The Rapture-- Nimby

[des]

I'm not sure just how controversial this would be on this board, but we do have a few more conservative members...

 

Yesterday I went over and read about the rapture index and then actually saw the index. I thought it was pretty bizarre. Anyway, I also thought about what some fundamentalists think about the environment; that people were actually happy about the tsunami (!); about what's going on in the middle east, that some actively are against the peace process. The whole idea is, the end is at hand so "bring it on".

 

HOWEVER, these same individuals will not vote for liberal candidates, be for gay marriage (or just ignore it), be for legalizing drugs, etc. Even though this all would supposedly bring on the end.

 

Do I detect a bit of NIMBY in all this!? Since conservative politicians have done an excellent job of finding oil companies to sponsor "science" that disagrees with the whole concept of global warming and heck that's a few years off anyways (even if it isn't). So the issues that are "close by ones" like having gay marriage or liberal candidates they oppose. But those that are far away like the middle east or the tsunami (I'm sure that's a minority that actually thought that was good). Still they are far away. Ergo NIMBY on the index.

 

Still things like clean drinking water are sort of NIMBY too. I think it is more how the conservative politicians tell people exactly what they want to hear.

 

 

Take a look at the index and see what you make of it.

www.raptureme.com

Also included are such fun items (?) as the Armageddon clock.

 

BTW, I tried to read some Revelation last night. Yikes, and these guys don't interpret the Bible?! Supposedly Rev. 17-18 "predicts" the World Trade Center bombing. (!?)

 

 

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

It would be interesting to see what your views on the book, "Black Dawn, Bright Day" would be. It was written by a Native American named Sunbear. He does not believe in the rapture but explains his take on End Times.

[act5367]

It's very possible that we are living in "the last days," but this has nothing to do with alleged prophecies in, e.g., Revelation. Rather, it has to do with the fact that since 1750 humans (Western ones in particular) have been pouring greenhouse gases such a carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, resulting in a variety of phenomena collectively termed "global warming." For several decades now Dr. Charles Keeling and staff have been collecting data (in Hawaii) on carbon dioxide concentration, and have found that both of the last years for which data are complete have shown an increase in the RATE of increase.

 

WHY the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing is clear: human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (including while driving to church!). The CONSEQUENCES? If Dr. James Lovelock (former NASA scientist) is correct that the earth behaves like a system, this means that the earth has been using negative feedback mechanisms to "fight" warming. However, the most recent evidence from Hawaii suggests that Earth System may have reached a threshold, and "given up"--with positive feedback mechanisms now replacing the negative ones. If THAT has happened, this could very well mean that we are living in the "last days," and that (1) it is too late to reverse the trend, (2) our species (along with many others) soon could become extinct (certainly within the century), and (3) Biblical "prophecy" is not involved here--except that those who believe in it are helping to bring about the end. Such people are in the process of committing the greatest conceivable crime against humanity--and our Creator!--and yet are not recognized a criminals! They are far more of a threat to us than are any terrorists, for they threaten the species itself.

 

A recent scientific report argued that if the global mean rises to 2 degrees C above what it was in 1750, the consequences are likely to be unpredictable, but could be catastrophic. Given that we've already reached 0.8 degrees, we are nearly half way there, and these scientists believe that the 2 degree mark could be reached within 10 years. YES, 10 YEARS!!

 

I have argued elsewhere (in an unpublished paper) that our only chance for "salvation" lies in societal system change of the right sort here and elsewhere; and back in 1984 I published a strategy for achieving societal system change. Unfortunately, I have lacked the resources to do anything about my "plans," and being now 65 may never have the opportunity to do anything about them--especially if 2115 marks a watershed.

 

We are not used to think in terms of societal change, but had we been living in the 1800s this would have been a commonplace topic. For example, Horace Greeley was publicizing Charles Fourier's ideas on the subject, there were many "intentional communities" being created (e.g., the Shakers, Amana, Oneida, etc.), and literally dozens of "utopian" novels were published (Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward being simply one of many).

