When Saddam Hangs

[billyjoe]

When they hang Saddam next month what will happen ?

1. War will escalate as shiites and sunnis start killing each other and us at increasing rates.

2. War will slowly wind down as they realize we will impose our will eventually

3. Stock market will have a big one day rally followed by a sustained bull mkt.

4. Stock market will continue as it is and possibly decline as nothing really has changed and the war lingers on with no end in sight.

5. other scenarios

---------billyjoe

[Runner]

I say 1 and 4...

[skiracer]

Bush and Cheney decide they don't want to abdicate their thrones an install Martial Law because of threat of escalating terrorism, they call off next presidential election, then they lead USA into moral and fiscal bankruptcy, and finally end up leaving the country and their families to spend their remaining years together as gay life partners in the south of France scouring the countryside for Truffels where Bush is finally recognized as the real Alfred E. Neuman that the cover of Mad magazine was based on. This recognition in turn ignites his political resurrection in France and he becomes Prime Minister of France and France invades England and Germany with Halliburton as the prime contractor supplying all of the required logistical support.

[mrmarket]

Bush and Cheney decide they don't want to abdicate their thrones an install Martial Law because of threat of escalating terrorism, they call off next presidential election, then they lead USA into moral and fiscal bankruptcy, and finally end up leaving the country and their families to spend their remaining years together as gay life partners in the south of France scouring the countryside for Truffels where Bush is finally recognized as the real Alfred E. Neuman that the cover of Mad magazine was based on. This recognition in turn ignites his political resurrection in France and he becomes Prime Minister of France and France invades England and Germany with Halliburton as the prime contractor supplying all of the required logistical support.

That's hilarious...what is scary is that I can actually envision this occurring.

[skiracer]

That's hilarious...what is scary is that I can actually envision this occurring.

I sincerely believe they both think that they can shove anything down our throats they want to and that we are just a bunch of lemmings. So in my estimation anything is plausible with these two. Take a close look at Bush. I think he is Alfred E. Neuman and that Mad magazine is running the show. I mean the whole thing is like a bad comic book.

[Websman]

I sincerely believe they both think that they can shove anything down our throats they want to and that we are just a bunch of lemmings. So in my estimation anything is plausible with these two. Take a close look at Bush. I think he is Alfred E. Neuman and that Mad magazine is running the show. I mean the whole thing is like a bad comic book.


You speak the truth my friend...

[IIC]

In case you are planning a Goodbye Party for Saddam...You might want to order dessert early...Check out the cool flavors they have at:

http://Starspangledicecream.com

[billyjoe]

Ski,
Your idea is scarier than anything I could come up with , however, it makes my Scenario #5 even more plausible.

5. Saddam is shot down from the gallows by a shadowy Clint Eastwood like character and makes a spectacular getaway. This scene is repeated throughout the middle east as the bounty on his neck grows. By collecting his own ransom , Hussein funds a return to power.

----------billyjoe

[Tatnic]

.........where Bush is finally recognized as the real Alfred E. Neuman that the cover of Mad magazine was based on.

I knew I recognized that face!...that's probably why he was elected in the first place!

[skiracer]

I knew I recognized that face!...that's probably why he was elected in the first place!

The resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman is amazing, especially when he looks right into your eyes and gives you that little smirk. Maybe I've started a movement. Has anyone else seen the resemblance before these comments?.

[skiracer]

Ski,
Your idea is scarier than anything I could come up with , however, it makes my Scenario #5 even more plausible.

5. Saddam is shot down from the gallows by a shadowy Clint Eastwood like character and makes a spectacular getaway. This scene is repeated throughout the middle east as the bounty on his neck grows. By collecting his own ransom , Hussein funds a return to power.

----------billyjoe

Billyjoe,
I remember a western movie where two guys have a scam where one of them brings in the other one to collect the reward. After collecting the reward and they are about to hang the one guy the other one, from a distance, shoots the rope and the rides in and rescues the one being hanged and they make their escape only to do it again in another town. I can't seem to remember who the two actors were that played the two guys. Eastwood could have been one of them. Maybe Steve McQueen and someone else. Anyone remember a movie with that type of script?

[billyjoe]

Billyjoe,
I remember a western movie where two guys have a scam where one of them brings in the other one to collect the reward. After collecting the reward and they are about to hang the one guy the other one, from a distance, shoots the rope and the rides in and rescues the one being hanged and they make their escape only to do it again in another town. I can't seem to remember who the two actors were that played the two guys. Eastwood could have been one of them. Maybe Steve McQueen and someone else. Anyone remember a movie with that type of script?

Ski,
Wasn't it The Good (Eastwood) the Bad (Lee Van Cleef) and the Ugly (Eli Wallach) 1966

---------billyjoe

[skiracer]

Ski,
Wasn't it The Good (Eastwood) the Bad (Lee Van Cleef) and the Ugly (Eli Wallach) 1966

---------billyjoe

I thought that was the one at first but as many times as I've seen that movie I couldn't remember the beginning of it before Eastwood and Wallach become estranged from one another looking for the gold. You could be right but I'm not sure. I know in the last scene Eastwood doesn't let Wallach hang and shoots the rope after everything Wallach has done to him and visa versa. Doesn't Wallach get up afterwards and start screaming what he used to call Eastwood, "Blondie", as Eastwood rides off into the horizon. Another great movie.

[IIC]

I thought that was the one at first but as many times as I've seen that movie I couldn't remember the beginning of it before Eastwood and Wallach become estranged from one another looking for the gold. You could be right but I'm not sure. I know in the last scene Eastwood doesn't let Wallach hang and shoots the rope after everything Wallach has done to him and visa versa. Doesn't Wallach get up afterwards and start screaming what he used to call Eastwood, "Blondie", as Eastwood rides off into the horizon. Another great movie.



This probably belongs on Billy's Quote Thread...But I always say..."Movies are for people without real lives"...And you can feel free to quote me on that...IIC

[mrmarket]

I sincerely believe they both think that they can shove anything down our throats they want to and that we are just a bunch of lemmings. So in my estimation anything is plausible with these two. Take a close look at Bush. I think he is Alfred E. Neuman and that Mad magazine is running the show. I mean the whole thing is like a bad comic book.

I usually lean to the right, politically. However these two guys really leave me scratching my head. What boggles my mind is how Cheney had the audacity to assign Halliburton to a no bid contract to cover all of the "services" in Iraq. I thought that Halliburton was in the oil drilling business?

Wouldn't one think that just the appearance of impropriety of assigning Halliburton as a contractor would have been enough to make them use a different contractor? It's just the "tough shit, we're in power, we can do whatever we want" attitude that makes me wonder about what REALLY is going on in Washington these days.

By the way, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Gerald Ford. He was one of the good guys.

[skiracer]

I usually lean to the right, politically. However these two guys really leave me scratching my head. What boggles my mind is how Cheney had the audacity to assign Halliburton to a no bid contract to cover all of the "services" in Iraq. I thought that Halliburton was in the oil drilling business?

Wouldn't one think that just the appearance of impropriety of assigning Halliburton as a contractor would have been enough to make them use a different contractor? It's just the "tough shit, we're in power, we can do whatever we want" attitude that makes me wonder about what REALLY is going on in Washington these days.

By the way, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Gerald Ford. He was one of the good guys.

You hit the nail right on the head Ernie. You would have to be pretty naive to believe everything is on the up and up with that Haliburton situation. It's been a sore spot with me since the beginning of the whole situation and they are all either getting or will be getting rich off of this Iraq thing. Their attitude stinks. They aren't men enough to admit their idea and no plan concept has failed in Iraq and that American boys are dying everyday at an alarming rate for what, a failed plan and weak leaders. As a society we are close to moral failure, our choice of leaders this time around was dismal, and take a good close look at where we as a nation are being led by our so called visionaries. We are in a terrible situation.

[Lyehopper]

Ski,
Wasn't it The Good (Eastwood) the Bad (Lee Van Cleef) and the Ugly (Eli Wallach) 1966

---------billyjoe
Blondie, Angel Eyes and Tuco.... Great movie, one of my all time favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ&mode=related&search=

[Tatnic]

You hit the nail right on the head Ernie. You would have to be pretty naive to believe everything is on the up and up with that Haliburton situation. It's been a sore spot with me since the beginning of the whole situation and they are all either getting or will be getting rich off of this Iraq thing. Their attitude stinks. They aren't men enough to admit their idea and no plan concept has failed in Iraq and that American boys are dying everyday at an alarming rate for what, a failed plan and weak leaders. As a society we are close to moral failure, our choice of leaders this time around was dismal, and take a good close look at where we as a nation are being led by our so called visionaries. We are in a terrible situation.

I've always said that wherever you find death, destruction and deception, you'll find Halliburton close behind, making a nice profit. I don't really think our country is close to moral failure. The majority of the country hates what this administration has done and would like to see some of them hang for it. I personally think dumbya is the absolute worst president ever to sit his sorry ass in the white house. He was a drunk and draft dodger who's mommy and daddy were always close by to bail his dumb ass out of trouble. Unfortunately, he got spoiled into thinking he could always get bailed out if he got in trouble again. This time he'll just leave his huge pile of shit for the rest of us to deal with, while he rides his precious mountain bike around his ranch. Here's hoping he falls into a nest of rattle snakes.

