Ignoring the "Christian answer", on a strictly instinctual basis, which one of these two statements leads you to believe the speaker is simply ignorant, and which one leads you to believe the speaker is hateful?
"The Catholic church is composed of nothing but pedophilic priests"
"The Muslim religon is composed of nothing but mindless terrorists"
Now, why did you answer the way you did?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Would you pay to be a member?
It seems that somebody in Finland has created a website to assist people in resigning from the church.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Shouldn't be laughing...
You ever surf the 'net, and find something that you are laughing at that you shouldn't be?
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Interesting turn of events...
Them some crazy peoples there.
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
Saturday, June 10, 2006
France and Iraq...
I just found the following interesting...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Al Zarqawi's last words...
A reported, right before he died, Al Zarqawi mumbled something.
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
Friday, June 09, 2006
Another one bites the dust..
So...in case you haven't noticed, we've killed Al-Zarqawi.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)