 

Christians need to learn one of the many messages of Jesus's Good Samaritan parable: God works through people, acting in accord with his law of love. We need to begin doing something about greenhouse gases, and doing it fast; else, we humans may very well be doomed. And our churches will rot away, for lack of anyone to attend them and care for them.

[Ani-man]

The problem with the doomsday scenario of global warming is, this planet has had many many such cycles, alternating with ice ages, the Great Lakes in fact were formed by retreating/melting glaciers!

So we know there were glaciers as far South as that.

 

The trouble is humans think in terms of today, tomorrow, next week, last month and on a plant billions of years old 100 years is nothing! What we consider "normal" weather we enjoy today is likely an anomaly- the peaking of a warming cycle which will eventually reverse back into the next ice age.

 

Granted, there is evidence the warming is happening at a FASTER rate, but that's all- just faster and not warming just because of people.

One has to keep on mind there are many natural processes that ALSO produce pollution and the like- forest fires from lightening strikes, naturally burning coal seams underground, volcanoes, and even the meteriorite that hit in Arizona and others have produced effects. The biggest was likely the one they found evidence of that helped form what is now the Gulf of Mexico- a massive area in the SW portion that has provided evidence of a planet shaking impact that would have thrown millions of tons of debris, dust into the air and massive forest fires.

One year I think it was 1809 was dubbed the year of no summer, a volcano produced so much debris and fires, plus sulphur and all the rest of the gases they spew- that it literally shaded the sun, crops failed and there was no summer.

That was a direct measurable/immediate global effect from one natural event and there have been many of those, the crud circled the planet for a long time after that eruption.

 

Another issue is, all plants, grass, trees, and growing things including weeks use carbon dioxide the way we use oxygen, and they exhale oxygen, so the more of the carbon dioxide spewed into the air the better the plants like it and grow faster. One only needs to see how self correcting that is, more plants due to more carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures will produce MORE and bigger plants which in turn use up more of the carbon dioxide and release more oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is their FOOD!

 

Moving on, the entire human social and economic system the way it is, is bound to collapse- for it is all based on ever increasing populations which of course cannot happen in a finite environment!

 

Our entire economy is based on this, SS is based on more young workers paying in to pay out increasing benefits to more people, you now have or will soon I believe 3 workers paying in for each retiree, a few decades ago it was more like 30 workers!

 

Thus it is doomed to total collapse.

 

 

The economy is geared for ever increasing production and output, more goods, services, products and counting on those quarter year growth figures. All of this depends on ever increasing energy sources to produce and move goods, we are reaching the peak output of world petroleum to the point where one refinery going out totally disrupts the markets globally and prices rise astronomically from $1.10 a gallon of gas to $2.50 in a matter of weeks.

 

The world's supply of easy to find easy to get at oil is exhausted, most oil fields have already been found, what's left is what they contain and what can be extracted thru ever increasingly difficult and expensive processes like refining tar out of sand, all at a bigger environmental cost as well as higher retail price.

 

What happens to the economy when gas is $10 a gallon? EVERYTHING moves by rail, truck or plane at some point in it's journey, be it your new dress or the replacement water heater you bought for the house.

 

I have seen huge buildings only 20 or so years old demolished to make way for more "modern" buildings. The Seattle King Dome is one example, a HUGE sports stadium demolised because it was "outdated". I know of an 18 story University building in the UK being demolished for that reason, it was built in 1968 and is massive concrete, steel and glass, all those resources used up, wasted and thrown away along with all the energy required to make it in 1968, transport it to the site, built it, now tear it down, landfill it.

 

This all too is unsustanable and doomed to collapse.

 

We had an oil shortage in 1973, gas lines a mile long, rationing, it was a wake-up call, lots of talk about making changes, but did we? somewhat, yes we reduced speed limits to 55, we made cars get 40-50 MPG Instead of the former 10-12 in the 70's, yet we are importing and using MORE oil than ever! Why?

