J
- Status
A
AndyF
Guest
Jay74:
Ah, but if only the author knew all.
Someone should tell him that the laws of God state that an entity who commits unrepentant mortal sins does not gain credit for the good they do until they show by their works a willingness to change and repentance.
This same government would use the scalpel rather than a sword on children, and commit unlawful executions of those incarcerated and no longer a risk to the public at large.
Others who were grateful are those who were granted favors by the Mob, and the leaders of fascist nations of the past who were benevolent to those who they favored.
Means absolutely nothing until a higher court gives it sanction.
Andy
Ah, but if only the author knew all.
Someone should tell him that the laws of God state that an entity who commits unrepentant mortal sins does not gain credit for the good they do until they show by their works a willingness to change and repentance.
This same government would use the scalpel rather than a sword on children, and commit unlawful executions of those incarcerated and no longer a risk to the public at large.
Others who were grateful are those who were granted favors by the Mob, and the leaders of fascist nations of the past who were benevolent to those who they favored.
Means absolutely nothing until a higher court gives it sanction.
Andy
G
geezerbob
Guest
Andy, what the heck are you talking about? Or, do you want to change the title of the thread to “America Demonized” so you can continue to rail against the country that gives you the right to do so? To have to live with such a negative outlook must be depressing, indeed.
A
AndyF
Guest
I would do a diservice to it if I kept silent on the things it does wrong. It expects it of me as a duty and is thankful for it. Your correct in that it could shut me up, but other nations have tried this and anarchy was born. Even this nation can bare witness as a victim to that experience. I think I am correct in saying you see the nation in it’s perfection, whereas I see it moving on to attain it.
I think of it as fraternal correction, weather it be a person, a group, or nation I talk to. My job(and yours) is to reveal every truth weather it is uncomfortable or unpoplular or not.
Sorry to offend, but that is the stark glaring reality.
Andy
D
Della
Guest
While no one should turn a blind eye to things done by some representing our country, we also have to understand when we are being manipulated to see everything done by this country as wrong or not worthy of any praise because some bad things have been done by those in authority. Our “job,” as you put it, is not to swallow whole and unquestioned the criticisms of our country any more than it is to accept with out investigation any white-washing.
Our men and women have done wonderful things in Iraq and Afghanistan. Incidents of wrong-doing are exceptions not the rule. It’s fine to acknowledge such wrong-doing but to try to negate at every turn the vast amount of good that is being done by citing these exceptions over and over again is the proof of an agenda, not the job of every good citizen.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Fraternal correction would have to be based on fact and the spirit of fraternity. You have offered no facts.
Let’s see if the second criteria is met…
Did you write this?
“Sorry to offend, but…” The word “but” operates in a sentence to negate the clause which precedes it. This statement is fraternal how?
If your point of view is a “stark glaring reality”, then please provide some evidence of this reality.
J
Jay74
Guest
I know you have great intentions, and most in your shoes never budge because it seems so obvious that peace is better than war. The problem is that it is never a simple choice. Sure, whether or not one goes to war may or may not be a choice, but peace is usually not a choice. It is a state that can only be earned by confronting evil. Seeing the mass graves and torture chambers in Iraq should be evidence there was little peace there. It just seemed that way from our easy chairs here at home.
9/11 was a wake up call. I know, I know, people swear up and down that Iraq didn’t orchestrate 9/11 and they didn’t have WMDs, etc., etc., etc. It’s unfortunate that Bush primarily used the pre-emptive WMD argument when Iraq was culpable, to some degree, over international terrorism. Maybe not 9/11 specifically, but he did fund al Queda for a decade before 9/11. He also gave al Queda the fuselage from a 707 to practice hijackings with (this was documented a year prior to 9/11). He also paid a $25,000 incentive to families of suicide bombers.
After 9/11, we declared war on terrorists, those who fund them, and those who harbor them. Saddam fell under this category, without doubt. Terrorism will never be vanquished if we do not cut off their state sponsors. Before 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria were documented among the sponsers. They all are fair game for this reason alone.
Preemption is an inadequate term, because the mere possibilty alone is not enough, there must be just cause. It is possible France or Germany would nuke us, but preemption is not warranted because they are peaceful nations. However, in the case of Iraq and Iran, they were not peaceful nations. As uncomfortable as it may be, keeping such state sponsors of terrorism from developing nuclear weapons is the moral thing to do when analyzed.
Israel took out Saddams nuclear capability early, and casualties were lower; if they would have waited until he had nuclear capabilities, the fallout would have been more devastating. Such is the situation we face now with Iran.
Currently, terrorists can hurt us, but not destroy us–but they would most certainly destroy us if they could. However, once terrorists, which include their state sponsors, acquire nuclear weapons, the equation of power will irrevocably change, and with it the course of human affairs.
Peaceful people must act when we have the power, before the equation changes. And if we can save people and future generations from brutal tyrrany under dictators like Saddam while we are at it, all the better. (I had to get back to the original thread title somewhere.
)We’re fighting for peace, because peace can’t happen until this evil is vanquished. Are you with us?
