Interview Mage Knight Apocalypse Q&A at TVG

[Twinfalls]

Ah. And here the thread gets submerged by worms from a can the size of the Tardis.

Section8, I must say that I do not believe it is as simple as that. I have been as deeply cynical as anyone you will find about little Johnny since his first day in power back in 96. Over the years, I have campaigned against his party, I have railed, I have fumed, the whole bit.

I would have agreed with you completely about the present circumstances but for my being in London at the time of the Tube bombings. When there, I looked at a number of analyses of the nature of radical Islam operating in London, both in print and on television. I came to understand the sheer power of indoctrination that mere words issued by extremist clerics could have. "I can smell the scent of heaven" was a chilling line I recall from a particular cleric's exhortation for English Muslims to become martyrs - ie to suicide bomb - in a videotape meant for wide dissemination. And the UK government remained powerless to deal with him and his ilk.

Whilst I completely agree that any restrictions on basic freedoms must be debated at length, I feel there is a tendency for many people, especially those who are more engaged, to automatically assume that nothing done by their government is ever in the people's interests - that it must be the government's own devious ends which motivates. I was like this, until I came to appreciate what it is we are up against. A death cult, dispersed and significantly autonomous, willing to do anything - even detonate nuclear weapons - in its drive to instate the Caliphate.

The closed-circuit television cameras operating in London came under plenty of attack for being a civil liberty infringement. Now, after their use was so spectacularly effective in the wake of the bombings, there is not a peep of complaint about them.

The great, great crime of the current Australian government is their complete disregard for due process. That people react cynically to what might be necessary measures is entirely their fault. The treatment of Senate debate (basically it was completely gagged) in passing the Telco sale legislation was just amazing, even from that mob. And there is such a history of this. So it's a boy who cried wolf thing I suppose - we are entitled to be cynical when governments have historically acted in self-interest. But I still think we should treat an issue as serious as this with an open mind. And as a society we must be prepared to read about the details, for that's where the devil is. And that's where our media fails us so, so much.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Wow. This thread got derailed from it's derailment even.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Thread evolution is what I like the most about the Codex.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Evil can be thought of as the abscence of good, as cold is the absence of heat.

You know, during the whole war one terror thing I keep on hearing about all the civil liberties I've lost, but I haven't noticed any missing. Huh.

 

[Section8]

I do understand completely that indoctrination of fanatics is happening, and it does pose a threat. However, I also believe that the probability of that threat manifesting itself is intrinsically linked to our willingness to make a showing to them, that we are the opposition.

People get confused. They assume that because religious fervour is being used as a tool by maniac clerics, its our beliefs and ideals that they oppose. I believe that's not the case. The root of this struggle is not based on a difference of ideals, its based on the fact that the west commonly takes aggressive action against predominantly Muslim nations and their allies, that is why countries like the US are seen as the enemy, because they make themselves exactly that.

From there, religion is invoked to align the less discerning to the political causes supported by the radicals. It's really no different than the US invoking conflict in the name of "God and Country" or the ever popular standby - "Freedom."

And to that end, I don't believe that the approach of "Terrorists are going to attack us, no matter what, so let's be ready. Besides, using the fear of a threat also enables us to wrest more totalitarian controls over our populace, so it also serves our needs as a government."

Shouldn't someone be considering what can be done to stem the hatred preached by radical fundies? To me, it seems that if you take away the reason for conflict, you greatly reduce the chance of violent acts perpetrated against the state. That's a healthier approach than mitigation and response, and perpetuation of the aggression that paints us as an enemy of Islam.

I believe that non-violent intervention has the potential to work, but agenda has to be put aside first. Imposing your own ideals, such as democracy or christianity under the guise of "aid" is never going to work.

 

[Chefe]

What the United States is doing now is nothing new. As long as civilizations have existed they have tried to impose their own beliefs and doctrines on others. This isn't because they're trying to be evil bastards, it's because they genuinely believe that everyone wants to live like them and it's better if they did anyways.