Sure we get 4x as much mileage from a gal of gas now, but we ALSO added 4x as many CARS!, and what's more, people are replacing these $25,000 machines every 4-5 years! Detroit can't exist or sustain itself without ever increasing consumption of NEW cars, it's grown into a huge top-heavy industry and THAT"S the problem there! It can't be sustained, it's also doomed to collapse

 

 

It's not global warming we need to worry about, it's our economy and way we as a society have set everything up, and with an 8 TRILLION dollar deficit there is no way that can keep going, but we are rocketing to the poorhouse and like the person with a credit card, eventually the payments made will not pay the interest alone and you default. At some point when the payment is "$100" and the interest alone is "$125" this too will collapse and it won't be pretty when it does!

China and other foreign countries have all been buying US debts and providing the loans we all as a nation are paying on- the 8 Trillion dollars, and if any one of them decide to dump their notes or call them in for payment we are in BIG trouble. At this point China could collapse our economy if they wanted to.

 

Far more filthy pollution was produced in the 1800's with the burning of dirty coal that was used by the billions of tons for running railroads, steam engines, power plants and heating, if anything THAT did the most damage and it's a done deal.

 

Global warming prevention is too little too late, nothing we can do about it and taking the piddling little bit of freon propellent out of a can of hairspray as a corrective "fix" is way too little, too late!

 

THE problem is not that cars are not getting 70 MPG, or that your can of hairspray is destroying ozone, the problem is there are too many PEOPLE, and every person so to speak has a home that has to be heated, electrified, a car, food they eat, waste they dispose of, water they use for laundry, drinking, washing etc THIS is THE problem 100%

You could make a car that gets 150 mpg but if you add 4x as many MORE cars in the next 30 years, the savings is gone.

If the world population was half what it is now, there wouldn't BE a problem right now.

[jamesAMDG]

I think I can safely assume that I'm included in the "more conservative members" description. So I think I'll get the old keyboard going.

 

As a Catholic I don't believe in the Rapture. Well, not in the sense that most non-Catholics and non-Orthodox do. What is commonly called the Rapture in the popular parlance is better described as "pre-tribulation" that is, that Christians will be snatched from Earth before the Second Coming and before the tribulations which the Earth will undergo immediately before the Second Coming.

 

This view can be traced through John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield (who wrote the footnotes for the Scofield Reference Bible).

 

This pre-tribulation theology is false because it splits Christ's coming into essentially three. The Incarnation and Birth in Bethlehem, when he comes back to Rapture all true Christians and then the Second Coming when he definatively comes back to Earth.

 

I can't really comment on the rest fo the silliness, after all, error breeds error and a position that starts wrong won't give rise to many good things.

 

But I think that a person can be skeptical of what is called the "peace rocess" in the Middle East, skeptical fo global-warming measures etc. without being a pre-tribulation fundamentalist and a NIMBY on social issues who wants the worst for others and best for himself.

 

pax Romana

jAMDG

 

Peace and Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

[BrotherRog]

James, If you're a Christian, don't you really mean to close your missives with "Pax Christi" instead of Pax Romana?

 

Pax Romana was the motto of the ancient Roman Empire; i.e. the worldly powers and principalities that oppressed and exploited many peoples and who persecuted the early Christians.

 

Whereas, Pax Christi is the Christian counter to Pax Romana; i.e. we are those who claim that JESUS is Lord and not Ceasar!

[des]

Well James, you may be one fo the more conservative members, but I know Catholics don't believe in the Rapture. In fact, was just reading a review of some, what looked like an excellent book, by a Catholic writer on the subject. According to the false views, Catholics would be left behind as well.

 

You are quite correct about Darby (not our darby though) and Scofield who were Protestant. Darby almost invented fundamentalism.

 

But I think that a person can be skeptical of what is called the "peace rocess" in the Middle East, skeptical fo global-warming measures etc. without being a pre-tribulation fundamentalist and a NIMBY on social issues who wants the worst for others and best for himself.

 

Gee James, I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't. I only meant that those who believe in the rapture are much more concerned for local morality (things like sex before marriage and things like that) than conservation. Those rated high by the Christian coalitions have terrible environmental records. Global warming is a complex issue. But to really not be concerned about the environment because the rapture is coming is a different thing entirely. To my knowledge, modern Catholics tend to be active on environmental issues in general.

As for the peace process in the middle east there is plenty to be skeptical about. I'm not

discussing logical skepticism or any thing like scientific disagreements.