[skiracer]

Blondie, Angel Eyes and Tuco.... Great movie, one of my all time favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ&mode=related&search=

Lye,
I just watched it. It's so good at the last gunfight in the arena.

[New-born baby]

Hanging Saddam is a good thing, and would not have been possible unless President Bush had sent the troops into Iraq. Besides getting rid of Saddam we also got rid of a major source of cash for terrorists. He was funding them.

[Tatnic]

Hanging Saddam is a good thing, and would not have been possible unless President Bush had sent the troops into Iraq. Besides getting rid of Saddam we also got rid of a major source of cash for terrorists. He was funding them.

I believe I read somewhere that most of the cash that funds the terrorists comes from the saudis. Don't hold your breath waiting for bush to do anything about that though.

Since we've gone into iraq we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost as many lives as we did in the 911 attacks, and what do we have to show for it? One little, insignificant dictator that kept a lid on that place for the past few decades (with alot of help from us, remember those pictures of donnie rumsfeld sipping tea with saddam?)...maybe we should have kept him in charge of security.

Iraq is beyond repair but we just keep throwing good money and troops into that hell hole hoping for a miracle. Its also come to light that bushie has lied through his teeth about the conditions in iraq...sound familiar? Of course he didn't learn any lessons from our little disaster in Nam because he was drunk most of the time, missing in action so to speak.

[skiracer]

I believe I read somewhere that most of the cash that funds the terrorists comes from the saudis. Don't hold your breath waiting for bush to do anything about that though.

Since we've gone into iraq we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost as many lives as we did in the 911 attacks, and what do we have to show for it? One little, insignificant dictator that kept a lid on that place for the past few decades (with alot of help from us, remember those pictures of donnie rumsfeld sipping tea with saddam?)...maybe we should have kept him in charge of security.

Iraq is beyond repair but we just keep throwing good money and troops into that hell hole hoping for a miracle. Its also come to light that bushie has lied through his teeth about the conditions in iraq...sound familiar? Of course he didn't learn any lessons from our little disaster in Nam because he was drunk most of the time, missing in action so to speak.

He would have gotten killed or worse gotten others killed. I couldn't see counting on him to watch your back in any sense of the word.

[skiracer]

Hanging Saddam is a good thing, and would not have been possible unless President Bush had sent the troops into Iraq. Besides getting rid of Saddam we also got rid of a major source of cash for terrorists. He was funding them.

Whatever the reasons for starting our situation in Iraq were, they have failed miserably. There is more civil unrest amongst all the factions, no clear cut leader or leadership within the Iraqi or the many different sectors, and the killing that is going on now is heightening on a daily basis and we are not in control at all regardless of what Bush, Cheney, or any of our legistlators tell you. The escalation of the bombings, ambush attacks, and killings of all groups in Iraq point that out explicitly. Sure taking Saddam out of power was a good thing but at what cost and what results? Is this situation that we have created in Iraq better than what we had before we went into the country and took him out. At least then we had a known quantity that we could deal with and control to some degree with international sanctions and the UN. These are not better times in Iraq and certainly not a better Iraq or middle east. And there is nothing that makes it appear to be heading in a positive direction or outcome.
Who can one blame except the people who propogated it initially, got us solidly entrenched, and have no idea of how to cope with it in a realistic manner. Hanging Saddam is not the answer or will it provide an answer. Taking the Taliban out in Pakistan an Afganistan was good and we should have moved in and kept them out while stopping and controlling everything going in an out until we strangled Iraq and the terrorists in Iraq and Pakistan. We had a good look at the defeat of a super power in the Russian's fiasco in Afganistan and we didn't learn a thing. Now we are in another very bad predicament again that is ripping our own country apart in a number of ways. When you take a good close look at the situation, realistically who is winning, us or the other side. Is it our advantage at this point in the war in Iraq?

[IIC]

Speaking of the Taliban...I heard on the radio last night that heroin deaths in Los Angeles are at an all time high. They were attributing that to the influx of heroin from Afghanistan...They said 1/6 of L.A.'s heroin originates from there now. Apparently the Taliban kept a lid on it and now the farmers are going crazy growing poppies.

[mrmarket]

Hanging Saddam is a good thing, and would not have been possible unless President Bush had sent the troops into Iraq. Besides getting rid of Saddam we also got rid of a major source of cash for terrorists. He was funding them.

We've already spent $500 billion on the war. I'm sure you could have hired some bad guy from $10 million to put a bullet in Saddam's head.

Alternatively, the economic sanctions and blockades were crippling his ability to be a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Eventually, he would have withered away at a much lower cost of money and lives.

Was he a bad guy? Of course he was. Would more Iraqi civilians have died under his terror reign than the number who have been killed in this war and in the civil war to be? I don't think so.

[billyjoe]

Tonight the Hallmark Channel , #49 here , is showing "Hang 'Em High" , with Clint Eastwood and a cast of big stars. I think it would be a fitting gesture to have a private showing for Sadam. Only one part I object to is when they hang the innocent 16 year old ,billyjoe, who was guilty of rustling ,but didn't murder the rancher and his son. Some of the supporting cast : Inger Stevens, Ed Begley, Bruce Dern, Allan Hale Jr., and Ben Johnson.

----------billyjoe

[skiracer]

Tonight the Hallmark Channel , #49 here , is showing "Hang 'Em High" , with Clint Eastwood and a cast of big stars. I think it would be a fitting gesture to have a private showing for Sadam. Only one part I object to is when they hang the innocent 16 year old ,billyjoe, who was guilty of rustling ,but didn't murder the rancher and his son. Some of the supporting cast : Inger Stevens, Ed Begley, Bruce Dern, Allan Hale Jr., and Ben Johnson.

----------billyjoe

Another good one Billyjoe. I must have seen it a dozen times.

[Websman]

Hanging Saddam is a good thing...

I don't see how hanging anybody could be a "good thing". It is true that execution of killers is legal and justified, but I would never consider it to be good.

[Tatnic]

I don't see how hanging anybody could be a "good thing". It is true that execution of killers is legal and justified, but I would never consider it to be good.

Good point...and especially in his case since that's exactly what he wants, ie to die a martyr. He has said that he wants to be sacrificed in the name of his country. Its interesting to note that in the middle east hanging someone is considered human treatment...they usually just tortue them for a few weeks before cutting off their heads. So at least the country is showing some progress!

[mrmarket]

Good point...and especially in his case since that's exactly what he wants, ie to die a martyr. He has said that he wants to be sacrificed in the name of his country. Its interesting to note that in the middle east hanging someone is considered human treatment...they usually just tortue them for a few weeks before cutting off their heads. So at least the country is showing some progress!

I think we should sign him up for some Ultimate Fighting matches...on Pay Per View!

[Websman]

I think we should sign him up for some Ultimate Fighting matches...on Pay Per View!

Wouldn't it be cool if George and Saddam were put into a cage match against each other. I wonder who would win???

Maybe this could be a new way to fight wars. instead of sending normal folks with guns, countries could just send their leaders fist fight each other.

[billyjoe]

Webs,
Good point. At first I thought George would have the advantage by grabbing Saddam's beard , but then Saddam can grab George's tie so it might be a draw.

-----------billyjoe

[mimo_100]

. Would more Iraqi civilians have died under his terror reign than the number who have been killed in this war and in the civil war to be? I don't think so.

Here is one source for how many have been killed.


Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

[skiracer]

Here is one source for how many have been killed.


Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Saddam's trial and eventual hanging will be the easy part for him. Just wait until he sees what is waiting for him eternally after God passes his judgement on him for being the source behind all of those killings and murders. I'd hang him up feet first, cut open his abdomen and let him bleed out in front of everyone. That would give him plenty of time to think about his life and what he has done with it. There is no way anyone should feel the slightest bit of compassion for this guy. I bet he never ever thought in his wildest dreams that his life would take this turn and end this way. He'll be crying like a baby and wetting his pants before he even gets to the noose.

[skiracer]

Here is one source for how many have been killed.


Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Saddam's trial and eventual hanging will be the easy part for him. Just wait until he sees what is waiting for him eternally after God passes his judgement on him for being the source behind all of those killings and murders. I'd hang him up feet first, cut open his abdomen and let him bleed out in front of everyone. That would give him plenty of time to think about his life and what he has done with it. There is no way anyone should feel the slightest bit of compassion for this guy. I bet he never ever thought in his wildest dreams that his life would take this turn and end this way. He'll be crying like a baby and wetting his pants before he even gets to the noose.

[Rob]

If I were George Bush, here's what I'd do: I would orchestrate a phony "leak" of highly-classified intelligence that the U.S. and its allies have highly-placed worms in the al-Qaeda network that are in close contact with its leaders. Even if it isn't true, it would create such an atmosphere of distrust within the group's leadership, the organization would begin to eat itself alive from within. Why does it take me to think that up? Who's running things anyway?

[lemonjello]

HAL is an oil service company. AFAIK they don't actually drill. They have many many subs. KBR was the one that did most of the contracting in Iraq if I recall.

