments, then it is questionable whether Paul could even be a genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not even have existed as we know of today had it not been for Joseph and Mary intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from his reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus (see Matt. 2:13,14). Thus, if indeed Paul meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey Earthly governments then this would mean that Paul would rather have Joseph and Mary obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be killed.

So what in the world is going on here with Paul and Romans 13? Is Paul a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, No to both. Once again, as with Jesus's answer to the question on taxes, this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was counting on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the Christian church--the Roman "authorities" in particular--would, upon reading Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of legal positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" spoken of must refer to the men who operate the governments on Earth. But never does Paul anywhere say that this is so! (Legal positivism is the doctrine that whichever gang is best able to overpower others with arms and might and thereby subjugate the populace and who then proceed to proclaim themselves the "authority" are on that account the rightful "Authority.")

The rest is at: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Wrong again:

Jesus on Taxes: Nothing is (Rightly) Caesar's!

The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government) as--it is assumed--the denari are Caesar's, being that they have Caesar's image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.

When the Pharisees asked Him whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel's history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes--which were being used to support this occupation--were much hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees' intent in asking this question quite clear:

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.

Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the betrayal by Judas (Psalm 41:9; Zech. 11:12,13), and His betrayer replaced (Psalm 109:8--see Acts 1:20); see also Acts 1:15-26 and Psalm 69:25. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."

In Matt. 26:54,56 and Mark 14:49 Jesus testifies to this exact same thing after He was betrayed by Judas. As well, Jesus Himself twice foretold of His betrayal before He was asked the question on taxes--see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; Mark 9:31; 10:33; and Luke 9:44; 19:31. See also John 13:18-30, which testifies to the necessity of the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9, as Jesus here foretells of His betrayal by Judas.

In addition, it appears that the only reason Jesus paid the temple tax (and by supernatural means at that) as told in Matt. 17:24-27 was so as not to stir up trouble which would have interfered with the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and Jesus's previous prediction of His betrayal as told in Matt. 17:22--neither of which would have been fulfilled had Jesus not paid the tax and been arrested because of it. Jesus Himself supports this view when He said of it "Nevertheless, lest we offend them . . ." (NKJV), which can also be translated "But we don't want to cause trouble" (CEV). He said this after in effect saying that those who pay customs and taxes are not free (v. 25,26)--yet one reason Jesus came was to call us to liberty (Luke 4:18; Gal. 4:7; 5:1,13,14; 1 Cor. 7:23; 2 Cor. 3:17; James 1:25; 2:12).

It should be remembered in all of this that it was Jesus Himself who told us "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Jesus was being wise as a serpent as He never told us to pay taxes to Caesar, of which He could have done and still fulfilled Scripture and His previous predictions of betrayal. But the one thing He couldn't have told people was that it was okay not to pay taxes as He would have been arrested on the spot, and Scripture and His predictions of betrayal would have gone unfulfilled. Yet the most important thing in all this is what Jesus did not say. Jesus never said that all or any of the denari were Caesar's! Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's." But this just begs the question, What is Caesar's? Simply because the denari have Caesar's name and image on them no more make them his than one carving their name into the back of a stolen TV set makes it theirs. Yet everything Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion, therefore nothing is rightly his.

Tax Collectors are Sinners!

A further demonstration that Jesus considered the institution of taxation to be unjust is given in the below story:

Matthew 9:9-13: As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, "Follow Me." So he arose and followed Him. Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (See also Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32.)

It's important to point out here that Jesus actually made a stronger case against the unrighteousness of tax collectors than the Pharisees originally had in questioning Jesus's disciples about it: the Pharisees actually separated the tax collectors from the sinners when they asked "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Yet when Jesus heard this He answered the Pharisees by lumping the two groups together under the category of sinners--thus: "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Yet since this is the story of Matthew the tax collector being called to repentance by Jesus we will do well to ask how it was that Matthew obtained repentance. The answer: By first giving up tax collecting! And from this beginning Matthew would thus go on to become one of Jesus's twelve disciples.

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

It is you that has absolutely no knowledge of what you speak of.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer