You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time . . .What's so civil about war anyway?
FourMoreYearsOfBullshit
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit FourMoreYearsOfBullshit's Xanga Site!

Birthday: 8/30/1985
Gender: Female


Message: message me
Website: visit my website
AIM: Tie Dyed Pixie


Member Since: 11/12/2004

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Groups Blogrings
!!!BUSH SUCKS ASS!!!
previous - random - next

Fuck GEORGE BUSH
previous - random - next

*Make Love Not War*
previous - random - next

Anti-Bush, Anti-War, Pro-Democratic Liberals
previous - random - next

Anti-Bush Blogring
previous - random - next

(A) Drop Bush Not Bombs (E)
previous - random - next

-=Fuck Bush=-
previous - random - next

Bush SUCKS!!!
previous - random - next


Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Thursday, December 16, 2004

http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org/


Friday, December 10, 2004

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

GO.


Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Still think God would approve of Bush's war?

Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

 

Now let's look at what it means to be a peacemaker.

The promise of sonship in the second half of the Matthew 5:9 points us to Matthew 5:43-45 for our main insight. Both of these texts describe how we can show ourselves to be sons of God.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Notice verse 45, "... so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." The thought is the same as in Matthew 5:9. There, we must be peacemakers to be called sons of God. Here, we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us if we would be sons of God.

So probably Jesus thinks of peacemaking as all the acts of love by which we try to overcome the enmity between us and other people. And if we ask for specifics he gives two examples.

The first thing he mentions is prayer (verse 44): Pray for those who persecute you. Pray what? The next chapter tells us. In Matthew 6:9-10 Jesus says, "Pray like this...". Pray that you and your enemy would hallow God's name. Pray that God's kingdom be acknowledged in your life and his life. Pray that you and he would do God's will the way the angels do it in heaven. In other words, pray for conversion and sanctification. The basis of peace is purity. Pray for yours and pray for his, that there might be peace.

Then in Matthew 5:47 Jesus gives the other specific example of peacemaking-love in this text: "If you salute (or greet) only your brethren, what more are you doing than others?" In other words, if there is a rupture in one of your relationships, or if there is someone who opposes you, don't nurse that grudge. Don't feed the animosity by ignoring and avoiding that person. That is the natural thing to do--just cross the street so that you don't have to greet them. But that is not the impulse of the Spirit of a peacemaking God, who sacrificed his Son to reconcile us to himself and to each other.

Peacemaking tries to build bridges to people. It does not want the animosity to remain. It wants reconciliation. It wants harmony. And so it tries to show what may be the only courtesy the enemy will tolerate, namely, a greeting. The peacemaker looks the enemy right in the eye and says, "Good morning, John." And he says it with a longing for peace in his heart, not with a phony gloss of politeness to cover his anger.

So we pray and we take whatever practical initiatives we can to make peace beginning with something as simple as a greeting. But we do not always succeed. And I want to make sure you don't equate peacemaking with peace-achieving. A peacemaker longs for peace, and works for peace, and sacrifices for peace. But the attainment of peace may not come.

Romans 12:18 is very important at this point. There Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all." That is the goal of a peacemaker: "If possible, so far as it depends on you..." Don't let the rupture in the relationship be your fault.

Ah, but that raises a tough question: Is it your fault when the stand that you take is causing the division? If you have alienated someone and brought down their anger upon your head because you have done or said what is right, have you ceased to be a peacemaker?

Not necessarily. Paul said, "If it is possible ... live at peace." He thus admits that there will be times that standing for the truth will make it impossible. For example, he says to the Corinthians (in 11:18-19), "I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." Now he would not have said that if the genuine Christians should have compromised the truth in order to prevent divisions at all cost. It was precisely because some of the Christians were genuine—genuine peacemakers—that some of the divisions existed. (Also see I Corinthians 7:15.)