History note: President Lyndon Johnson (another Texan) used the earlier version of KBR (a Texas firm) extensively in Vietnam. Anyone see a pattern here?

There is at least one positive out of the Iraq war not in the media - the Kurds were as good as exterminated under Saddam. Now they are an autonomous region governing themselves quite well and keeping any insurgents/terrorists beat down in their region. I assure you, the Kurds are very happy with the way things worked out. Maybe the coalition should just leave the Kurds in charge of security in Iraq? They are some tough people. BTW, for the inquiring minds - the Kurds are not Arabs.

Another thing not mentioned in the media that's been mentioned on the board before - the US needed a large strategically located staging base in the Middle East and to intimidate the the other "rogue" countries in the area. Saudi became less of an option and thus Iraq. There is also the possibility of protecting the US petrodollar - although the world seems to be switching to other currencies slowly anyway. By having most of the world hold $ in some form as a reserve currency the US has had the ability to "tax" the rest of the world since WWII through inflating the currency - again not mentioned in the media. A change in this dynamic could have far reaching consequences. One of the first things the occupation forces did after invading Iraq was put it back on the petrodollar standard. Look it up. It's all very interesting.

Does anyone think W really grasps any of this? Cheney and friends are in charge.

BTW, IMO the struggle has always been with Iran, not Iraq, since the Carter administration. Iran played the US like Kasparov from the pre-war intelligence reports to presently using their proxies the Iraqi Shiite and Hezbollah. Most people in the US have no idea how much smart the Iranians are. The US cannot currently invade Iran - they control Hormuz and thus the tanker traffic thru the gulf and Iran is full of mountains and tough terrain. The best scenario is if the Iranian people change their own government.


I usually lean to the right, politically. However these two guys really leave me scratching my head. What boggles my mind is how Cheney had the audacity to assign Halliburton to a no bid contract to cover all of the "services" in Iraq. I thought that Halliburton was in the oil drilling business?

Wouldn't one think that just the appearance of impropriety of assigning Halliburton as a contractor would have been enough to make them use a different contractor? It's just the "tough shit, we're in power, we can do whatever we want" attitude that makes me wonder about what REALLY is going on in Washington these days.

By the way, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Gerald Ford. He was one of the good guys.

[IIC]

If I were George Bush, here's what I'd do: I would orchestrate a phony "leak" of highly-classified intelligence that the U.S. and its allies have highly-placed worms in the al-Qaeda network that are in close contact with its leaders. Even if it isn't true, it would create such an atmosphere of distrust within the group's leadership, the organization would begin to eat itself alive from within. Why does it take me to think that up? Who's running things anyway?


Because it is true

[billyjoe]

Just got through walking my dog across harvested soybean fields and around the woods. I was thinking , Saddam couldn't buy this day even if he still had the billions stolen from the Iraqi people. He had the palaces with golden toilets and millions of Iraqi's fearing his every move and what's he got now? A ruined family name that will be remembered with hatred and scorn throughout history. He's either already dead or waiting to be executed which will send him to a level of eternal damnation we can't imagine. He gained the world and lost his soul while I'm walking my dog on a sunny day.

-----------billyjoe

[Websman]

Amen Cosmo....

[IIC]

Cosmo...if I open the door for someone I expect them to say Thanks...And if they don't, I slam it on 'em before they get all the way thru

[IIC]

Hangin' Out With Saddam

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/U/saddam_hang.gif

[Websman]

You should come to work with me Doug. You'd fit right in.

[Runner]

I think the fall of this Country will be when we get a weak pansy hug a tree leader in Office who is constantly trying to win popularity and make everybody happy. Many fear Bush and I don’t know about you but I like that idea. Don’t think these thugs are stupid.. They can sense a pansy a mile away. How about this has our presence in Iraq possibly stopped bombs in our backyard? I guess it depends what you believe. Sure we are in a mess and I’m the first to admit. Bush got shafted early in his term and put trust in people to do their jobs. These people failed and in return Bush takes the heat. After all a leader is responsible for what he does or failures to do and in the end it is the leader who pays the price. A true leader normally is not well-liked despite what you see on TV. This Country would crack if we ever had another day like D-Day… Yes how many died in the first 24 hours of us hitting the beaches?

The current problem is not going to go away anytime soon and this war is more complicated then any of us realize. We have entered into a new battlefield and this war may last until the end of time. In any new engagement we stumble but always regroup with a better plan. Our engagements have turned from jungles to the worst combat know to man and that is Urban Combat. Folks this madness is simply not going to go away when we leave.

It is easy to sit back in our lazy boys and criticize all the negatives of Bush and his crew.

[IIC]

An old Creole saying:

Good riddance to bad rubbish

[peanuts]

They have released a video of Saddam's last words:

CHECK IT OUT (http://youtube.com/watch?v=cTr5cvA_qgI&mode=related&search=)

[Rob]

With due respect to any Catholics here, I do not understand the Pope. I'm hearing in the news where he is condemning Saddam's execution. I guess he doesn't read his Bible, because Romans 13:4 says regarding the secular "ruler," the governmental authority, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Does the Pope stand in disagreement with the word of God? It looks that way to me.

[New-born baby]

With due respect to any Catholics here, I do not understand the Pope. I'm hearing in the news where he is condemning Saddam's execution. I guess he doesn't read his Bible, because Romans 13:4 says regarding the secular "ruler," the governmental authority, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Does the Pope stand in disagreement with the word of God? It looks that way to me.

Rob,
The entire Catholic Church & theology is in disagreement with the Bible. They disagree about the doctrine of salvation, the office of "Pope;" calling no man 'father;' "indulgances", purgatory, praying to saints, treasury of merit, the immaculate conception of Mary, and dozens of other issues. The Catholic Church is based upon tradition, and not upon the Bible. The pope is not a Christian in the Bible sense of the word.

[New-born baby]

Here is one source for how many have been killed.


Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Excellent work Mimo!

[billyjoe]

Rob,
The entire Catholic Church & theology is in disagreement with the Bible. They disagree about the doctrine of salvation, the office of "Pope;" calling no man 'father;' "indulgances", purgatory, praying to saints, treasury of merit, the immaculate conception of Mary, and dozens of other issues. The Catholic Church is based upon tradition, and not upon the Bible. The pope is not a Christian in the Bible sense of the word.


Everyone interprets the Bible differently, usually in the way that supports his/her beliefs and everyone believes their interpretation is the right one. Same can be said for the Muslims and look at the trouble all these good religious people have caused for humanity.

------------billyjoe

[New-born baby]

We've already spent $500 billion on the war. I'm sure you could have hired some bad guy from $10 million to put a bullet in Saddam's head.

Alternatively, the economic sanctions and blockades were crippling his ability to be a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Eventually, he would have withered away at a much lower cost of money and lives.

Was he a bad guy? Of course he was. Would more Iraqi civilians have died under his terror reign than the number who have been killed in this war and in the civil war to be? I don't think so.

See Mimo's post for how many Saddam killed without us around. He says nearly 2 million, and that is probably pretty close. We lost less than 3,000.

MM, if you want to win the war (I do), it is really easy:
You find every terrorist and kill them. Finding them is fairly easy, too, because they have turned every mosque into a fort. The weak liberals have forbidden our boys from firing on mosques and "holy sites." Running a war like the liberals ran the war in Viet Nam is a recipe for defeat. We've tried it in Korea and Viet Nam without success. You win wars like we won WW II: you kill the enemy until they say "enough."

In Viet Nam we won every battle and lost the war. Liberalism is a losing philosophy. Those who think that leaving the Islamic terrorists alone will find that they will be back to try to destroy our country and our economy.

Iran wants nuclear weapons. This is a country run by an ayatollah. The goal of this wacko is to start WW III so that "the twelfth Caliphate of Baghdad" can begin [to Arabs, a type of Christ; in reality, probably the AntiChrist].They frequently have conferences on the subject "the World without Zionism" and do such wonderful things as denying the holocost; calling the USA "the Great Satan" that supports Israel and seeking to destroy us. The best selling book in the Arab world is "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler.

So if anyone thinks you can have peace with these people by sending them flowers, (remember the flower children of the Sixties?), I think they need to think again.

[New-born baby]

Everyone interprets the Bible differently, usually in the way that supports his/her beliefs and everyone believes their interpretation is the right one. Same can be said for the Muslims and look at the trouble all these good religious people have caused for humanity.

------------billyjoe

That's just it, BillyJoe. When it comes to Catholic theology, these things aren't even in the Bible: the office of Pope, indulgences, treasury of merit, the immaculate conception of Mary, purgatory, salvation by faith plus works, etc. None of those things are in the Bible. They have just been made up by the "church." So it cannot be said that they interpret the Bible differently. Even they themselves admit it. They say that their doctrine is based upon "the Bible and church traditions." Tradition is the source of these beliefs. And Jesus said in Matthew 15:7-9 "You hypocrites! These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men." You see, man made doctrines mean that the Lord rejects one's worship.

[New-born baby]

Saddam's last words: "Allah is great", and "Palestine belongs to the Arabs."

You sees? The eternal hatred goes on.

[diogenes]

See Mimo's post for how many Saddam killed without us around. He says nearly 2 million, and that is probably pretty close. We lost less than 3,000.