Just look at ancient Persia. They would conquer nations who were, in turn, allowed to keep their beliefs and culture; the only difference was that they were technically under Persian rule, had to pay tributes to the Persian empire, and had the Persian army's protection. They held together a relatively peaceful and prosperous empire. This was a great life, and the Persians couldn't fathom why anyone would want to live otherwise. A little band of provinces thought differently, however. These so-called "barbarians". You know, the Greeks, who eventually overthrew the entire Persian rule. The Persian empire was huge!

Then the Greeks had the same mindset of the Persians. They were eventually overthrown by the Romans. Then again, the same thing happened with the Romans. Every city conquored by Rome received a bathhouse, amphitheater, and every other luxury of Rome. Good life, eh? The Huns and other so-called "barbarians" thought differently, and when Rome tried to take over their land and incorporate them into Roman society and share Roman ideals, Rome fell.

Here we have the U.S. They're looking at the Middle East thinking "We have this great life and great government system built on democracy. Who wouldn't want this?" The so-called "terrorists" think differently. Deja-vu, eh? I'm not saying the U.S. will fall, but I'm talking about the mindset of the different groups.

And there's today's history lesson, class.

As a final note here, just think about these terrorists. They're being invaded by a foreign nation. The most fucking powerful nation in the world for that matter. They don't have an army that's even slighty comparable to the United States, much less a chance to stand up on a direct field of battle. Just like the in American Revolution, the disadvantaged side needs to find another way. The rebellous colonists used guerilla tactics to take down the rank-and-file soldiers of the British army that were trained to stand in a straight line and fire. The British never expected this, and thought who would even think to try something like that? The "terrorists" have to find another way to retaliate. A way that the U.S. and her allies don't expect, in places they don't expect. In the end, like all wars, it's not the leaders or the military that suffers the most, it's the common people.

 

[ExMonk]

What the United States is doing now is nothing new. As long as civilizations have existed they have tried to impose their own beliefs and doctrines on others. This isn't because they're trying to be evil bastards, it's because they genuinely believe that everyone wants to live like them and it's better if they did anyways.

Just look at ancient Persia. They would conquer nations who were, in turn, allowed to keep their beliefs and culture; the only difference was that they were technically under Persian rule, had to pay tributes to the Persian empire, and had the Persian army's protection. They held together a relatively peaceful and prosperous empire. This was a great life, and the Persians couldn't fathom why anyone would want to live otherwise. A little band of provinces thought differently, however. These so-called "barbarians". You know, the Greeks, who eventually overthrew the entire Persian rule. The Persian empire was huge!

Then the Greeks had the same mindset of the Persians. They were eventually overthrown by the Romans. Then again, the same thing happened with the Romans. Every city conquored by Rome received a bathhouse, amphitheater, and every other luxury of Rome. Good life, eh? The Huns and other so-called "barbarians" thought differently, and when Rome tried to take over their land and incorporate them into Roman society and share Roman ideals, Rome fell.

Here we have the U.S. They're looking at the Middle East thinking "We have this great life and great government system built on democracy. Who wouldn't want this?" The so-called "terrorists" think differently. Deja-vu, eh? I'm not saying the U.S. will fall, but I'm talking about the mindset of the different groups.

And there's today's history lesson, class.

As a final note here, just think about these terrorists. They're being invaded by a foreign nation. The most fucking powerful nation in the world for that matter. They don't have an army that's even slighty comparable to the United States, much less a chance to stand up on a direct field of battle. Just like the in American Revolution, the disadvantaged side needs to find another way. The rebellous colonists used guerilla tactics to take down the rank-and-file soldiers of the British army that were trained to stand in a straight line and fire. The British never expected this, and thought who would even think to try something like that? The "terrorists" have to find another way to retaliate. A way that the U.S. and her allies don't expect, in places they don't expect. In the end, like all wars, it's not the leaders or the military that suffers the most, it's the common people.

Chefe, a fellow lover of history? Will wonders never cease. BTW, the Old Testament is a valuable documentary source for the Persian-Median empire. The Bible may end up being more interesting than you think.

