Bush never lied to us

[Neil D]

Quote:

Quote:

Being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong.

In which person's eyes, Icabod...as a principal/teacher, you should know that there are 2

sides to every issue. If you go to England, George Washington is a terrorist. You should know this...

Anyone who doesn't know that being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong is morally illiterate.

And taking personal cheap shots confirms it.

As H. Stephen Glenn says, "Don't should on me and I won't should all over you."

Ichabod, you have been taking "cheap shots" at everyone who opposes you every since you came on this board. It seems to me, you have pronounce sentence on yourself.

[there buster]

Like your expansive definition of terrorism, just declaring something doesn't make it so.

I made no personal remarks toward or about you. I do not speculate about your Christian experience or your occupation, or your calling. You did about me. The record is clear.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Why does every nation have to be for us or against us? Wow, what about just being civil and getting along, recognizing the good and bad in each other, and not having to take sides? Those for/against alliances are so fluid you can hardly keep track of who is on whose side. [/quote']

In the case of advancing the cause of our Father God, that fluidity allows one to go back where it is seen the wrong side was chosen and allows one to ally themselves differently, rather than to be locked into a poor previous choice without end.

"`He who is not with me is against me, and he who is not gathering with me, doth scatter." Matthew 12:30 YLT

Regards!

LOL - sure, making a mistake and correcting it is one thing, but when we can hardly keep track of who our friends/enemies are because they keep changing, ya have to wonder what's going on.

So, by bringing up that text, are you insinuating that the U.S. is like God? Not sure what that was about....

[Dr. Shane]

Let's see. I am going to make some assumuptions here. Correct me if I am wrong, but are not the major influences of your life [wife,her relatives, your relatives,your job, her job, relatives jobs] strongly influenced by American ideals?

[Neil D]

Quote:

I made no personal remarks toward or about you. I do not speculate about your Christian experience or your occupation, or your calling.

Sorry,Icabod, I wouldn't know...I'm "morally illiterate."....remember?

[LifeHiscost]

So, by bringing up that text, are you insinuating that the U.S. is like God? Not sure what that was about....

Seems I remember you wondering where that principle came from when referring to a political statement. My recall may be wrong.

Knowing GWB as a reader of the Scripture, it doesn't surprise me that he would repeat that Scripture as a defining guide when considering a reason for combatting the perceived "evil axis", especially when most leaders of nations at least profess a righteous reason for waging war.

I wonder how many religious on this earth find fault with the Creator of the universe when He waged war in heaven?

"And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war"

Revelation 12:7 NASB

Regards!

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

So, by bringing up that text, are you insinuating that the U.S. is like God? Not sure what that was about....

Seems I remember you wondering where that principle came from when referring to a political statement. My recall may be wrong.

Knowing GWB as a reader of the Scripture, it doesn't surprise me that he would repeat that Scripture as a defining guide when considering a reason for combatting the perceived "evil axis", especially when most leaders of nations at least profess a righteous reason for waging war.

Ichabod brought up that quote, and he credited it to Hillary Clinton. But maybe GW said it too, don't know. Seems a little arrogant to me, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

[there buster]

Quote:

I'm "morally illiterate."....remember?

If you say so. I never applied it to you.

[Robert]

I wonder how many religions on this earth find fault with the Creator of the universe when He waged war in heaven?

"And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war" Revelation 12:7 NASB

What were they using as weapons...guns...fists...swords? Was there bloodshed in heaven?

No, there wasn't war as we understand war. Perhaps a war of ideas, i.e., agape vs. self-love? Yes, I think so...

Rob

[Neil D]

Quote:

I'm "morally illiterate."....remember?

If you say so. I never applied it to you.

[there buster]

Actually, you 'inferred' it.

1: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply

2: guess, surmise <your letter…allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W. Holmes died 1935>

You probably mean I 'implied' it.

However, that requires two assumptions. The first is an assumption of intent. Your conclusion requires an assumption that I intended you to draw that inference.

Secondly, the sentence specifies 'Anyone who doesn't know.' So to be insulted, you must assume that I think you are such an one. This, however, is false. In fact, I think you do know better than that.

The Pharisees 'disliked' Christ, precisely because of some of the things he did. Since I know from your many posts you are quite aware of that, it naturally follows that you do in fact know that "being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong."

Do you wish to question the truth of the assertion that "being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong?"

The opposite position makes it unlikely that any action can be right, since someone is almost certain to dislike anything that is done. Frankly, I can't believe anyone would make that argument seriously.

Similarly, the opportunity to be offended is almost wholly in the power of the one determined to be offended.

[Neil D]

Quote:

However, that requires two assumptions. The first is an assumption of intent. Your conclusion requires an assumption that I intended you to draw that inference.

With this, I agree.

Quote:

Secondly, the sentence specifies 'Anyone who doesn't know.' So to be insulted, you must assume that I think you are such an one. This, however, is false. In fact, I think you do know better than that.