NBB- Would you pay money for an investing system that claims to have "made" millions in the past therefore it will in the future, with a forward looking system?

[New-born baby]

Here's a link to evidence of Saddam and his boys funding terrorism:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

[New-born baby]

NBB- Would you pay money for an investing system that claims to have "made" millions in the past therefore it will in the future, with a forward looking system?

Please explain what you mean by this post.

[lemonjello]

History notes -

Does anyone remember how all those Kurds died and Shia wound up in mass graves? After the first Gulf War Bush I encouraged the Kurds and Shia to rise up against Saddam with promises of American support. The support never came. Not only that - the US gov't allowed flights over the uprising Iraqis in the no fly zone that allowed Saddam to kill them more efficiently. Thus mass graves in Southern Iraq. He just used poison gas against the Kurds produced with chemicals originally supplied to him by western democracies including the US.

How about all those dead during the Iraq - Iran war? Saddam once again encouraged and supplied by the US in a proxy war against Iran.

Anyone remember how the Kuwait invasion started in the first Gulf War? Saddam had asked the current US ambassador if the US had any problems with an Iraq invading Kuwait and she said the US would not interfere. That's from memory but generally the idea. The US ambassador could have stopped it right there. At that point Saddam was basically a US puppet.

Of course everyone knows by now why the W administration thought Saddam had WMD - in this case certainly poison gas. Because the US had helped him acquire it originally to use against Iran and subsequently used against the Kurds and threatened for use (or actually used, depending on who you believe) against the coalition forces during the first Gulf War.



Here is one source for how many have been killed.


Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.



http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

[diogenes]

Saddam's last words: "Allah is great", and "Palestine belongs to the Arabs."

You sees? The eternal hatred goes on.


NBB- It seems that there are several different "last statements."
It is easy for them to be cherry picked.

[diogenes]

Please explain what you mean by this post.

Apples to oranges, works, too.

[diogenes]

Here's a link to evidence of Saddam and his boys funding terrorism:http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

From the 9-11 Commission Report:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq,

Source:
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1153.aspx

From:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

[lemonjello]

Mr. Hayes seems to have cause and effect mixed up. I think he's trying to imply something about Al Qaeda funding by Iraq but he has only a little evidence about general terrorist funding. There are plenty of Islamic terrorist groups that existed before Al Qaeda in the middle east and certainly in the Phillipines.

Of course I see no mention of terrorist funding by wealthy people in the rich gulf oil states. This is well known to the intel agencies. Why not invade them?

History note: The USA helped train the original fighters that became Al Qaeda during the USSR Afghan war. Again in a proxy war against the USSR by the US. In an attempt to fend off Russian influence in the middle east the US funded and supported many Islamic extremist groups who were the only convenient and natural US "allies" against the "Godless" USSR in the region.



Here's a link to evidence of Saddam and his boys funding terrorism:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

[mrmarket]

I'm no adulterer, but I have to say that Leviticus 20:10 seems kind of harsh. Do we have to follow the bible literally here? Ouch!

9 If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.


Hey..what's wrong with having a good time??

[New-born baby]

I'm no adulterer, but I have to say that Leviticus 20:10 seems kind of harsh. Do we have to follow the bible literally here? Ouch!

9 If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.


Hey..what's wrong with having a good time??


MM,
Since Jesus the Messiah has come, the Old Testament is no longer in force. That was the Law for Jews. The New Testament is the rule for us in this age. And yes, you do need to take the Bible literally since it is the rule by which you'll be judged by God.

[billyjoe]

MM,
Since Jesus the Messiah has come, the Old Testament is no longer in force. That was the Law for Jews. The New Testament is the rule for us in this age. And yes, you do need to take the Bible literally since it is the rule by which you'll be judged by God.


Newborn,
Wasn't the Bible written by men? In fact years later a meeting of men determined which books would be used to compile the Bible and which were too controversial to be included. Several of the rejected texts still exist but are rarely mentioned. Some passages were deemed "inspired " while others from the same writers were apparently not "inspired" and therefore rejected.

-----------billyjoe

[mrmarket]

MM,
Since Jesus the Messiah has come, the Old Testament is no longer in force. That was the Law for Jews. The New Testament is the rule for us in this age. And yes, you do need to take the Bible literally since it is the rule by which you'll be judged by God.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought traffic was lighter last week because everyone had committed adultery and had been put to death. What a silly head I am!

[mrmarket]

Newborn,
Wasn't the Bible written by men? In fact years later a meeting of men determined which books would be used to compile the Bible and which were too controversial to be included. Several of the rejected texts still exist but are rarely mentioned. Some passages were deemed "inspired " while others from the same writers were apparently not "inspired" and therefore rejected.

-----------billyjoe

Yea...and who was the guy that was in charge of translating? What if someone slipped him a few sheckles and he changed the words around??

[New-born baby]

Yea...and who was the guy that was in charge of translating? What if someone slipped him a few sheckles and he changed the words around??

Here's some info for BillyJoe and MM:
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first of all [i.e. of foremost importance] that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation; for no prophecy ever came by an act of the human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." From this you can see that God wrote the book. Men penned the words; God moved the men to write what He wanted written.

Preservation: Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Here Jesus promises that the Bible shall endure perfectly until the earth ceases to exist.

[Websman]

Am I doomed if I'm Catholic???

[IIC]

Am I doomed if I'm Catholic???


I don't know...Ask Father Bruce down at the Boy's Club?

OK...that was not a very nice thing for me to say...And hopefully anyone who is Catholic realizes that I said that in jest.

But I don't think this forum is really an appropriate place to discuss religion. Personally, I am Lutheran although a 1/4 of my family is Catholic...But as far as I am concerned, Cardinal Mahony should be in jail for obstruction of justice...But that's just my opinion.

[Websman]

I don't know...Ask Father Bruce down at the Boy's Club?

OK...that was not a very nice thing for me to say...And hopefully anyone who is Catholic realizes that I said that in jest.

But I don't think this forum is really an appropriate place to discuss religion. Personally, I am Lutheran although a 1/4 of my family is Catholic...But as far as I am concerned, Cardinal Mahony should be in jail for obstruction of justice...But that's just my opinion.

I'm not Catholic....just wondering. But, I do have a lot of friends who are Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Jehova Witness, Buddist, Muslim, etc...

Us Vulcans have their our unique religion, which I'm not authorized to discuss here.

[mrmarket]

Here's some info for BillyJoe and MM:
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first of all [i.e. of foremost importance] that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation; for no prophecy ever came by an act of the human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." From this you can see that God wrote the book. Men penned the words; God moved the men to write what He wanted written.

Preservation: Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Here Jesus promises that the Bible shall endure perfectly until the earth ceases to exist.

I understand...but seriously. Here's my point. If you told a guy he was "gay" a hundred years ago, he'd buy you a drink. How can words from 2000 years ago mean the same thing now?

[lemonjello]

I heard there were quite a few well documented translation errors in the King James version. Are you guys referring to reading the original Greek or Hebrew texts since that's the only way to avoid translation errors. Maybe you need to know Aramaic too.

BTW, Judaism considers there are two sources - the written Torah and the oral traditions which Moses acquired on Mt. Sinai.

And how about the Muslims? The Koran and the Hadith.

[New-born baby]

I understand...but seriously. Here's my point. If you told a guy he was "gay" a hundred years ago, he'd buy you a drink. How can words from 2000 years ago mean the same thing now?

The answer is that when we study the Bible, we study what the words meant then, in the original Greek and Hebrew languages. We also study the context so we can accurately determine the meaning.

[New-born baby]

I heard there were quite a few well documented translation errors in the King James version. Are you guys referring to reading the original Greek or Hebrew texts since that's the only way to avoid translation errors. Maybe you need to know Aramaic too.

BTW, Judaism considers there are two sources - the written Torah and the oral traditions which Moses acquired on Mt. Sinai.

And how about the Muslims? The Koran and the Hadith.
When one translates the Bible, he needs to know Hebrew and Greek, and a small amount of Aramaic and Chaldea. Concerning translation errors, no version is absolutely error free. On the other hand the most popular translations are very good (KJV, NASB, NIV, etc) and the message of God is not lost through the very few poor translations within them.
There are a handful (how many is "a hand full" or "quite a few?") translation errors in the KJV. I would not say "quite a few." By far the biggest issue with the King James Version is what MM is talking about in his post when he mentions that oftentimes the meaning of words changes meaning over times. That has happened to the King James. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where the Rapture is under discussion. In the KJV, it reads " . . . that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." Prevent? What does that mean? In 1611 it meant "preceed." You can find that out in the Cambridge College Dictionary. It will tell you what the word meant in 1611. The New American Standard translates the verse " . . . that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not preceed those who have fallen asleep." Notice also that the proper use of "which/who" and "unto/until" has changed.

[New-born baby]

I heard there were quite a few well documented translation errors in the King James version. Are you guys referring to reading the original Greek or Hebrew texts since that's the only way to avoid translation errors. Maybe you need to know Aramaic too.

BTW, Judaism considers there are two sources - the written Torah and the oral traditions which Moses acquired on Mt. Sinai.