You do realize that in your last paragraph, the analogy breaks down? The policy of the American revolutionaries was not to purposely slaughter their fellow citizens in order to pressure the invading power, the British. This is the most reprehensible thing about the radical Islamic terrorist scum.

 

[Twinfalls]

The problem as I see it with both your arguments, Chefe, and Section8, is that you are conflating matters when they should not be.

In discussing what laws may/may not need to change domestically to deal with a very real threat, why is Iraq dragged in?

Iraq is brought into the discussion and it obliterates all other concerns. Why is it that one can not simultaneously be extremely critical of Western foreign 'policy' (code for intervention, war, use of terror), but also be aware of the fact that a domestic threat exists, and take a strong stand on this threat? Why should criticism of Western Imperialism and ideology preclude any criticism of Islamist ideology?

The type of Fundamentalist Islam manifesting in suicide bombing represents a fascist ideology. It is a death cult, and a genuine threat. These are not the people who speak on behalf of Muslims (though the fact that Bin Laden is the most popular Muslim figure world wide is disturbing), even those Muslims being killed in Iraq. These are most certainly NOT the people speaking on behalf of the oppressed Third World. I can guarantee you that the people of Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala etc, who have been so badly fucked by the US, do not want Jihadist lunatics as their spokespersons.

I belive that automatically invoking Western atrocities abroad when discussing Jihadist murder serves to justify and give a legitimacy to this movement which is completely wrong. Radical Islam wants the entire world to be governed by its rules, no matter what it takes. This is no mere 'payback', this is much, much bigger than that.

The first bombing of the World Trade Centre was 10 years before the Iraq invasion. The first Gulf War was a response to a secular Sunni invading a neighbour and threatening Islamic states in the region. Yet a desire by the Bin Laden gang to obliterate the West was already made clear. Do you think for a moment that this desire will disappear should the West withdraw all troops from the entire Middle East?

There is no doubt that the Iraq invasion has given the movement power, in the form of angry youths easily converted into ammunition. But it is not the cause.

I am in complete agreement with section8 when he says that "imposing your own ideals, such as democracy or christianity under the guise of "aid" is never going to work". Western Imperialism is wrong, and should always be opposed. But this is not going to change the fact that unless we're feeling suicidal ourselves, there is a very serious threat, here and now, which must be faced.

 

[Chefe]

Chefe, a fellow lover of history? Will wonders never cease.

I'm also working on my degree in Marine sciences. The wonders continue.

BTW, the Old Testament is a valuable documentary source for the Persian-Median empire. The Bible may end up being more interesting than you think.

I know there are historical facts in there, but so many things have been twisted to suit the subject matter that the Bible deals with. I think I'll stick to the real history books, thank you.

You do realize that in your last paragraph, the analogy breaks down? The policy of the American revolutionaries was not to purposely slaughter their fellow citizens in order to pressure the invading power, the British. This is the most reprehensible thing about the radical Islamic terrorist scum.

The point was not in the nature of their attacks, but the fact that they had to try something radically different to survive.

Why is it that one can not simultaneously be extremely critical of Western foreign 'policy' (code for intervention, war, use of terror), but also be aware of the fact that a domestic threat exists, and take a strong stand on this threat? Why should criticism of Western Imperialism and ideology preclude any criticism of Islamist ideology?

Preclude? There is no precluding going on here. Just because I didn't mention my thoughts against the Islamic attacks doesn't mean I don't have any.

A domestic threat does exist for America, and it was created by America by sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Now, certain countries and peoples are pissed at them. This shouldn't be surprising. The Islamic nations have no desire for the western yokes to bust down their doors and tell them what to do. Remember the Red Scare? Same thing, only America is playing the role of "red".

No, in fact, this was actually created by the British, but the Americans inherited it by choice.

The type of Fundamentalist Islam manifesting in suicide bombing represents a fascist ideology. It is a death cult, and a genuine threat.

And what do you expect them to do? Set back and take it? Meet the U.S. army on the field of battle? The former causes them to lose their lands, the latter is a suicide mission. Death that accomplishes nothing. They don't have many options for dealing with the problem of the American invasion.

Yes, it is a threat to America.