 

Go read http://www.theocracywatch.org for some fun readings about what the far right believes.

 

Catholism has tremendous roots in the social justice movement, etc. which I highly respect.

But Catholics aren't considered better off than progressives, as far as fundamentalist "rapturites" are concerned. (My understanding is that not all evangelicals buy into it either.

There is a satire about the left behind series written by an evangelical.)

 

 

--des

[Lolly]

I tend to agree with act5367 and ani-man here. I am not a rapturist and consider the rapture dogma to be a cultlike meme (sorry beach, but it's a word that I feel is appropriate here).

 

However, it may well be that we are living in "end times" for the reasons described. Yes, there have been other doomsday scenarios but never has the planet been so strained by the demands an out-of-control human (read exploiting and consuming) population has placed upon it. The earth will only stand for so much; something has to give.

 

With regard to Ani-man's points about the economy, I strongly feel that it is possible to develop local economies that would circumvent the need to trade within the established system. An economy exists by virtue of those participating being in mutual agreement about things like currency. If a subset of the population decides to, say, avoid using money and instead barter, and if a large enough group buys into this alternative economy so that goods and services are available, it's possible to circumvent the system to a large degree.

 

The problem is we believe that we are tied to our cars and our plastics and our disposable economy, and as a society we are lazy. We use paper towels where a reusable rag would do. We choose pre-packaged goods for convenience where bulk foods would do. We choose a long commute instead of looking for work within walking distance.

 

I know that the way society is structured today, it is difficult to change some of these things. Difficult, but not impossible.

 

I recently had a discussion with a friend who is very gung-ho about progressive and liberal ideas. He dislikes the right, dislikes the neo-conservative agenda. I pointed out to him that every time he goes to Wal-Mart, he is putting dollars into the pocket of the people whose agenda he believes is wrecking this country. He said "If I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I would live in poverty."

 

I asked him, "What's wrong with that?"

 

The thing is, we talk a lot. But when action is demanded, how many of us are willing to leave our comfortable chairs in order to actually do the things we say need doing?

[BeachOfEden]

Basically, I think one can believe in millennialism both spiritually,ecologically,ect withOUT it having to mean a physical end to this planet. One can believe in an end to an age withOUT believing in a literal end to this planet. I neither agree with the fundamental Protestant view on the end of this planet nor the scientific destruction of earth. It's kinda how the New Agers and many Native tribes teach of earth cycles. We are presently living in a very negative age both spiritually ecologically and it may indeed get far worse..but it will get better then afterwards. There will be an end to this negative age, followed by a better one to come where people will become enlightened both ecologically, socially and spiritually.

[des]

I happen to think we will be around awhile. I do believe that if we don't shape up in terms of environmental policies we will possibly be in deep doo doo (scientific terminology here :-)).

I also think our economic and international relations could be a lot better.

 

However, humankind has been known to survive in very difficult situations. Unfortunately we tend to deal in crises better than with dangers.

 

There are various quotes you can find on the state fo the world, kids, etc that sound like they could have been written yesterday except for the vocabulary written by people like Socratis.

 

So you'll pardon me if I don't believe in any kind of quick end to humanity or life as we know it either by a God of sometype or some other means. I am sure there are cycles. That's just part of the way we work, one of the truths that Buddhism has to share.

 

--des

[jamesAMDG]

BrotherRog,

 

I'm quite aware of the the history behind the slogan "pax Romana" it was intended in the spirit of a joke. I'm a Catholic (latin/wetern/Roman rite (whichever you want to call it)) so as a Roman Catholic, I have the Pax Romana instead of the flase security of the Once-Saved-Always-Saved members of Protestantism.

 

pax doesn't imply that anyone is "Lord" it simply means peace. The Roman peace was the general peace that pervaded the lands conquered by the Romans as the local and civil squabbles were suppressed. But it also included things like a heirarchical government and things like aquaducts.

 

 

Peace and Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

jamesAMDG

 

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

[BrotherRog]

I guess I failed to catch the attempt at humor.... often difficult in this forum..