And how about the Muslims? The Koran and the Hadith.

Concerning the Jews accepting the oral traditions as authoritive, Jesus condemned that in Matthew 15:1-9.

[New-born baby]

Am I doomed if I'm Catholic???

Webs,
Any person is "doomed" (we'd say, "damned" which means, "condemned to hell") regardless of what "religion" he may be. In other words, every person starts out headed to an eternal judgment in hell because he has violated God's law, i.e., sinned. Any sin is enough to condemn a man to eternal judgment. In fact God holds us all responsible for the original sin of Adam because we participated in it (Romans 5:12). So point one is this: everyone is headed to hell from day one.

Point two is that no one may earn salvation from this judgment. No thing that you do will earn merit with God that He would give you eternal life instead of eternal judgment (Ephesians 2:8-9). The reason is simple: God is a righteous judge. He cannot approve of sin. He must judge sin. If He were to give a sinner eternal life without the sin being judged, He would be a corrupt judge, and something He cannot do since He is absolutely holy (Romans 3:21-31).

Point three is that God has provided a way to eternal life. It is the only way possible. What He did was this: He sent His Son to die for our sins as a substitute. The result is this: when a sinner turns to Christ believing that 1) he is a sinner deserving hell for his sins, and 2) that he cannot save himself from his own sins, and 3) that God the Father sent His Son to pay the penalty (the 'fine' if you will) for our sins, and 4) calls upon Christ to save him, he will be saved from eternal punishment and given eternal life instantly.
A few verses that teach this are:
John 3:16f. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish [that's hell] but have everlasting life. (v. 17) For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him would be saved. (v. 18) He that believes upon Him is not condemned; but he that does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Begotten Son of God."

There are many, many other verses that could be quoted. But let me just urge all readers to do this: ask Christ to save you from your sins. Simply call upon Him in prayer and admit the truth: I am a sinner, and I know judgment is coming; I know I cannot save myself. Dear Jesus please save me, a sinner. Jesus said, ". . . he that comes to Me I will not reject." He'll hear you. And He will save you.

Have a great 2007, Webs :)

[skiracer]

Concerning the Jews accepting the oral traditions as authoritive, Jesus condemned that in Matthew 15:1-9.

If a dozen people read the book you would have a dozen different interpretations. Every minister's interpretation follows the line of thought of their denomination and they all think that their interpretation is the right one down to the smallest interpretation of basic word usage and definition as pointed out by New Born. I think it would be good enough to base living your life within the parameters of the 10 commandents. If you could do that Jesus and God would be very pleased with your performance here on earth. The sad fact of the matter is that the largest percentage of us can't even do that much less trying to live your life by what is written in the Bible.
Interpretations always tend to bend according to the need and beliefs of the interpreter along with the fact that the scriptures were written by mortal men over 2000 years ago when the wording had much different meaning and definition. Personally I think it is very much outdated but the 10 commandents were written in stone an have not and will not change thru eternity as it was meant to be.

[New-born baby]

If a dozen people read the book you would have a dozen different interpretations. Every minister's interpretation follows the line of thought of their denomination and they all think that their interpretation is the right one down to the smallest interpretation of basic word usage and definition as pointed out by New Born. I think it would be good enough to base living your life within the parameters of the 10 commandents. If you could do that Jesus and God would be very pleased with your performance here on earth. The sad fact of the matter is that the largest percentage of us can't even do that much less trying to live your life by what is written in the Bible.
Interpretations always tend to bend according to the need and beliefs of the interpreter along with the fact that the scriptures were written by mortal men over 2000 years ago when the wording had much different meaning and definition. Personally I think it is very much outdated but the 10 commandents were written in stone an have not and will not change thru eternity as it was meant to be.

Ski,
There is a thing called "hermeneutics." This is the art and science of Bible interpretation. The Bible has only one message; God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). In fact Jesus said "if any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7:17). In other words Jesus promised that if any person will come to God and honestly say "I'll do anything you want me to do; please show me the Truth," then the Lord will show him.

Believe it or not: I am currently working on a book of hermeneutics for the laymen. Whether or not it will finally get published or not . . . . In the past I have written many articles that have been published. We shall see if they will publish my book. And probably I won't know for a year.

[mrmarket]

Very interesting thread. One thing I have learned is that NBB is a very informed dude.

[New-born baby]

Very interesting thread. One thing I have learned is that NBB is a very informed dude.

I like to say to MM and all the readers with all the kindness of my heart: seek the Lord with all of your heart and you will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). You are going to live forever; make sure it is in heaven.

[lemonjello]

Happy New Year folks.

Here's an example of something I ran across that seems to be in all versions. I'm paraphrasing from memory - It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. (Hmmm, does that apply to anyone on this board?) Now everyone gets the general idea that it's something hard to impossible - certainly a live camel couldn't fit through. But it always bugged me - why use a camel in this phrase? Is there some deeper meaning?

A few years ago I found out the Arabic word for camel is jamel - stay with me here - which is also the Arabic word for a hawser (like you tie ships up with - which would be well known to fishermen for instance) or thick rope. I also learned (before Mel Gibson's movie, btw) that Aramaic, which was commonly spoken at the time the phrase was used, is an older semitic language related to modern Arabic.

It occurred to me that the phrase had been mistranslated and perpetuated in a lot of Bible translations, since it makes more sense to say - it's easier for a hawser (thick rope) to get through the eye of a needle (very difficult) than a rich man to get into heaven - since that would be comparing a big rope with a thread - an clear comparison. It's something you could say to a group of, oh, fishermen for instance and they would instantly relate since they are using hawsers to tie up their boats and needles to mend their sails or nets. I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that? I don't know if the original in Greek says camel, but if it does then the Greek writer probably misunderstood that the word had two meanings and simply used the most common meaning.

(funny - the spell checker kept trying to change jamel to camel)

When one translates the Bible, he needs to know Hebrew and Greek, and a small amount of Aramaic and Chaldea. Concerning translation errors, no version is absolutely error free. On the other hand the most popular translations are very good (KJV, NASB, NIV, etc) and the message of God is not lost through the very few poor translations within them.
There are a handful (how many is "a hand full" or "quite a few?") translation errors in the KJV. I would not say "quite a few." By far the biggest issue with the King James Version is what MM is talking about in his post when he mentions that oftentimes the meaning of words changes meaning over times. That has happened to the King James. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where the Rapture is under discussion. In the KJV, it reads " . . . that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." Prevent? What does that mean? In 1611 it meant "preceed." You can find that out in the Cambridge College Dictionary. It will tell you what the word meant in 1611. The New American Standard translates the verse " . . . that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not preceed those who have fallen asleep." Notice also that the proper use of "which/who" and "unto/until" has changed.

[New-born baby]

Happy New Year folks.

Here's an example of something I ran across that seems to be in all versions. I'm paraphrasing from memory - It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. (Hmmm, does that apply to anyone on this board?) Now everyone gets the general idea that it's something hard to impossible - certainly a live camel couldn't fit through. But it always bugged me - why use a camel in this phrase? Is there some deeper meaning?

A few years ago I found out the Arabic word for camel is jamel - stay with me here - which is also the Arabic word for a hawser (like you tie ships up with - which would be well known to fishermen for instance) or thick rope. I also learned (before Mel Gibson's movie, btw) that Aramaic, which was commonly spoken at the time the phrase was used, is an older semitic language related to modern Arabic.

It occurred to me that the phrase had been mistranslated and perpetuated in a lot of Bible translations, since it makes more sense to say - it's easier for a hawser (thick rope) to get through the eye of a needle (very difficult) than a rich man to get into heaven - since that would be comparing a big rope with a thread - an clear comparison. It's something you could say to a group of, oh, fishermen for instance and they would instantly relate since they are using hawsers to tie up their boats and needles to mend their sails or nets. I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that? I don't know if the original in Greek says camel, but if it does then the Greek writer probably misunderstood that the word had two meanings and simply used the most common meaning.

(funny - the spell checker kept trying to change jamel to camel)

Lemon,
Your quote is Matthew 19:24. I just checked the Greek New Testament. In case anyone doesn't know, the United Bible Societies produce it. In the footnotes every variant of the text is acknowledged and a footnote showing which ancient text(s) has the variant. In the case of Matthew 19:24, there are no variants whatsoever. In other words your suggested possible scenario cannot be. I should also point out to you that we have thousands of ancient manuscripts of the NT and the book of Matthew, and they range from AD 150, or about 100 years after Matthew was first produced. All of those manuscripts agree about the proper reading of Matthew 19:24.

Concerning the message of Matthew 19:24 (and something you acknowledged, e.g. that a camel going through an eye of a needle is impossible, and thus Jesus is saying that no rich man could enter heaven), is exactly what He is saying. Verses 25-26 record that the apostles are astonished and say, "Then who can be saved?!" Jesus' response is "With men, this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible." In other words He is saying this: "No man can go to Heaven of any work he may do; but God can save men to heaven." This is exactly what I was saying with my earlier post when I urged readers to call upon Jesus to save them.

Thanks for your good observation.

[lemonjello]

NB,

I did a quick Google on - jamel camel rope Aramaic - and there's a lot of discussion about Aramaic and Greek interpretations (they didn't have to go thru Arabic to get there).