Now this next part, is one that I have often heard used to defend the war. This verse is about JESUS. Not WAR. It is basically saying that belief in Jesus WILL cause division between people because of peoples' loyalty to what they believe. (or the loyalty they SHOULD have)

Jesus said in Matthew 10:34,

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

In other words, you must love peace and work for peace. You must pray for your enemies, and do good to them, and greet them, and long for the the barriers between you to be overcome. But you must never abandon your allegiance to me and my word, no matter how much animosity it brings down on your head. You are not guilty; you are not in the wrong if your life of obedience and your message of love and truth elicit hostility from some and affirmation from others.

Blessed are those who are persecuted: Another misunderstood beatitude: People have a "persecution complex" - saying that no official prayer in schools = persecution. That's NOT persecution. Read the Bible to learn what real persecution is. Move to a country where people are tortured and killed for believing in one thing or another. That's persecution. Read on:

Perhaps it's just this warning that Jesus wants to sound when the very next beatitude says, "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake." In other words, righteousness must not be compromised in order to make peace with your persecutors. When Jesus pronounces a blessing on you for being persecuted for the sake of righteousness, he clearly subordinates the goal of peace to the goal of righteousness.

In James 3:17 it says "The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable." First pure, then peaceable, not the other way around. And that is the order we have in the beatitudes also (in verses 8 and 9): First, "Blessed are the pure in heart," then, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Purity takes precedence over peace. Purity is the basis of Biblical peace. Purity may not be compromised in order to make peace.

Now I want to close by dealing with one more question that a message like this would raise for some people today. Why, in view of the world situation, does this message on peacemaking confine itself to the personal dimensions of prayer and greetings and individual reconciliation? Aren't these personal issues insignificant in comparison with the issues of nuclear war, military budgets, arms talks in Geneva, apartheid in South Africa, civil wars in Central America, religious oppression in Romania and Russia, and international terrorism?

Before we answer that question, let's ask another one. Was Jesus unaware that the iron hand of the Roman empire rested on the tiny land of the Jews without their consent? Was he aware that Archelaus slaughtered 3,000 Jews at a Passover celebration? Was he aware that the Roman soldiers could conscript any Jew they chose to carry their baggage? Was he aware that Pilate had his soldiers bludgeon a crowd of Jews protesting his stealing from the temple treasury? Was he aware that Pilate massacred Jews on the temple ground and mixed their blood with their sacrifices they were offering?

When Jesus spoke of enemies, why did he confine himself to prayer and personal greetings and blessings and individual deeds of generosity and kindness? Why didn't he talk about the issues of national humiliation, and Roman oppression and political corruption and the unbridled militarism of his day? Was he utterly out of touch with the big issues of his day?

No. There is another explanation for why he preaches the way he does. In Luke 13:1-5 some people confronted Jesus with one of Pilate's atrocities. Here's the way he responded:

There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

He took a major social outrage of injustice and turned it into a demand for personal, individual repentance. "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish!" That's what he always did. Why did he do this? Because for Jesus the eternal destiny of a human soul is a weightier matter, a bigger issue, than the temporal destiny of a nation.

If you come to Jesus with a question about the justice of taxes to Tiberias Caesar he will turn it into a personal command aimed right a your own heart: "You give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:15-21).

If your come to Jesus with a complaint about the injustice of your brother who will not divide the inheritance with you, he will turn it into a warning to your own conscience, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you? ... Take heed and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:13-15).

Now let's go back to the question. Why does a message on peacemaking from the Sermon on the Mount focus on the individual issues of prayer and greetings and personal reconciliation? Aren't these personal issues insignificant in comparison with the issues of nuclear war, military budgets, arms talks in Geneva, apartheid in South Africa, civil wars in Central America, religious oppression in Romania and Russia, and international terrorism?

The answer is no, because the point of these personal issues in the Sermon on the Mount is to make crystal clear that every individual within the hearing of my voice must become a new creature if you are to have eternal life. You must have a new heart. Without a merciful, pure, peacemaking heart you cannot be called a son of God at the judgment day. And that is the truly weighty matter in the world today. Is the Son of Man confined in his views of the world, is he he out of touch with the real issues of life because he regards the eternal salvation of your soul as a weightier matter than the temporal destiny of any nation on earth?

