Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Re: 'US doesn't usually do those things'

Like war crimes, etc.

Please go to this BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm

Proving what? That anyone. can be murderously foolish; even "the best country there is," as is often said. And it's just the latest, not the last, no doubt.

So: How can deliberate warfare be other than much, much worse?

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Re: 'US doesn't usually do those things'
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Re: 'US doesn't usually do those things'
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Shades of the Tuskegee experiment 55 years ago

In reply to: Re: 'US doesn't usually do those things'

Collapse -
Exactly!

In reply to: (NT) Shades of the Tuskegee experiment 55 years ago

Plus CIA's experiments doping unsuspecting GIs w/LSD, Bikini Atoll exposures, and others we don't know about.

One of the few things I remember from Heinlein is quis custodiet ipsos custodes. (sp?) Supposed motto of his Space Patrol or whatever was guarding future humans from BEMs. (Bug-eyed monsters, for you young whippersnappers.)

So, who will watch the watchers? Logic demands only someone superior to the watched. Problem is, the watchers are always from the same pool as the watched - humanity. They merely have the power pro tem. to enforce their self-perceived superiority. So, who is qualified?

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Re: Exactly!

In reply to: Exactly!

Space Cadet is one of those stories, there were short stories I have somewhere, but don't remember the collection title. The short stories were of the men who sacrificed themselves in "watching the watchers", if I recall right.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Your Latin is perfect.

In reply to: Exactly!

"Who will watch the watchmen (themselves)". The "ipsos" is in there for emphasis.

Wikipedia says its from Juvenal, I assume from the Satires. Published around 128 AD.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
"Published around 128 AD"

In reply to: Your Latin is perfect.

And not long after, distracted by "bread and circuses," the Romans let their mighty empire go out "with a whimper." Many parallels can be drawn; some almost laughable. (Roman Circus = reality TV?) So, who will watch the watchers?

Only reasonable answer by now IMO. has to be "Not us!" (BTW I understand the operators of the NYC HIV program are not demons; in other words, usually that is the best we can do!)

There always has been a better answer, embodied in Jeremiah's comment: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jer 10:23) Trouble is, the implications are too difficult to accept, for most of us: "I can't direct my own step?! My beloved and carefully chosen Bushputin can't direct his own step, therefore not mine either?! But ... but ... I'm a highly evolved adult human! I invented the wheel and radar and Desperate Housewives. !"

As we see from the morning paper and the evening news, Jeremiah's statement is true. Our fault lies in forgetting another quote: "The meek [= mild; humble; teachable] will inherit the earth." (Ps 37:11, quoted by Jesus at Mt 5:5) That's why Jeremiah went on to plead: "Correct me, O Jehovah, however with judgment; not in your anger, that you may not reduce me to nothing."

That's why, when we help Bushputin direct his step into outright warfare (remember "collateral damage"?) Jeremiah's further statement - prophecy - enters: "Pour out your rage upon the nations who have ignored you, and upon the families who have not called even upon your name."

The record shows that all this information was available to Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian, who persecuted the ones spreading it. What will we do?

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Re: "Published around 128 AD"

In reply to: "Published around 128 AD"

Dough, I know you were speaking another's idea, but do you wish the wrath of god visited upon non-christian nations and families? I know you can't control such thing, but what do you think?

Dan

Collapse -
Good questions, Dan

In reply to: Re: "Published around 128 AD"

The quick, simple-truth answer is: It doesn't matter what I think, it's up to Jehovah.

More complete answer: No reasonable person wants to see people suffer. Demonstrating this, we have laws against child abuse, cruel and unusual punishment, fraud even when the victim contributed to his own downfall, etc.

As to Jehovah's feelings, especially about those who (per the bible) were egregiously disobedient to him:

O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea. (Isa 48:18) (O if only?!. Why was he begging? Why didn't he just zap those Israelites with a lightning bolt?)

Say to them, ?As I am alive,? is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ?I take delight, not in the death of the wicked one, but in that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living ... And when I say to the wicked one: ?You will positively die,? and he actually turns back from his sin and carries on justice and righteousness ... he will positively keep living. He will not die ... He will positively keep living. (Eze 33:11-16)

These statements, and many similar, were addressed to consenting, competent adults who were supposed to be his people (Ex 19:7,8), but had gone seriously astray. Yet Jehovah was willing to forgive if they turned their minds and hearts around (the literal meaning of "repentance").

A key characteristic of Jehovah's justice is that he never lowers the boom without adequate and specific warning. Check the story of the famous ten plagues on Egypt: All were brought on only after such warnings. (Ex 9:14-21) The people in Noah's day were given decades of warning. (2 Pe 2:5) Jericho was given a week's warning, but Godly-minded Rahab didn't need even that much. (Jos 6:16)

As prophesied, the warning work has been accelerating since the 1880s, in the modern era. A translated bible is available whole or in part to some 95% of the world's population. Mt 24:14 says, "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." But it will come by Jehovah's timetable, not yours or mine. At that time, according to his son, he will direct his attention - for good or ill - to individuals. : "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned." (Mt 24:40,41)

There's your answer: I don't want any. to die at Armageddon or at any other time; neither does Jehovah. But, having observed us for some time, God knows that postponing punishment of the lawless too long is merciless, not merciful: It's unfair to the law-abiding ones.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico [even here the warning has reached! :-)]

Collapse -
Re: Good questions, Dan

In reply to: Good questions, Dan

Doug, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the God of the new are different, at least in law and attitude. Israelites were told to FEAR Jehovah; Christians are told to love God. If you want to talk about that kind of God, fine -- but the relationship between that and the Christ of the Gospels and His teachings is slim, at best.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Fear = Respect, Honor, be in awe of

In reply to: Re: Good questions, Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Fear = Fear. Respect = Respect.