Yet a desire by the Bin Laden gang to obliterate the West was already made clear. Do you think for a moment that this desire will disappear should the West withdraw all troops from the entire Middle East?

Yes, I do believe it will. Maybe not overnight, but it will. The Big 'O' himself has said that if the U.S. and her allies leave that the attacks will stop. He's said it many times. America isn't going to listen though, because it would be a huge embarassment. Bin Laden's image in the media is that of a dirty hobo, dwelling in caves in the desert. How would the populace react if their government gave into a caveman?

 

[LlamaGod]

what the fuck is going on

 

[Chefe]

Apocalypse Now!, that's what.

 

[Shagnak]

what the fuck is going on

I have no idea

 

[Twinfalls]

And what do you expect them to do? Set back and take it? Meet the U.S. army on the field of battle?

See this is the thing. What do you mean by 'them'?

Are you saying the people who orchestrated the London bombings are Iraqis? They're not. Are you saying they represent the people of Iraq? They do not.

They have their own vested interest, and that is power. Killing anyone, even other Muslims, is no issue to them whatsoever. You can sit there and bloviate endlessly that everything is all the USA and Bethesda Softwork's fault, but that's not going to help either you, the people of Iraq, the people of the Third World, or anyone (or fans of Daggerfall for that matter).

I hate trotting out cliches, but I feel compelled: "Your enemy's enemy is not neccessarily your friend". This is what I'm getting at.

 

[dunduks]

Chefe is right, unless government (and I mean not only US, but other countries too) attitudes change the situation will get worse.

 

[Section8]

I am in complete agreement with section8 when he says that "imposing your own ideals, such as democracy or christianity under the guise of "aid" is never going to work". Western Imperialism is wrong, and should always be opposed. But this is not going to change the fact that unless we're feeling suicidal ourselves, there is a very serious threat, here and now, which must be faced.

I hate trotting out cliches, but I feel compelled: "Your enemy's enemy is not neccessarily your friend". This is what I'm getting at.

...and you're getting me wrong by doing so. I'm not defending the actions of the radical fundamentalist fuckwits that feel the need to kill innocents to gain political influence. They're just as guilty as the powers that believe the only way to combat violence is with violence.

The fact of the matter remains, that while ever western imperialism gives the rest of the world a reason to hate it, it's completely understandable that they will be opposed. Now given the fact that beating the US in a "fair" military conflict is nigh on impossible, it's also understandable that the opposition of the US and its "allies" manifests itself as terrorist or guerilla acts.

I think it's a fucking abomination that the "coalition of the willing" profess to believe that aggression against the supposed source of the problem is a viable solution. It's a totalitarian measure, and it should be obvious that it only creates more enemies. The only way such totalitarian measures would even be remotely effective, is if they don't hold back at all.

For instance, if you kill every Muslim, you no longer have Islamic extremism threatening your own way of life. But of course, anyone with half a brain would realise that this sort of action is abominable, and mass theocide would only create new enemies.

Now to relate this back to the original discussion, in our democratic society, we theoretically have power through a mandate of the masses to oppose this sort of aggression. And so, since governments are privy to this fact, they use all the tools at their disposal to justify the conflict. One of the major tools employed is fear, and hence the parallels to terrorism. We're afraid of a terrorist threat, and so we don't present significant protest against the government's right wing idealism in dealing with the threat.

Part two of my discussion, is the notion that there are non-violent solutions to the threat of terrorism. None of them will yield quick results, but the way I look at it is:

If you strive to improve the quality of life of potential enemies, the arguments posed by those who would stir such potential into action bear less weight. It's hard to lay down your life to fight capitalist scumfucks if they are a benefactor to your improved lifestyle. Of course, as I said earlier, this has to be done without imposing conflicting ideals upon these people.

Maybe it's a pipedream, but to me, dropping care packages is going to win more friends than dropping bombs. There would obviously be opposition initially - "The Imperialist pigs give you poisoned food to corrupt your pure ideal!" But after a while, this is likely to be eclipsed by the incontrovertible evidence that the imperialist west is actually benefiting their former enemies.