I do not know that. You have never said otherwise. Your posts toward me or anyone who disagrees with you, have never been kind, but rather full of cynicism.

Quote:

The Pharisees 'disliked' Christ, precisely because of some of the things he did. Since I know from your many posts you are quite aware of that, it naturally follows that you do in fact know that "being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong."

The arguement was a non sequitur with the addition of adding that people who do such things are morally illiterate. Since I MUST HAVE done these things, I MUST BE morally illiterate, since no one else is posting these arguements on this current subject.

You posted it. You meant it. and now, you are reaping the results of that...I am offended. What are you going to do about it?

Quote:

Similarly, the opportunity to be offended is almost wholly in the power of the one determined to be offended.

Well, you said it... I am asking you to do something about it....

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Secondly, the sentence specifies 'Anyone who doesn't know.' So to be insulted, you must assume that I think you are such an one. This, however, is false. In fact, I think you do know better than that.

I do not know that. You have never said otherwise.

The sentence in bold type falsifies your assertion.

Quote:

Since I MUST HAVE done these things, I MUST BE morally illiterate, since no one else is posting these arguements on this current subject.

Those are your conclusions, not mine.

Quote:

Quote:

Similarly, the opportunity to be offended is almost wholly in the power of the one determined to be offended.

Well, you said it... I am asking you to do something about it....

The necessary conclusion is this: If it is wholly within your power, it is up to you to do something about it.

And since you are offended by your own conclusions, the remedy seems simple, and once again in your control.

You continue to characterize me in negative terms. I respond solely to your arguments. I refuse to be offended.

[Dr. Shane]

Neil D and ichabod, if the two of you could continue this disagreement in a PM or in the moderator's forum I would appreciate it. I would rather see this thread die or get back on topic.

Thank you.

[there buster]

point of information: Is that how you handled it when Neil called you "you bloody hypocrite?"

Just wondering.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

I wonder how many religions on this earth find fault with the Creator of the universe when He waged war in heaven?

"And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war" Revelation 12:7 NASB

What were they using as weapons...guns...fists...swords? Was there bloodshed in heaven?

No, there wasn't war as we understand war. Perhaps a war of ideas, i.e., agape vs. self-love? Yes, I think so...

Rob

I think the Bible contains evidence that the war between Lucifer's angels and God's angels consists of more than a battle of ideas. Daniel 10:13 seems to suggest that there is something else involved. Just exactly what that is, it is impossible for us to know.

[Neil D]

I wrote-

Quote:

You don't see America as a forieger sees America, Shane. Your patriotic nationalizm is too blind to see someone else's point of view.

You wrote-

Quote:

Neither do you. Being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong.

I replied-

Quote:

In which person's eyes, Icabod...as a principal/teacher, you should know that there are 2

sides to every issue. If you go to England, George Washington is a terrorist. You should know this...

You replied

Quote:

Anyone who doesn't know that being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong is morally illiterate.

What does one's blindness by Patriotism have to do with being liked or dislike in relation to one's action? Again, the retort is non sequitur with the exception to add insult.

You, sir, are insulting.

Since you refuse to follow thru and improve relationships, and since this is a patrotic thread i have decided that consequence are in order.

President Bush likes to make up names to help him remember people. Since you refuse to follow thru, I have decided to do like wise. I will refer to your new name- Ichy.

Because you do not follow thru, and improve relationships on this website, I will not follow thru and write your full name.

I am done with this post.

Thank you.

[there buster]

Here is exactly what I replied to:

Quote:

You don't see America as a forieger sees America, Shane. Your patriotic nationalizm is too blind to see someone else's point of view. In their eyes, your POV is all that matters and your POV excludes them. In thier eyes, Americans are borish, and selfish, and self centered.

To which I replied:

Quote:

Neither do you. Being liked or disliked has nothing to do with an action being right or wrong.

In fact, it does indeed follow.

Quote:

You, sir, are insulting.

Another personal reference.

Quote:

follow thru and improve relationships

Actually, I have several workshops I give on relationships. One of the iron rules of relationships is that a person can only modify his/her end of the relationship. As a recent book says on this issue:

Quote:

Confrontation. To confront someone else is to discover the truth about a relationship. Confrontation does not mean “setting the other person straight.” It does not mean telling them off, or attempting to change their behavior. Confrontation does not even have to mean conflict. Confrontation only results in conflict when issues have piled up between us to the point where conflict is inevitable.

Boundary setting is a form of confrontation. . . . Relationships without confrontation are relationships without boundaries. Therefore, there are no healthy relationships without confrontation. emphasis in the original

I keep referencing the actual record of what was written and what was not. I made no personal references because that is not proper confrontation, it's just venting at best; abuse at worst. I make no accusations and offer no insults. When your posts reflect the same, that will be progress.