In reply to: (NT) Fear = Respect, Honor, be in awe of

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Deliberate twisting and misunderstanding = trolling.

In reply to: (NT) Fear = Fear. Respect = Respect.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Disagreeing with a moderator != trolling

In reply to: (NT) Deliberate twisting and misunderstanding = trolling.

Collapse -
Hardly, since we have such different views

In reply to: (NT) Disagreeing with a moderator != trolling

That you can't disagree with one without agreeing with another.

Deliberately misunderstanding and posting what you're sure will inflame.

At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Godly fear: an example I use:

In reply to: (NT) Fear = Respect, Honor, be in awe of

Cindi,

A friend once said that as a kid he was a normal rascal: he would misbehave, get beat, misbehave down the road, get beat, etc. He felt normally about his father (love and fear), but it didn't stop the occasional misbehavior.

With his grandfather, it was a different story. He would have died if he thought he was doing something to displease him. That is, his fear was of displeasing him, not of punishment, motivated by his love for him.

I use this sometimes to explain 'fear of God' to those familiar only with the C.B. DeMille 'fire and brimstone' version . Happy

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Re: Godly fear: an example I use:

In reply to: Godly fear: an example I use:

Hi Doug,

That's a good example, thanks! I hope you don't mind if I use that from time to time. Happy

ps- Trinity: an example I use. Me the Mother, Me the Daughter, and Me the Wife. All aspects of me, all as powerful as me, and all me, but different depending on who's looking at me. Happy Sorta simplistic, but it helps those unfamiliar to sorta grasp the gist of the Trinity.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
Love that one!

In reply to: Re: Godly fear: an example I use:

Me the Mother, Me the Daughter, and Me the Wife.
Great twist to a well known (by some) expression. I've gotta pass that along with variations as fit the moment or circumstance. My kids grew up to soon to have that one used on them! Darn it! Happy
Collapse -
Hmmm ... Except

In reply to: Re: Godly fear: an example I use:

You're not your own. daughter, or wife, or mother. Trinity asks me to believe all three are. one.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico (heavily trinitarian; that make it blue or red?)

Collapse -
Relationship between Jehovah and Jesus

In reply to: Re: Good questions, Dan

Dave,
If, by 'God of the new testament' you mean Jesus, I must say the bible doesn't support you. Notice how Revelation, almost the last book to be written, introduces itself:

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John"

A chain of communication and authority is given: God to Jesus to an angel to John to God's slaves, who are 'those [men like John] who have an ear to hear.' We learn from v.10 that most of the "signs" (symbolic language) show us events far in John's future. ("By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day"). In fact, many believe that the "Lord [Jesus'] day" is this present time. In any case, it's long after Jesus' death and resurrection, and after the bible was 'cast in cement,' so any statements of Jesus show his thoughts today, in his final, exalted position 'at the right hand of God.'

One thought that directly addresses your statement is Rev 3:12 (emphasis added):
"The one that conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine."

You may know that this statement directly contradicts a belief held by all the mainstream churches - that Jesus is himself Jehovah. It's clear that Jesus doesn't agree.

Moreover, your view of Jesus as a 'kindly, non-violent' God is also different from the bible's, at Rev 19:11-16:
"And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness ... he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God ... And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

The physical result is predictable, v.17,18:
"I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out ... to all the birds that fly in midheaven: 'Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that YOU may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.'"

No 'sweet babe in a manger' here. This Jesus has a grown man's faculties and the use of Jehovah's power.

Many times the bible contradicts our beliefs, which may be cherished and long-held. When that happens, we have the same two choices that Adam faced: Hold on to our beliefs, or see and do things Jehovah's way. "For the word of God is alive and exerts power ... and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting." (Heb 4:12,13)

You sounded quite convinced in your post. If you see things in a different light now, I have some things to show you about the proper fear and love of Jehovah, through the eyes of those who know him best- the writers of his book.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
*sigh* Doesn't anyone read the verses?

In reply to: Good questions, Dan

From my post to Dan:
"As to Jehovah's feelings, especially about those who (per the bible) were egregiously disobedient to him:

O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea. (Isa 48:18)

O if only?!. Why was he begging? Why didn't he just zap those Israelites with a lightning bolt?)"

Egregiously: As in cheating widows and orphans, taking bribes, land grabs, dumping the wife who put you through law school to marry your 25-yr-old secretary, and on and on. All of this explicitly prohibited by the 600 commandments.

The victims could have complained that Jehovah wasn't mean enough!

More later, when I get home.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Re: *sigh* Doesn't anyone read the verses?

In reply to: *sigh* Doesn't anyone read the verses?

When you include the text of the verse I do read it. I figure if you only include a reference then you consider it merely supportive to your statement and optional reading.

Dan

Collapse -
optional reading

In reply to: Re: *sigh* Doesn't anyone read the verses?

Dan,
You should re-read the post I sent last time we talked about looking up the cited verses; the one with several reasons for doing so.

In any case, the Isaiah verse I posted this. time was also written out last time.

It quotes an authority figure, of absolute power, who holds back from using that power while he begs. his charges to behave. That's not the type of God Dave was talking about. Therefore somebody didn't read the verses.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.