 

[ExMonk]

The history of Islam is one of aggression and conquest. This is indisputable. The history of Islam is one of ideological hatred for Jews and Christians. This is indisputable. Over the last 1500 years the goal of Islam has consistently been to take over the government of whatever country they inhabit or conquer and turn it into a Islamic state. Only weakness prevents them from doing so. This is NOT to say that all Muslims agree with this today; certainly many in the West do not. But many, many do.

It is beyond naivete to think that if we just left radical terrorists alone, that this would change. And please stop trotting out the word "imperialism" without knowing what the word actually means. What the United States has been doing in Iraq is NOT imperialism, unless you've totally changed the meaning. Toppling a totalitarian leader who has weapons of mass destruction (and YES, though the media has never reported it, many weapons of mass destruction HAVE been found in Iraq. Read Disinformation by Richard Miniter where he documents what has been found.) is not imperialism. "Imposing" democracy on a people is simply another way of saying, "giving them freedom" so that they can live their lives as they choose, rather than as radical fundamemtalists choose for them.

Twinfalls is right that the threat we face will not go away if we simply withdraw or show love.

Section 8, please join hands with me and let's sing, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me"

 

[Chefe]

See this is the thing. What do you mean by 'them'?

I thought you knew that... who are we talking about here? The Islamic extremists. Groups like Al-Qaeda.

Are you saying the people who orchestrated the London bombings are Iraqis? They're not. Are you saying they represent the people of Iraq? They do not.

I know they weren't Iraqis, I never said they were. In fact, that's one of the things that makes this war with Iraq so fucking stupid: Iraq isn't the one doing the "terrorizing"!

I hate trotting out cliches, but I feel compelled: "Your enemy's enemy is not neccessarily your friend". This is what I'm getting at.

The United States isn't my enemy, if that's what you're getting at.

If you strive to improve the quality of life of potential enemies, the arguments posed by those who would stir such potential into action bear less weight. It's hard to lay down your life to fight capitalist scumfucks if they are a benefactor to your improved lifestyle. Of course, as I said earlier, this has to be done without imposing conflicting ideals upon these people.

Did you miss my little history lesson above?

 

[ExMonk]

Sigh. Such pitiable ignorance. Have you actually read the Bible? Wherever did you get the idea that God created evil? To create evil is one thing and to allow the creatures you've created to have the freedom to turn to evil is quite another. God certainly did not do the former and most certainly did the latter. You are living proof that God is still following the latter course today.

Well, since we're going with the Bible... God created Satan. Satan is the ultimate evil. Therefore, God created Evil. To allow beings to have the free will to do "evil" means that the concept of evil has to exist in the first place. You can have free will without evil. I could donate to either one charity or another, whichever I choose is of my own personal choice, my free will, and most people would say that donating to a charity is a "good" act.

Free will does not equal having the means to do or think evil. I cannot fly, even if I want to really, really badly. Does that mean I don't have free will, since I cannot fly even though I choose to and want to? What if nothing flew, and we had no concept of flying at all? Would I still not have free will beacause I cannot do something that I don't know exists... or even doesn't exist at all? Likewise, if there was no such thing as "evil" would that mean I did not have free will, despite donating to the aforementioned charity of my choice? I did not know evil existed and was incapable of it, or it did not exist, in this scenario. If there was no such thing as evil, would I be devoid of free will?

If God did not create evil, then where do we get this moral code from that defines evil? Furthermore, why do some men have a passion to do harm to others? If we did not have it in our nature or the capabiliy (mentally) to harm others, then we wouldn't, just like how we cannot fly. This wouldn't be impossible; animals don't "do evil". They're bound by the laws of nature. If God can do anything, then he could make an evil-less intelligence bound to the laws of nature. Of course, just the mere existence of evil that inhabits the world now proves that God knows evil. What I still don't understand is why people think that God cannot do evil, that it's against his nature. Obviously, if he knows evil and created evil then he can do evil and it is, in fact, in his very nature, just like ours.


I haven't read through the entire Bible though, to tell you the truth. I don't find it that interesting, except for Revelations and its entertaining fantasy-doomsday type stuff. Banishing of the foozles for a millenium and all that.




