04 Jul 08
Originally posted by Jigtielions kill cheetah cubs when they find them. and not to eat, apparently. the cheetahs have to sit back and watch.
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.
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieI think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I love and respect you but I can't say that I think you're right.
You keep taking this to a personal level. If you and I fight (for instance)
it doesn't constitute a war. It's a rivalry between the two of us (though
even then there's always a better solution).
In a war, you would actually jump around in a muddy field killing off
complete strangers because your loony leader says: "Hey! If we don't kill
them, they ...[text shortened]... ersations and possibly friendship.
War is useless I maintain.
04 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's been established that by human standards some other animals can be
lions kill cheetah cubs when they find them. and not to eat, apparently. the cheetahs have to sit back and watch.
rather cruel to their own, but humans still outdo them all because we not
only realise how unproductive such cruelty is, but regardless of that
realisation we can still commit cruelty to our own.
And, again, these examples of animals being cruel are not comparable to
wars.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just can't see what you're all talking
about: "wars are necessary sometimes". 😕
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpWe certainly don't have to agree to get along. Maybe we just can't see this
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I love and respect you but I can't say that I think you're right.
from the same perspective? Then so be it. Cheers.
05 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by dryhumpYou seriously want to give up control of your life to a huge centralized government…
You seriously want to give up control of your life to a huge centralized government that can't be kept in check by any means?
If having an international government means “giving up control of your lives” then don’t we do that already with national governments?
And what do you mean by “control” -I mean “control” to do what in your life? If there was an international government (in ADDITION to national governments rather than REPLACING them -I apologise for forgetting to mention that part) with the purpose of preventing warfare and the manufacture of weapons and also enfacing democracy in all countries (sorry, -I forgot to mention that part as well) then what exactly is it that I wouldn’t have control over in my life that I currently have control over? Would it be, for example, control over whether I can manufacture or posses a gun? -I don’t desire either and I never will.
…huge centralized government that can't be kept in check by any means?
How about keeping a check of this government in the same way as we keep a check of our national governments -by democracy?
By the way, outlawing warfare by international government was one of Albert Einstein’s ideas -although I am not sure if he would have approved of my particular version of his idea.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by RedmikeIf someone is saved, they are saved from their sin. So yes sin is a consideration, sin cannot enter into heaven. Only those who are saved from their sin will enter. They have to be justified and Christ is the one who justifies the ungodly.
I'm not bothered about the scripture, thanks.
So, you get into heaven if you're saved, you don't if you're not.
Whether you've sinned isn't a consideration.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by Jigtieif cheetahs had mechanized infantry, would they be sitting back and watching while the lions tossed their cubs around like beanbags?
It's been established that by human standards some other animals can be
rather cruel to their own, but humans still outdo them all because we not
only realise how unproductive such cruelty is, but regardless of that
realisation we can still commit cruelty to our own.
And, again, these examples of animals being cruel are not comparable to
wars.
B ...[text shortened]... Maybe I just can't see what you're all talking
about: "wars are necessary sometimes". 😕
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaExcuse me if I'm not getting this....
If someone is saved, they are saved from their sin. So yes sin is a consideration, sin cannot enter into heaven. Only those who are saved from their sin will enter. They have to be justified and Christ is the one who justifies the ungodly.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for r ...[text shortened]...
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Is being saved a one-off event? Does this mean that a person can't sin after they've been saved, so they'll get into heaven cos they're saved?
What happens if a person's been saved, and then they commit a really big sin?