I found some interesting things -

the translations of the New Testament that went East were in Aramaic and the ones that went West were in Greek - most of the Eastern Christians were later "converted" to Islam and those remaining are very small populations (like the ones in Iraq) now so you don't hear much about their versions of the New Testament.

the Greek words for camel and heavy rope are also very similar - kamilos (rope) and kamelos (camel).

some people say that rabbis of the time used this type of language - camel/needle - to drive home a point. (they then give similar examples from the Talmud)

some people say there was a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem called "eye of the needle".

George M. Lamsa translated the New Testament from the Syrian Aramaic text using the word "rope". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Lamsa

"24 Again I say to you, It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 Jesus looked at them and said, For men this is impossible, but for God everything is possible." www.aramaicpeshitta.com

All I can conclude is that the people that received the Greek text mostly go with camel and the ones that received the Aramaic text go with rope.

BTW - there's a Greek Bible on the web http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

ΠΑΛΙΝ ΔΕ ΛΕΓΩ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ (camel) ΔΙΑ ΤΡΥΠΗΜΑΤΟΣ ΡΑΦΙΔΟΣ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ Η ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΝ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΕΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ



Lemon,
Your quote is Matthew 19:24. I just checked the Greek New Testament. In case anyone doesn't know, the United Bible Societies produce it. In the footnotes every variant of the text is acknowledged and a footnote showing which ancient text(s) has the variant. In the case of Matthew 19:24, there are no variants whatsoever. In other words your suggested possible scenario cannot be. I should also point out to you that we have thousands of ancient manuscripts of the NT and the book of Matthew, and they range from AD 150, or about 100 years after Matthew was first produced. All of those manuscripts agree about the proper reading of Matthew 19:24.

Concerning the message of Matthew 19:24 (and something you acknowledged, e.g. that a camel going through an eye of a needle is impossible, and thus Jesus is saying that no rich man could enter heaven), is exactly what He is saying. Verses 25-26 record that the apostles are astonished and say, "Then who can be saved?!" Jesus' response is "With men, this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible." In other words He is saying this: "No man can go to Heaven of any work he may do; but God can save men to heaven." This is exactly what I was saying with my earlier post when I urged readers to call upon Jesus to save them.

Thanks for your good observation.

[New-born baby]

NB,

I did a quick Google on - jamel camel rope Aramaic - and there's a lot of discussion about Aramaic and Greek interpretations (they didn't have to go thru Arabic to get there).

I found some interesting things -

the translations of the New Testament that went East were in Aramaic and the ones that went West were in Greek - most of the Eastern Christians were later "converted" to Islam and those remaining are very small populations (like the ones in Iraq) now so you don't hear much about their versions of the New Testament.

the Greek words for camel and heavy rope are also very similar - kamilos (rope) and kamelos (camel).

some people say that rabbis of the time used this type of language - camel/needle - to drive home a point. (they then give similar examples from the Talmud)

some people say there was a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem called "eye of the needle".

George M. Lamsa translated the New Testament from the Syrian Aramaic text using the word "rope". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Lamsa

"24 Again I say to you, It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 Jesus looked at them and said, For men this is impossible, but for God everything is possible." www.aramaicpeshitta.com

All I can conclude is that the people that received the Greek text mostly go with camel and the ones that received the Aramaic text go with rope.

BTW - there's a Greek Bible on the web http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

ΠΑΛΙΝ ΔΕ ΛΕΓΩ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΥΚΟΠΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ (camel) ΔΙΑ ΤΡΥΠΗΜΑΤΟΣ ΡΑΦΙΔΟΣ ΔΙΕΛΘΕΙΝ Η ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΝ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΕΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ

The problem with emending the text is Matthew 5:18. "Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest stroke or letter shall pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled." In other words, we have the Bible. Your suggestion implies that God has not preserved His word, an idea that is refuted by the Bible itself.

Thanks for the link to the Greek Bible.

[riverbabe]

The problem with emending the text is Matthew 5:18. "Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest stroke or letter shall pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled." In other words, we have the Bible. Your suggestion implies that God has not preserved His word, an idea that is refuted by the Bible itself.

Thanks for the link to the Greek Bible.

Dear New-born baby, I really hate getting into discussions of religion and politics on stock boards, but I respectfully recommend at least one book (of many many many!) that eloquently expresses current mainstream biblical and historical scholarly thought on the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the Bible we read today. It is "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman. (How Mistakes and Changes Shaped the Bible We Read Today.) I know you are learned clergy. So again, it is very respectfully that I ask that you read it. You may not agree with everything or even anything said there, and that is your perogative. But, it may enlarge your understanding and even strengthen your faith. Bless you. Riverbabe

P.S. It is my understanding that in Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew is expressing that even though it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings salvation, his followers will naturally keep the Law, just as Jesus himself did.

[New-born baby]

Dear New-born baby, I really hate getting into discussions of religion and politics on stock boards, but I respectfully recommend at least one book (of many many many!) that eloquently expresses current mainstream biblical and historical scholarly thought on the subject of textual criticism as it applies to the Bible we read today. It is "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman. (How Mistakes and Changes Shaped the Bible We Read Today.) I know you are learned clergy. So again, it is very respectfully that I ask that you read it. You may not agree with everything or even anything said there, and that is your perogative. But, it may enlarge your understanding and even strengthen your faith. Bless you. Riverbabe

P.S. It is my understanding that in Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew is expressing that even though it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings salvation, his followers will naturally keep the Law, just as Jesus himself did.

River,
Thanks for the post, and I surely appreciate your respectful suggestion. But I must admit that I won't be reading Ehrman's book. I believe the Bible to be a perfect book, and I can't stomach formegeshicte (form criticism, also called "higher criticism."). I have studied higher criticism in seminary, and am aware of the issues. I just believe that those guys are working for the devil (a word which means "the slanderer." And he is slandering God's Word).

As for believers being required to keep the Law, these verses teach that the New Testament believer is no longer under the Old Testament Law:

Probably the easiest verse for one to understand it is 1 Cor. 9:20, where Paul says that he is not under the Law. If Paul the Apostle wasn't under the Law, then neither are we, since he tells us that we are to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 4: 16; 11:1; Philippians 3:17). Other verses that teach we are no longer under Old Testament Law include:
Romans 7:1-6 (compare with Galatians 2:19).
Romans 10:4
The entire book of Galatians is an argument against the Christian being under the Old Testament Law. Galatians 3:23-25 is an explanation of why God gave the Old Testament Law. Galatians 5:1-4 shows that if a believer is to accept circumcision, he is under obligation to keep the entire Law and is severed from Christ, i.e. seeking to be saved by works (which cannot be done).

I'll quit here for now. God bless you, River.

[Rob]

I guess camel can convey the same idea, but why would anyone in that time and place say that?It was not uncommon for Jesus to employ hyperbole to make a point. For example, when he said it is better to cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if it is causing you to stumble. Obviously he did not mean that literally.

Also, the eye of the needle comparison isn't the only time Jesus used a camel to illustrate something of impossibly large size. At Matt. 23:23, 24 Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! [. . .] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

[New-born baby]

It was not uncommon for Jesus to employ hyperbole to make a point. For example, when he said it is better to cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if it is causing you to stumble. Obviously he did not mean that literally.

Also, the eye of the needle comparison isn't the only time Jesus used a camel to illustrate something of impossibly large size. At Matt. 23:23, 24 Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! [. . .] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The disciples in the context of Matthew 19:24 understood Jesus to be mentioning the impossible because they "were astonished and asked (v. 25), 'Then who can be saved?'" Furthermore Jesus responded by saying "With men this is impossible . . . . " For these two reasons I do not think that Jesus is speaking with hyperbole in this context (Mt. 19:24-26).

The third reason I do not think He is using hyperbole is that the interpretation would be damaged by saying that the camel/eye of an needle is hyperbole. Salvation is impossible by human effort; it takes a work of God. This interpretation agrees with the rest of the Bible. If we say that salvation is difficult for men but not impossbile, we disagree with the plain teaching of Scripture everywhere.

[Lyehopper]

I think that a large component of many theologies is that to whom much is given, much is required, and this seems to be lost on people. I mean, let's say that two men see a little child playing in the street and a car is headed towards it. One man has a bad leg after having fallen awkwardly on it, and the other man is a professional athlete. Let's say the professional athlete stands still, assuming the car will stop in time, while the other man hurries towards toward the child, but he is too slow to save the child. The child is killed. The athlete could have easily saved the child. With whom are you more impressed, the man with the bad leg or the athlete? Of course you would be more impressed with the man with the bad leg because he at least tried, even though he was unable. The athlete was more than able and yet did nothing. To quote something from Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility."
I think Spiderman could easily get thru the eye of a needle....

[Karel]

Oomph. I am sorry I caught up with this thread. NBB has shown himself a pretty typical fundamentalist Christian as I was afraid he was. No problem, we all have our quirks. All Christians started as fundamentalists, until that position became untenable by more and more Bible study. Therefore the need for "Higher criticism". Something like the fact that all earth science started with the Genesis account, and now only people in deep denial still do so with regard to science. (Genesis is still fine in religion, though).