Bitch.

To create a world where evil is a possible choice is not to create evil. At most, we can say that God created a world in which evil is a possibility. But again that is not to say that God created evil itself. He allowed it as a possibility. He permitted to it to happen. He did not create it, nor did he approve of it. To allow or permit a possiblitiy is not to create. When a company makes a hammer that is intended to build, even though it occurs to them that, contrary to their intention it may be used to kill, it is ludicrous to suggest that the company created a weapon.

I think what you are trying to say is that there are different degrees of free will. God could have created people with a limited free will that precluded the possibility for evil. True. In fact, what the Bible says about heaven strongly suggests that such limited free will will exist there. Evil will not be possible in heaven. That is not the free will he gave his creation, however.

Now it is true, it is a mystery why God allowed and allows evil to occur. That is a valid question for discussion.

As for the Bible, since it is the source book for the Christian faith, and the highest authority to decide what is true or false about God, one simply cannot have these types of conversations about God (from a Christian perspective) without it. Before you dismiss it, I strongly suggest you try to read it, especially the New Testament.

 

[Chefe]

The history of Islam...

Can't continue on a decent discussion without resorting to idiocy, can you ExMonk? Just had to pull out the dumbfuck stops.

Sigh...

... is one of aggression and conquest. This is indisputable. The history of Islam is one of ideological hatred for Jews and Christians. This is indisputable. Over the last 1500 years the goal of Islam has consistently been to take over the government of whatever country they inhabit or conquer and turn it into a Islamic state. Only weakness prevents them from doing so. This is NOT to say that all Muslims agree with this today; certainly many in the West do not. But many, many do.

Obviously, you know absolutely shit about Islam and are most likely blinded by your extreme prejudice towards it. First off, EVERY people's background is one of agression and conquest. THAT is indisputable. Second, Judism, Christianity, and Islam all stem from the same religious mindset. Muslims recognize this, however, they also recognize that the mostly Christian countries are trying to kick their proverbial asses. And it's not like Christian's and Jews are so fucking noble either. The Jews heavily persecuted the early Christian groups. Once Christianity prospered, they persecuted the Jews! For centuries! The Christians also launched the medieval crusades, against the Muslims of the Middle East. Ideological differences sometimes escalate into war.

Third, "over the last 1500 years"? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass now? Islam is only 1400 years old! So, right after Muhammad died, they decided to... ahem... "take over teh world!!1"? Disregarding this, you also attack them with extreme malice and idiocy. EVERY people throughout history has wanted to take over the land they currently inhabit from the former government owners if their beliefs differ. All religions have wanted to turn more countries to their beliefs. Surely, you must recognize this. Do I need to start giving you examples of Christians and Jews? The atrocities by the Christians in the name of God far outweigh those the Muslims have done in the name of God. However, this conflict with the Islamic states is the what's happening now.

It is beyond naivete to think that if we just left radical terrorists alone, that this would change.

Well, that's what Bin Laden has said. I personally do believe that the Muslim countries would be better off left to the Muslims.

And please stop trotting out the word "imperialism" without knowing what the word actually means. What the United States has been doing in Iraq is NOT imperialism, unless you've totally changed the meaning.

Do YOU know what Imperialism means?

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Just incase you don't know what hegemony means...

The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

Toppling a totalitarian leader who has weapons of mass destruction (and YES, though the media has never reported it, many weapons of mass destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.

Where do you get this information from? Your ass again? If the media has never reported it, and men and women working with the army who have been over there have never reported it. And the U.N. inspectors have never reported it.... then how, you fucking moron, do you know they have them?

Read Disinformation by Richard Miniter where he documents what has been found.)

Amazing. How does he know it when our own government reports that none have been found, even though it would STRONGLY help out case if they did find them?

is not imperialism. "Imposing" democracy on a people is simply another way of saying, "giving them freedom" so that they can live their lives as they choose, rather than as radical fundamemtalists choose for them.