Blessed are you peacemakers who pray for your enemies and greet your opponents with love and sacrifice like your heavenly Father for the reconciliation of people to God and to each other, for you will be called sons of God and inherit eternal life in kingdom of your Father.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/86/030986.html


Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Published Monday, November 29, 2004 by the Free-Lance Star / Fredricksburg, Virginia

"If You Read the Gospels, the Religious Right is Most Often Wrong"

Was Jesus a big winner in the last election?
You'd sure think so. If the pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a knockout victory on Nov. 2. We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.

All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the Gospels.

And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.

The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological sustenance, you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.

Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.

Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing rabble-rouser was known to say.

That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising machine.

Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument dedicated to them in a public place).

Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people are doing with their bodies.

I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.

If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?

Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts? Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to hear?

Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?

Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.

You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge profits.

Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?

I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W. Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt--to paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.

This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either. The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.

For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.

In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.

The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream culture.

Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.

Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become just another Middle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1129-24.htm


Ahhh, isn't it nice to see freedom of expression and speech being brough to Iraq?

At least three Iraqi protesters have been shot dead after US occupation soldiers opened fire on a demonstration in the restive town of Falluja.

Medical sources at the town's hospital, west of Baghdad, said five others were seriously wounded on Tuesday, reported Aljazeera's correspondent.

The demonstrators were protesting against US conduct, including increased civilian arrests. They were particularly angered by the detention of women, who were accused by soldiers of carrying out resistance attacks against them.

The protest was organised by local clerics. Protesters chanted slogans condemning US forces and demanded detainees should be freed, reported the correspondent.

But Reuters reported that four civilians were killed, including an elderly woman, when US soldiers opened fire for coming under rocket attack.

More protesters injured

Also on Tuesday, seven Iraqis were wounded when US-led occupation soldiers clashed with a crowd of jobless protesters in the southern city of Kut.

"Seven wounded were admitted to the emergency room - five protesters and two female bystanders," said Dr Taha Ali Abdel
Husayn. Six people suffered bullet wounds, including one woman.

About 100 protesters threw grenades towards Ukrainian soldiers stationed around city hall offices. In return, the soldiers fired warning shots to disperse the mob, said an AFP correspondent.

Civilians killed

In the capital, US soldiers opened fire at a car, killing the driver and a 10-year-old boy, moments after a US army vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb, said relatives.

"The Americans have ruined an innocent family, children and women"

Iraqi relative of civilians killed

One soldier was killed in the Monday bombing, the US military said. The shooting is the latest in a growing number of cases of civilians being shot by US soldiers, as they near the end of their tour before the first troop rotation next month.

A US military official said the shooting "has not been confirmed" and the army was investigating.

Monday's shooting in Baghdad occurred on Palestine Street, near the oil ministry when the car passed two Humvees on a patrol, said Wijdan Abd al-Wahhab, whose two sisters, two nephews and a niece were in the car.

As the vehicle passed the convoy, one of the Humvees was hit by the roadside bomb and the other Humvee opened indiscriminate fire, Abd al-Wahhab said.

She said her nephew Mustafa Jamal Shaikhly, 10, and the family driver, identified only as Haidar, were killed in the firing. Mustafa's mother, Istabraq, 30, and aunt Hiyam, 40, were seriously injured.

"The Americans have ruined an innocent family, children and women," a distraught and weeping Wijdan said at the hospital. "They did not even bother to look back at them after shooting them," she said.

Helicopter downed

In related news, a US Apache helicopter crashed west of Baghdad, but both crew members survived.

The helicopter hit is the third
such attack in three weeks

The helicopter, which usually carries a crew of two, crashed near the town of Habbaniya, about 80km west of the capital, said a US military spokesman.

"There is an initial report of enemy fire," said a military spokesman.

That would make it the third such attack in two weeks.

The spokesman said both crew members were alive, but he did not know if they were injured.

On 9 January, nine US soldiers were killed when their Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Falluja.

In November, 17 US soldiers were killed when two Black Hawks collided near the northern city of Mosul after they came under attack.



Next 5 >>