03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopBecause war is horrible:
war is horrible.... debate...
All war should be outlawed by international government. Also, the manufacture of any weapon for warfare should be also outlawed by international government.
An international government should be set up with carefully chosen representatives from each country and all these representatives must have passed a psychological evaluation (that includes brain scans) to make sure they do not have any known mental conditions that could adverse effect their rational or capability for empathy and sympathy. Then possession of all weapons on Earth should be handed over to this international government and then if any county makes any more weapons or if any county starts a war (even a civil war), the international government would be legally bound to make use of its weapons as well as mobilise all the resources of all the other countries to put a stop to it.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by TheSkipperI especially like what you say about a the two of you being a team. That's
OMG!
My wife is head and shoulders smarter than I am (she graduated valedictorian from USC, and then went on to graduate from Yale Law School with honors) it would be stupid of me to presume to "lead" her. We are a team, we both bring valuable skills to our marriage, and we have no need for a defined leader of the household.
When we dissagree we ...[text shortened]... cide on the best course of action...no need to consult a two thousand year old 'magic' book.
how it should be, in my opinion. Great for you! 🙂
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis is a joke, right?
Because war is horrible:
All war should be outlawed by international government. Also, the manufacture of any weapon for warfare should be also outlawed by international government.
An international government should be set up with carefully chosen representatives from each country and all these representatives must have passed a psychological ...[text shortened]... ts weapons as well as mobilise all the resources of all the other countries to put a stop to it.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by TheSkipperA team alway has a leader.
OMG!
My wife is head and shoulders smarter than I am (she graduated valedictorian from USC, and then went on to graduate from Yale Law School with honors) it would be stupid of me to presume to "lead" her. We are a team, we both bring valuable skills to our marriage, and we have no need for a defined leader of the household.
When we dissagree we ...[text shortened]... cide on the best course of action...no need to consult a two thousand year old 'magic' book.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieI believe that hmans may start a war for more sophisticated reasons than animals fight. The conduct of the war is much the same, however, because once a war is started the objective is the same. Total subjugation of the enemy. I would also argue that most wars in human history have been about territory or social hierarchy or resources. Also, the druid wolf pack did hunt down the other wolves.
I still disagree with you that what other animals do on instinct can be
labelled war in the human sense. For one thing, we're the only animal
set on not only defeating our enemies when we run across them
haphazardly, but also to seek them out and strike before they do; to
make them suffer and preferably convert them to our own ways. We
want to contr ...[text shortened]... n't blame the gun for the
absolutely deranged mind that decides to use it on others.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpI can see your point, but you didn't answer my question. And I
I believe that hmans may start a war for more sophisticated reasons than animals fight. The conduct of the war is much the same, however, because once a war is started the objective is the same. Total subjugation of the enemy. I would also argue that most wars in human history have been about territory or social hierarchy or resources. Also, the druid wolf pack did hunt down the other wolves.
definitely disagree with using the word sophisticated in the same
sentence as war. That's just wrong, man.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by kirksey957What the world thinks is godly is not always truely godly
OK. Well, how about the women of the polygamist sect in Texas? I'm just trying to get a frame of reference to work from with you. You may want to list some godly women.
Are you familiar with Carrie Nation? They don't get any godlier than her.
http://jameslogancourier.org/media/1/20061113-CarrieNation.jpg
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieThe science thing was mostly a joke. Hard to convey sarcasm in writing. I do think, however that scientists ought to consider what their research might be used for.
I still disagree with you that what other animals do on instinct can be
labelled war in the human sense. For one thing, we're the only animal
set on not only defeating our enemies when we run across them
haphazardly, but also to seek them out and strike before they do; to
make them suffer and preferably convert them to our own ways. We
want to contr ...[text shortened]... n't blame the gun for the
absolutely deranged mind that decides to use it on others.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by RedmikeAww, but if you are saved and you sin it is because the flesh is waring with the spirit that is in you. And you are to repent/turn away from that sin.
If there's no degree amongst sin, surely that means once you commited a relatively trivial sin, you might as well go on a sinning rampage?
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpI repost the question:
The science thing was mostly a joke. Hard to convey sarcasm in writing. I do think, however that scientists ought to consider what their research might be used for.
Well, despite being animals, aren't we supposed to be higher
on the scale of intellect than any other animal? We have subjective and
objective thought at our disposal as well as an amasing gift for
sympathy and even empathy toward others, and we believe that no
other animal possess the former quality to the extent that we do.
Shouldn't that help us avoid the useless conflicts that war always
is? Or are we fooling ourselves here? 😕
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieI disagree that war is always a useless conflict. How do you feel about the american revolution? Or any one of dozens of revolutions to throw off the bonds of colonialism? People die horrible deaths everyday without the help of war. I would rather go down fighting for something I believed in than die of dysentary.
I repost the question:
Well, despite being animals, aren't we supposed to be higher
on the scale of intellect than any other animal? We have subjective and
objective thought at our disposal as well as an amasing gift for
sympathy and even empathy toward others, and we believe that no
other animal possess the former quality to the extent t ...[text shortened]... id the useless conflicts that war always
is? Or are we fooling ourselves here? 😕
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaI happen to know for a fact this is not true. My wife and I are certainly a team, and neither one of us leads the other, we walk arm in arm.
A team alway has a leader.
Someone once asked my wife who wears the "pants" in our relationship. I will never forget her response:
"We both wear shorts!"
God, I love her! 😉