You are truly laughable, ExMonk. Go read my history lesson a few pages up. Just because you like the way the U.S. is governed, doesn't mean everyone else does. I'm sure you also like alot of games that I don't, and probably can't imagine how anyone COULDN'T like them... but guess what, I don't. Are you right, and I'm wrong?

Twinfalls is right that the threat we face will not go away if we simply withdraw or show love.

So the U.S. attacks, then the extremists, with no way out, resort to "terrorism". Of course, this is the only smart way to do things.


On a final note in this post, Muslims and Christians are not all that different. I would just like to point out that how Christians believe they are what replaced Judiasm, the Muslims believe they are what replaced Christianity.

 

[Chefe]

To create a world where evil is a possible choice is not to create evil. At most, we can say that God created a world in which evil is a possibility. But again that is not to say that God created evil itself. He allowed it as a possibility. He permitted to it to happen. He did not create it, nor did he approve of it. To allow or permit a possiblitiy is not to create. When a company makes a hammer that is intended to build, even though it occurs to them that, contrary to their intention it may be used to kill, it is ludicrous to suggest that the company created a weapon.

God isn't a company. He's the supreme ruler and creator of everything that ever was and ever will be, right? So, evil exists. It didn't appear out of thin air. If it did not come from God, then that means it came from somewhere else... somewhere God isn't, created by another extremely powerful being. This would lend itself to the thought that there are multiple gods. So let's say that God allowed this evil from the other god to penetrate the earth and to infect his own high angel Lucifer and turn him to the Dark Side. In this case, God acknowledged that evil exists, correct? However, if he can't perform this evil himself, it means he's subject to laws and really isn't all cracked up to what he makes himself out to be. He would be subject to something even greater.

Evil will not be possible in heaven. That is not the free will he gave his creation, however.

If Evil is not possible in heaven, then how did Lucifer rebel?

Before you dismiss it, I strongly suggest you try to read it, especially the New Testament.

I have read some of it, I told you that, and I said I didn't find it particularly interesting or useful. Yes, there are many nice stories about morality in there. No doubt about it.

 

[ExMonk]

To create a world where evil is a possible choice is not to create evil. At most, we can say that God created a world in which evil is a possibility. But again that is not to say that God created evil itself. He allowed it as a possibility. He permitted to it to happen. He did not create it, nor did he approve of it. To allow or permit a possiblitiy is not to create. When a company makes a hammer that is intended to build, even though it occurs to them that, contrary to their intention it may be used to kill, it is ludicrous to suggest that the company created a weapon.

God isn't a company. He's the supreme ruler and creator of everything that ever was and ever will be, right? So, evil exists. It didn't appear out of thin air. If it did not come from God, then that means it came from somewhere else... somewhere God isn't, created by another extremely powerful being. This would lend itself to the thought that there are multiple gods. So let's say that God allowed this evil from the other god to penetrate the earth and to infect his own high angel Lucifer and turn him to the Dark Side. In this case, God acknowledged that evil exists, correct? However, if he can't perform this evil himself, it means he's subject to laws and really isn't all cracked up to what he makes himself out to be. He would be subject to something even greater.

Evil will not be possible in heaven. That is not the free will he gave his creation, however.

If Evil is not possible in heaven, then how did Lucifer rebel?

Before you dismiss it, I strongly suggest you try to read it, especially the New Testament.

I have read some of it, I told you that, and I said I didn't find it particularly interesting or useful. Yes, there are many nice stories about morality in there. No doubt about it.

What? There is no need for another "god" to introduce evil. The creatures that God created, because God gave them free will, were fully capable of introducing evil in to this good creation. One does not need to be a "god" to introduce evil. Of course, God isn't a company, but the analogy is a very good one. Both create something that is intended for good that is subsequently, despite their intentions, used for evil. There are differences of course. One difference is that whereas the hammer company, being finite, cannot anticipate all the possible uses of the hammer, God, being infinite, can anticipate and did anticipate all the possible choices that his creatures would make. But to know beforehand that his creatures would rebel is not the same thing as preordaining it. In Christian theology there is a vast difference between foreknowledge and predestination. Another difference is that the hammer company is not omnipotent and therefore cannot control how the hammer is used, whereas God can. But as I said in the previous post, God has chosen to allow evil. This does not make him less powerful. It is a choice he made, to permit evil FOR A TIME. Why? One possiblilty is to show his love to a greater degree by rescuing his fallen creation by sending His Son to redeem it.