G
geezerbob
Guest
Excellent post, Jay. I agree 100%, even if Andy doesn’t.
J
Jay74
Guest
geezerbob said:
I understand completely the other side’s desire to not hurt any innocents. The problem is that more innocents are hurt if we don’t confront evil, we just don’t see it.
I thank God many in Iraq and Afghanistan not only have a chance at freedom, but that their children and grandchildren may have peace.
Blessings.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I think this is a legitimate question. I would like to see how Andy answers this. Without using the word “but.”
A
AndyF
Guest
Della:
Code:
I see. So when the nation deserves a collective praise for achievement, we can attribute the praise on the nation as a whole, and when it does something wrong, we can disperse the wrongs to it's constituent members? I don't understand.When you find reason to do it, how do we know you are not manipulating?
I’ll say it again, and it doesn’t come from me. If an entity is in a state of mortal sin, he does not gain credit for the things he does/did while in that state. We give praise when it’s due, and we reprimand when it’s due. You would have me praise the bad things it does?
Correct. And if the reasoning proves it deserves criticism, then we will.
Code:
Is this an argument every individual can use for his defense? If yes, you'll have to correct Christ. Consideration made due to his physical nature of course, and by your rule thus inconveniently removes the ability to disperse blame to constituant parts of himself.
Della. Your applying double standards, and it just doesn't work. As much as I love my son, I'm not about to say what he is to blame for he isn't, nor for that matter any other entity that I love. As much as I love a nation, I'm not about to bring a case of unfairness to it in front of Christ if it is guilty. He set the standard, not I. There are many things going for it, but when in a state of mortal sin, none of us gets credit for it, and I know this is what is bothering you.
Andy
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
By your own admission, you don’t understand. Even though you begin your reply with “I see.” Yet, having said that you don’t understand – rather than ask for clarity – you presume to comment.
- Diligent research and scholarship.
- Logical analysis.
If it does not come from you, then it requires a cite: author, title, publisher, date of publication, location of publication, and page number. Or a link to a web page. You have provided none of these.
And who are the “we” who presume to judge? How does your “we” define the “dueness” of praise or reprimand? By what authority does your “we” give praise or reprimand?
No. You are imho building a strawman. As we have said, we would have you offer some support for the assertions which you make. Support in the form of logical argumentation or in the form of reference to authority.
We are waiting for your reasoning.
Correct Christ? Please explain. If you are referring to the teachings of Christ, then – once again – we need you to provide a reference to:
- Catholic Tradition;
- Catholic Scripture;
- the teachings and examples of the Saints, the popes, and the clergy;
I am not following you. It would help if you reformulate your statement into simple sentences and simple arguments: Subject and verb; premise and conclusion.
Please be kind enough to specify what those double standards are.
However, if you do indulge in the blame game, then there is considerable onus on you to prove your assertions which so far you have not done. All we are asking for is proof.
How can you know what is bothering someone else unless they themselves specify?
A
AndyF
Guest
Well, we’re just in different parts of the globe. I’m here fighting the war for the unborn and the unprotected. When I get people to stop doing those wrongs, then I’ll go to other nations and say they’re wrong and I know God will be on our side, and I’ll fight evil there next. That OK with you?
Choice between what?. Accepting or rejecting Christ’s rule? Your right, it is tempting to apply a double standard.
If a good man fights evil, then good fights evil. If an evil one does, then we have war between entities who are in varying states of evil. There is no Devine sanction here. You still by your argument need to address the Devine rule, and you don’t.
They say the babies are torn from the womb and simply vaporized. The nurses witness some babies voice objection the only way they can. They cry out with that last effort of hope pleading for someone to care. If only they knew what nation they were born to, the one that claims liberty and justice for all. It’s just as well I suppose they do not know of this reality, has that would make the horror of their plight much more unbearable. When thrown in the trash or on the cold scale, some actually have the audacity of crying. So I am at a disadvantage in that I can’t paint such a graphic image as you portray of mass graves. But all the same, the peace that is shattered by this slaughter is one that God would grace the heart of the nation as a whole, had it outlawed abortions. From my easy chair, I can see the irony in it all, and I could be complacent like the majority, but you’ll forgive me if I can’t be has cold. There will come a day where the Word is actually made real, and this day will show the Crusades for Good, will all be for naught, as it would be for any individual in mortal sin.
For sure. If I recall correctly, Reagan saw fit to put that trivial fact aside while he addressed his own agenda, and while he did, hundreds of Kurds died. You’ll have to give me an unbiased definition of terrorism, as you lost me if you were categorizing it by the works of this man.
Wonder if Reagan was ever told?
Not a question of comfort. The Church sanctions every nation’s ability to possess the most advanced weapons in order to defend itself. (Cat 2309). This makes the second breach of Church laws you condon.
Prior to the Church’s rule previously stated, perhaps it would be open to definition. Now there is no option, especially now since you tie the definition to the excuse of limiting the capabilities of other nations. That redefines it as aggression by Church rule. Incidentally, preemption is really presumption in disguise, which makes it a sin on it’s own merits.