I don't want to bash the fundamentalist position too much, because I think it also may help you to lead a Christian life, but you are almost bound to pick up some warped ideas there, especially about the Bible and other Christian denominations. Other denominations have their faults too, I suppose. I know mine has; I am RC.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

The disciples in the context of Matthew 19:24 understood Jesus to be mentioning the impossible because they "were astonished and asked (v. 25), 'Then who can be saved?'" Furthermore Jesus responded by saying "With men this is impossible . . . . " For these two reasons I do not think that Jesus is speaking with hyperbole in this context (Mt. 19:24-26).I don't follow your logic. The two things you mention both support my position that Jesus was using hyerbole, and further, that he was talking about a camel and not a fat rope.

[Karel]

The key is to understanding the mechanisms by which the human ascertains the truth. I know that the truth is what it is, what is going to happen is going to happen, though we have free will. So we have to ask the critical question, how do we find truth? If we find it, are we ready? This is my current focus in life, finding the truth about why we are all here and the true construction of the universe.
Well, I have perhaps a different perspective about what is critical. I think it is critical to find ways to be a blessing to other people, and to recognize it when they are a blessing to you. But truth doesn't sound too bad either ;)

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

This is my current focus in life, finding the truth about why we are all here and the true construction of the universe.I could tell you, but this is not the place for it. I'll tell you this much: in your quest, let the first three chapters in the book of Proverbs be your guide, and do not deviate from it in the slightest detail.

[New-born baby]

I don't follow your logic. The two things you mention both support my position that Jesus was using hyerbole, and further, that he was talking about a camel and not a fat rope.

Rob,
Yes, I agree, He was talking about a camel and not a fat rope.

When you said "hyperbole," I understood you to be saying that Jesus did not mean it literally. A hyperbole is an exaggeration. I disagree with with notion that Jesus was exaggerating. I am saying that He literally meant that it would be easier for a literal camel to go through a literal eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. That's impossible, but that would be easier than for a man to save himself.

[New-born baby]

Oomph. I am sorry I caught up with this thread. NBB has shown himself a pretty typical fundamentalist Christian as I was afraid he was. No problem, we all have our quirks. All Christians started as fundamentalists, until that position became untenable by more and more Bible study. Therefore the need for "Higher criticism". Something like the fact that all earth science started with the Genesis account, and now only people in deep denial still do so with regard to science. (Genesis is still fine in religion, though).

I don't want to bash the fundamentalist position too much, because I think it also may help you to lead a Christian life, but you are almost bound to pick up some warped ideas there, especially about the Bible and other Christian denominations. Other denominations have their faults too, I suppose. I know mine has; I am RC.

Regards,

Karel

Karel,
I don't think you need to be sorry. Yes, if by Fundamentalist Christian you mean a Bible-believer, you are very correct. I don't think the position is untenable; I think it is bullet-proof.

Example: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all things are running down. Your house, your car, everything is subject to decay. This is a law of the universe. So then how can evolution be true? I would think that evolution is the untenable position.

God bless you, Karel :)

[Karel]

Karel,
I don't think you need to be sorry. Yes, if by Fundamentalist Christian you mean a Bible-believer, you are very correct. I don't think the position is untenable; I think it is bullet-proof.
Actually, you should know better. Bible-believer is not the meaning of fundamentalist, although it is true that fundamentalists generally consider themselves to be the only Bible-believers, a rather unfunny practice. You could try this for the meaning of fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity), the way I used the word.
Example: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all things are running down. Your house, your car, everything is subject to decay. This is a law of the universe. So then how can evolution be true? I would think that evolution is the untenable position.

God bless you, Karel :)
This is indeed strange, that you start out with this easily refutable strawman argument (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html). You misstate the 2nd law. The impossibility of the law as you state it is easy to see: all around us, we see natural processes going in both directions: water freezes and ice thaws, clouds condense and evaporize. One of those directions always is towards more order, the other towards less. In your formulation, one half of those two pairs of processes would be impossible. Trust scientists to formulate better laws than that. And of course I didn't need to go into this kind of detail, for who would take a "natural law" seriously that uses colloquial expressions like "running down"?

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

What's a "RC" Karel?

Of course, not that it would matter. I'd like you even if you were a Klingon. jejejeje

Has anyone ever considered the possibilty that humans were genetically engineered by a highly advanced civilization. Could it be that the "Gods" as we know them are actually our anscestors? Could we be hybrids?? Where there Ancient Astronauts???

Zecharia Sitchin thinks so......You have now entered the Twilight Zone....
http://www.crystalinks.com/sitchen.html

[Karel]

What's a "RC" Karel?
RC can mean a lot of things (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=RC&Find=find&string=exact), but in this case it is supposed to mean Roman catholic :)

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

RC can mean a lot of things (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=RC&Find=find&string=exact), but in this case it is supposed to mean Roman catholic :)

Regards,

Karel

I've never been to a Catholic service, but I've been thinking about it. I love the Catholic faith.

The way I look at it, we're all shooting for the same goal. :)

[lemonjello]

I vote to move this thread back to global realpolitik in the middle east and how the US elite is simply attempting to manipulate the entire region for it's own special interests while using Madison Ave spin to deceptively influence public opinion at the great cost to the blood and treasure of the citizenry.

Um, ok, maybe that wasn't the original topic. :cramersmiley:

[studentofthemarket]

I usually lean to the right, politically. However these two guys really leave me scratching my head. What boggles my mind is how Cheney had the audacity to assign Halliburton to a no bid contract to cover all of the "services" in Iraq. I thought that Halliburton was in the oil drilling business?

Wouldn't one think that just the appearance of impropriety of assigning Halliburton as a contractor would have been enough to make them use a different contractor? It's just the "tough shit, we're in power, we can do whatever we want" attitude that makes me wonder about what REALLY is going on in Washington these days.

By the way, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Gerald Ford. He was one of the good guys.



Haliburton has a subsidiary: KBR(Kellog Brown & Root) if memory serves. They are a HUGE player in the logistics business. A guy here at work was all tuned up about that stuff until I pointed out a few things.

Like...

Who was a major contractor for support for the troops during the Clinton admin? Haliburton/KBR. They built all the facilities in Yugoslavia(the place we were only supposed to be for a year, but are there to this day). No bid contracts then as well. ARe you going to contract with a french company to do this work?

what company is large enough and has the required expertise? KBR

it just goes on and on. The military moved to more soldiers using weapons and and fewer soldiers driving trucks and forklifts. But supplies still have to be trucked, buildings have to be built etc. (i'm not talking about combat engineering, this is mess hall construction/barracks stuff) who do they have doing that? KBR.

at any rate. Once Eric read about what they do, he calmed down quite a bit.
he had nearly hyperventilated over the evil haliburton company.

student.

[peanuts]

RC can mean a lot of things (http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=RC&Find=find&string=exact), but in this case it is supposed to mean Roman catholic :)

Regards,

Karel

Are you sure that you not a racecar? :p

Another mode of transportation palindrome is kayak. Can you think of more?

[Websman]

I vote to move this thread back to global realpolitik in the middle east and how the US elite is simply attempting to manipulate the entire region for it's own special interests while using Madison Ave spin to deceptively influence public opinion at the great cost to the blood and treasure of the citizenry.

Um, ok, maybe that wasn't the original topic. :cramersmiley:

It's close enough...

Did I mention the fact that Florida has a new Governor? and he's single? and gay? and has voted against gay marriage? Not that I'm gay, of course, but isn't that kind of hypocritical?

[lemonjello]

The Bush dynasty is getting a pruning. :cramersmiley:

It's close enough...

Did I mention the fact that Florida has a new Governor? and he's single? and gay? and has voted against gay marriage? Not that I'm gay, of course, but isn't that kind of hypocritical?

[Websman]

The Bush dynasty is getting a pruning. :cramersmiley:

Jeb has left Tallahassee... I've been to his office on business and was not really impressed much by him.

[New-born baby]

Haliburton has a subsidiary: KBR(Kellog Brown & Root) if memory serves. They are a HUGE player in the logistics business. A guy here at work was all tuned up about that stuff until I pointed out a few things.

Like...

Who was a major contractor for support for the troops during the Clinton admin? Haliburton/KBR. They built all the facilities in Yugoslavia(the place we were only supposed to be for a year, but are there to this day). No bid contracts then as well. ARe you going to contract with a french company to do this work?

what company is large enough and has the required expertise? KBR

it just goes on and on. The military moved to more soldiers using weapons and and fewer soldiers driving trucks and forklifts. But supplies still have to be trucked, buildings have to be built etc. (i'm not talking about combat engineering, this is mess hall construction/barracks stuff) who do they have doing that? KBR.

at any rate. Once Eric read about what they do, he calmed down quite a bit.
he had nearly hyperventilated over the evil haliburton company.

student.

Nice post. Finally someone points out the facts.

[skiracer]

It's close enough...

Did I mention the fact that Florida has a new Governor? and he's single? and gay? and has voted against gay marriage? Not that I'm gay, of course, but isn't that kind of hypocritical?

Webs,
Are you going to use this forum to come out of your closet? Did Bubba get to you?