Remember, if there is a God, do we really suppose that we can understand everything about him? Are you suggesting that you refuse to believe in a God unless he fits into your box, i.e., unless he acts in a way that you deem acceptable or logical. What kind of God would this be?

When I said that in heaven there will be no possibility for evil, I am referring to heaven eschatologically, that is, in the future, once this world ends. When this world ends, and our eternal life begins, then there will no longer be the possiblity for evil, is what the Bible strongly suggests.

I know you have already read part of the Bible. My point was that I encourage you to read all of the New Testament.

 

[ExMonk]

The history of Islam...

Can't continue on a decent discussion without resorting to idiocy, can you ExMonk? Just had to pull out the dumbfuck stops..

Have you studied world religions, Chefe? I have spent years doing so. I have a Th.D in world religions and history. Do you? Your comments are laughable. Christianity and Islam are worlds apart in their teachings and history. Did Jesus Christ EVER promote war or violence. Do we find one word of that in the New Testament. No. Did Mohammed? Yes! Do we find many words about this in the Koran? Yes. Secondly, when we examine Islam's practive over the centuries do we find a deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to conquer nations that don't subscribe to Islam? Yes. Do we find the same deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to do so by Christians? To subdue by force? Other than the crusades and a few isolated cases? No! Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

 

[whitemithrandir]

? Yes. Do we find the same deliberate, consistent, intentional strategy to do so by Christians? To subdue by force? Other than the crusades and a few isolated cases? No! Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

What the fuck? The crusades were a pretty big fucking deal that dwarfs pretty much any Muslim Jihad, both Dar al-islam AND Dar al-harb.

Christians don't promote war to spread their beliefs? Tell that to to Cortez, or the millions of native americans massacred in the name of God. Or how about the various missionary attachments to militaristic ventures into Africa?

Christians don't believe in war my ass. Let me know when you're ready to debate without that bias of yours. Th.D in Theology? Let me guess, from an online community college?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Know what the bloody hell you are talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.

Wow, that was HAWT!

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

The American war of independence was NOT a guerrilla war. The Americans had a uniformed Continental Army, led by former British officers. The Americans even fought face-to-face line battles that the British excelled at, knowing they would get beat, and also fought sieges. That's the antithesis of being a guerrilla, which al-Qaeda doesn't really qualify as either. And the Huns didn't take down the Roman empire, they lost a battle, and before they attacked again Attila drank too much and died of a nosebleed. Then they fell apart. Rome was taken down by the local Germanic tribes. And Greece never really had the same status as Rome. They were a bunch of city states until Macedonia conquered them (except Sparta).

I don't think that the U.S should intervene anywhere else, cause fuck the rest of the world, but it is too absolute a statement to say it will always be harmful. The only reason Athens became the first democracy is because Sparta came in and overthrew the tyrants that ruled the city. The reason slavery ended in most parts of the world is because the British empire shoved abolition down everyone's throats at gunpoint. The reason Hong Kong was thriving while China was starving under Mao's great leap forward was also because of British imperialism. When the Roman empire collapsed, the strongholds of knowledge were monasteries resulting from Christianity imposed by late Roman imperialism. Does anyone think that the U.S could have intervened in either world war if England hadn't colonized it?

Bin Laden wants to establish a caliphate. He sees the U.S as an obstacle, so that's we he attacks it. In intercepted writings his people have made it clear that they'll keep killing when the U.S pulls out. After invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has not been attacked again, but we were repeatedly attacked between the Gulf War and 9/11, even when we intervened in Kosovo to protect muslims while we were misled by hoaxed massacres carried out by the K.L.A (not saying there weren't real massacres, but many turned out to be fake) and while we were giving aid to Afghanistan. Does this mean that attacking countries is a good thing? No, but it does mean that attacks on us are not directly correlated with attacks on them.