Yes, and it did so during a conveniently planned exemption of the NPT treaty. When it did all it could do to serve it’s purpose, it decided to join it. The NPT was a thorn in the side of Israel from day one, and limited it’s aggression.
Well, I guess while you and I live there may be no problem. But I’m not about to throw away the living conditions of my grandkids. Maybe with Cesium 137 dust flying around on a wasteland that once was green, perhaps we will wish not to be alive. They say only 2% of imports are screened.
If we want God’s help, we need to turn away from decreed evil at home first.
When we’re right, Christ would have me/you choose no other way.
Andy
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Your reply – forgive me – does not make any sense to me. In the first place, the topic of the thread is the praise of an Iraqi for the Americans who liberated his city from terrorists.
Yet you appear to be talking about anti-abortion work. Moreover, you appear to be suggesting that no military action can be undertaken until abortion is stopped in the US. Is this what you are saying?
What is your authority for establishing this timetable for when military action can be undertaken by the US?
It would also help the clarity of your case, if your posts were less confrontational. “That OK with you?” sounds a bit overdone to me.
Actually, Andy, it was pretty obvious that the choice in Jay’s post was between peace and war. Here is what Jay said:
The choice between peace and war is the antecedent of the referent “it.” Yet you ignore what Jay has actually said to put the following words in his mouth:
This imho is a deliberate subversion on your part of what Jay74 actually said. Jay was talking about the choice between peace and war.
If you are going to make a point about Christ’s rule and how that rule impacts the choice between peace and war, then please make it.
But please make it in the context of the thread topic. And please be clear and specific in your description, with references to which part of Christ’s rule you are referring. And please refrain from putting words in other people’s mouths.
I do not believe Jay was talking about a double standard. Are you attempting to have a conversation with Jay or with yourself? What happened to Lbrtee3 by the way?
Since you brought up the Divine Rule, then it is your responsibility to address it. What do you mean by “Divine Rule”? How is “Divine Rule” defined? Who is providing this definition? By what authority is “Divine Rule” defined? In what way are you apply “Divine Rule”? Please give a link.
You just finished saying that the babies are torn from the womb and simply vaporized. How can they be born and vaporized at the same time?
Does Jesus say it is OK to show compassion for unwanted babies in the US yet to harden one’s heart against the mass graves in Iraq? No. You are trying to divert the focus of the discussion from the gratitude of an Iraqi to the horrors of American abortuaries. This is a red herring and an appeal to emotionalism, both of which are errors of logic.
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Uh-huh. Do you have a problem with crusaders, Andy? yes or no, please.
As for “There will come a day where the Word is actually made real”: are you suggesting that the Word is not real now? If so, then your suggestion sounds vaguely like Gnosticism, which is a heresy among those who have been baptised.
Would you be kind enough to give more details of Reagan’s alleged genocide of the Kurds, please? And a link to a credible source?
Jay did not refer to Reagan. You did.
Told about what? And why Reagan? Do you have a problem with Reagan? If so, would you please be kind enough to fill us in.
Are you suggesting that Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes? Given his history, it was reasonable to assume that he was planning further expansionist aggression in the Middle East. Expansionist aggression does not qualify as legitimate self-defence according to Catholic teaching.
Please quote the rule to which you refer and make your point.
Presumably the capability of Saddam – or Ahmadinejad – to take over neighbouring countries, destroy Israel, and wreak havoc on American property, citizens, and troops? Is this the capability to which you refer?
How is presumption a sin?
I do not understand what your point is. Oh! Is it to imply that Israel is the aggressor?
I’m not following you. What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
This sounds like Pelagianism, which is a heresy among those who have been baptised.
The question was:
This is a simple question. Are you with the United States of America? Yes or no, please.
end of post
J
Jay74
Guest
Ani Ibi:
I do find it interesting that it is common for individuals to oppose fighting evil because we haven’t vanquished other evils, like abortion. Usually the ones who use the “we have abortion so we should remove the plank from our own eye” are also the ones who faithfully vote for pro-abortion politicians.
One could also argue that we have no right to fight abortion since we haven’t eliminated hunger, and we can’t fight hunger because we haven’t eliminated terroism, and we can’t fight terrorism because we haven’t elmiminated abortions, around and around and around we go. Such arguments, aside from being a catch 22, are silly and we’d never get anywhere.
Blessings to all.
Thank you, Ani. I wasn’t able to respond because I was out of town visiting some friends in Canada.
I do find it interesting that it is common for individuals to oppose fighting evil because we haven’t vanquished other evils, like abortion. Usually the ones who use the “we have abortion so we should remove the plank from our own eye” are also the ones who faithfully vote for pro-abortion politicians.
One could also argue that we have no right to fight abortion since we haven’t eliminated hunger, and we can’t fight hunger because we haven’t eliminated terroism, and we can’t fight terrorism because we haven’t elmiminated abortions, around and around and around we go. Such arguments, aside from being a catch 22, are silly and we’d never get anywhere.
Blessings to all.
- Status