[New-born baby]

Actually, you should know better. Bible-believer is not the meaning of fundamentalist, although it is true that fundamentalists generally consider themselves to be the only Bible-believers, a rather unfunny practice. You could try this for the meaning of fundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity), the way I used the word.
Yes, I do know better, but I wasn't sure you did. I am impressed that you do know the nuances. Tell me, in the Netherlands, do you know any fundamentalists? And where did you become so acquainted with fundamentalists that you can identify the typical ones?

This is indeed strange, that you start out with this easily refutable strawman argument (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html). You misstate the 2nd law. The impossibility of the law as you state it is easy to see: all around us, we see natural processes going in both directions: water freezes and ice thaws, clouds condense and evaporize. One of those directions always is towards more order, the other towards less. In your formulation, one half of those two pairs of processes would be impossible. Trust scientists to formulate better laws than that. And of course I didn't need to go into this kind of detail, for who would take a "natural law" seriously that uses colloquial expressions like "running down"?

Regards,

Karel

I am sorry I misstated the 2nd Law. I have been misinformed. No, I am not a scientist, but I am aware that evolution has not been proven, and that the Bible has no contradictions in it.

[Lyehopper]

Jeb has left Tallahassee... I've been to his office on business and was not really impressed much by him.
But you must admit that he has a cool first name.

[IIC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Websman http://www.mrmarketishuge.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mrmarketishuge.com/showthread.php?p=75628#post75628)
Jeb has left Tallahassee... I've been to his office on business and was not really impressed much by him.

And just what type of biz were you there for anyway???

Since when do ex-governors get personally escorted to their new abode by prison wardens???

[Rob]

But you must admit that he has a cool first name.His first name is John. :)

His real name is John Ellis Bush, and "Jeb" comes from his initials.

More worthless trivia—unless you happen to go on the Jeopardy TV show and that information is in one of the correct questions.

[Karel]

Yes, I do know better, but I wasn't sure you did. I am impressed that you do know the nuances. Tell me, in the Netherlands, do you know any fundamentalists? And where did you become so acquainted with fundamentalists that you can identify the typical ones?
Well, I can only claim to know some nuances, not everything in the article I referred to. I don't know of any strictly fundamentalist groups in the Netherlands, but that is not saying much. More prominent in our country are the Evangelicals, who have a large overlap with Fundamentalists and some (or groups) of whom may have more typically Fundamentalist notions.

I became acquainted with Fundamentalism because I am interested in the reactions to modernism, both in my own church (as anti-modernism) and in Protestantism. My interest arose because I am very much interested in both science and religion. Indeed, I have a degree in theology. My theological studies forced me to clarify my own position with regard to the Bible. In this situation the Biblical Inerrantists got my attention. I developed some sympathy for their notions, but not much more than that. It was also the start for my interest in reactions to modernism.

I am sorry I misstated the 2nd Law. I have been misinformed. No, I am not a scientist, but I am aware that evolution has not been proven, and that the Bible has no contradictions in it.
Thank you for your acknowledgment. From my (lay) study of the earth sciences and biology I am convinced things are a bit different, but let's leave it at that. But from this angle I also encountered the Fundamentalists, when, looking for information about evolution, I stumbled upon the newsgroup talk.origins (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins), a group with a lot of unnice people from both camps, but still informative.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

I have a degree in theology. My theological studies forced me to clarify my own position with regard to the Bible. In this situation the Biblical Inerrantists got my attention. I developed some sympathy for their notions, but not much more than that.
Would you agree that some of the problems are not so much with scripture in it's original form but with various translations into other languages. For example: The KJV, that most people around here use, is considered to be handed down directly from God himself. They seem to think that God "spake" to the Bible writers in "Ye Olde English"....

I have a question for NBB and Karel.... Do you believe that God created the Universe (Heaven and Earth) literally in seven 24 hour days?

[Karel]

Would you agree that some of the problems are not so much with scripture in it's original form but with various translations into other languages. For example: The KJV, that most people around here use, is considered to be handed down directly from God himself. They seem to think that God "spake" to the Bible writers in "Ye Olde English"....

I have a question for NBB and Karel.... Do you believe that God created the Universe (Heaven and Earth) literally in seven 24 hour days?
Well, some of the problems are due to translations, perhaps, but Biblical scholarship isn't really worth the name if it doesn't use the original texts in the original languages. And I want to answer your question about creation, but preferably only for the record, and not to start a possibly endless discussion. (Completely off-topic in this thread too, but the thread was bound to get moderately off-topic anyway.)

No, I don't believe in a creation in seven days of 24 hours. To do so would, in my eyes and those of a lot of scholars, miss quite few very important points in the creation hymn (Gen 1:1-2:4). Also, from a scientific viewpoint the age of the universe and earth are pretty well established, as is the timescale of the development of life on earth. They are not in accordance with a seven day creation. Where former ages through lack of knowledge could still view the Creation hymn as "historical" (a word much less rigorously defined then as now), we are now free to concentrate on its other meanings.

I think this puts me fairly and squarely in what NBB considers to be slanderers of God's word, but it is my considered opinion, and it should be obvious that I consider my own position in a somewhat better light.

Regards,

Karel

[riverbabe]

Would you agree that some of the problems are not so much with scripture in it's original form but with various translations into other languages. For example: The KJV, that most people around here use, is considered to be handed down directly from God himself. They seem to think that God "spake" to the Bible writers in "Ye Olde English"....



Reminds me of that great bumper sticker that goes something like this:
"The King James Bible was good enough for St. Paul, so it's good enough for me!"

[mrmarket]

Karel,
I don't think you need to be sorry. Yes, if by Fundamentalist Christian you mean a Bible-believer, you are very correct. I don't think the position is untenable; I think it is bullet-proof.

Example: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all things are running down. Your house, your car, everything is subject to decay. This is a law of the universe. So then how can evolution be true? I would think that evolution is the untenable position.

God bless you, Karel :)

Actually the universe isn't exactly running down. All of the energy is heading towards a state of equilibrium, which means once all energy has equalized, it will no longer transfer and everything will cease to move.

Pretty cool I think.

[Rob]

All of the energy is heading towards a state of equilibrium, which means once all energy has equalized, it will no longer transfer and everything will cease to move.Where will the DJIA be when that happens? :rolleyes:

[Karel]

Actually the universe isn't exactly running down. All of the energy is heading towards a state of equilibrium, which means once all energy has equalized, it will no longer transfer and everything will cease to move.

Pretty cool I think.
Truly! Only minimally above 0 degrees Kelvin.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Well, some of the problems are due to translations, perhaps, but Biblical scholarship isn't really worth the name if it doesn't use the original texts in the original languages.Karel,

I'm all for education and science, but these can be misapplied as well, through design to fit a particular world-view agenda, or through ignorance. Where non-agenda-driven education and true science are employed, they can yield enormous benefits. However, a Christian needs to exercise caution, as the apostle Paul admonished: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”—Col. 2:8

When it comes to the biblical account of Adam and Eve's creation, it is apparent that Jesus recognized it as an historical event. Matthew 19:4 tells us: “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”.

I believe in special creation and that the evolution theory is man's attempt to usurp God's position as the supreme authority. All true scientific data support the teaching that life is the result of intelligent design. The notion that we are descended from apes or ape-like creatures is a conclusion in search of support. The fossil record indicates that life appeared quite suddenly and in many different forms, though agenda-driven (humanist) science and education try desperately to cloak that fact in voluminous double-talk.

I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and was raised to life on the third day. I believe the Bible when it says that he (as well as some of his disciples) raised people from the dead and that the day will come when “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” (John 5:28, 29) I believe God inspired men to write the Bible and that he has preserved it for the benefit of those living in “the time of the end,” as Daniel 12:4 indicates.

To reiterate my main point though, I do not believe true science to be at odds with the Genesis creation account. (And I do not believe the term “day” used in that history referred to literal 24-hour time periods either. If it were so, the earth would only be a little more than 6,000 years old, and that's just ridiculous.) While scientific “knowledge” is in a constant state of flux though, the truth of God's word is unchanged. At John 17:17 Jesus said to his father, “Thy word is truth,” and I believe it to be so.

[mimo_100]

Karel,

I'm all for education and science, but these can be misapplied as well, through design to fit a particular world-view agenda, or through ignorance. Where non-agenda-driven education and true science are employed, they can yield enormous benefits. However, a Christian needs to exercise caution, as the apostle Paul admonished: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”—Col. 2:8

When it comes to the biblical account of Adam and Eve's creation, it is apparent that Jesus recognized it as an historical event. Matthew 19:4 tells us: “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”.

I believe in special creation and that the evolution theory is man's attempt to usurp God's position as the supreme authority. All true scientific data support the teaching that life is the result of intelligent design. The notion that we are descended from apes or ape-like creatures is a conclusion in search of support. The fossil record indicates that life appeared quite suddenly and in many different forms, though agenda-driven (humanist) science and education try desperately to cloak that fact in voluminous double-talk.

I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and was raised to life on the third day. I believe the Bible when it says that he (as well as some of his disciples) raised people from the dead and that the day will come when “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” (John 5:28, 29) I believe God inspired men to write the