 

Glad to hear that you aren't in favor of forcing peace upon peoples/nations via imperial military action. Indeed, I feared you may've been one of those who champions the modern-day version of Pax Romana; i.e. George Jr's Pax Americana. To my ears, Pax Romana refers to that which Chrisitianity seeks to liberate people from and to rid the world of.

 

This said, it seems odd that you prefer to see yourself primarily as a Catholic instead of as being a Christian - who happens to be a Catholic. Keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Church pre-existed the Roman Catholic Church by many years so its not like the Roman Church is the end all and be all.

[Lolly]

So you'll pardon me if I don't believe in any kind of quick end to humanity or life as we know it either by a God of sometype or some other means. I am sure there are cycles. That's just part of the way we work, one of the truths that Buddhism has to share.

 

Oh, I think the cycles are much larger than we can see with these tiny, human eyes.

 

This is going to sound blasphemous (and it perhaps is) but I don't really think that the universe is necessarily centered around the existence or non-existence (or the well-being) of mankind. I am fairly certain that mankind could pass out of existence entirely (and surely will) and the universe would not miss a beat.

 

We tend to think in time scales that are near term. Two thousand years to us seems an eternity. To God, perhaps, it is merely the blink of an eye. Mankind's role in the whole of creation, I cannot know.

 

The end of the earth, or of human existence on earth, seems to us an unspeakable tragedy. I do not know that God hasn't created us in order that we might go through a process that, ultimately, ends in extinction. Is our tragedy also God's tragedy in the same measure, or is there a much bigger picture which we are incapable of seeing? How does it feel to a bacterium when the piece of rotting food on which it makes its home is incinerated? How does God feel about that?

 

I cannot know if we have any purpose beyond the simple fact of our apparent existence. Only God could know that.

 

I agree with you that there have been many such doomsday scenarios pointed out in the past. However, as I mentioned, there has never been a time when the planet was so heavily strained. It seems a bit foolish to cavalierly dismiss that very real difference between those times and these.

 

The earth has a remarkable capacity for regeneration, but I'm not so sure the earth has a mandate to include humankind in the regenerative process. I do think that mankind has a responsibility to the earth that, currently, is not being met. It remains to be seen what will come of all of this.

[ComradeInChrist]

I see belief in the rapture as counterproductive. Tho only Kingdom of God we are going to see is the one we build ourselves (with God's help). God provides the spiritual tools. It is up to us to pick them up and get to work. The twisting of Christianity into a totally individual salvation is a bad thing.

 

The personal transformation we experience through our relationship with God is a wonderful and beautiful experience, but that is only the first step (boot camp perhaps ). To continue to experience growth we need to roll up our sleeve and get to work.

[des]

The end of the earth, or of human existence on earth, seems to us an unspeakable tragedy.  I do not know that God hasn't created us in order that we might go through a process that, ultimately, ends in extinction.  Is our tragedy also God's tragedy in the same measure, or is there a much bigger picture which we are incapable of seeing?  

 

Gosh, should we worry about blasphemy on a progressive board? :-) Since I believe in the more scientific explanation of creation (though I believe that God is creator), it seems like there is a lot of space and time devoted to things and beings non-human. As the main character in Contact says, "It's an awful waste of space isn't it?" I am quite sure there is a bigger picture that we can't see. (There is lots of very neat cosmological thinking on this right now. For example, positing us as the "consciousness of the universe". Can't remember what scenario or theory this is called.)

 

I agree with you that there have been many such doomsday scenarios pointed out in the past.  However, as I mentioned, there has never been a time when the planet was so heavily strained.  It seems a bit foolish to cavalierly dismiss that very real difference between those times and these.

 

Well I think there is a vast difference between believing that the "end is near" and believing we could be in for a whole lot of trouble! We could very well end our own existence and it may happen routinely to highly advanced civilizations.(We know so little about what we are playing at.) But technologically ending our own existence is vastly different from some dramatic cartoonish Armegeddan. It would no doubt be gradual and more and more painful, so to think that this would happen within 20-50 years is hard to imagine. We may decide to go off and ruin some other planet in that horrendous series, Earth 2, style. Worse case scenarios for global warming, if true (and it is a most complex matter which can't be assumed by any stretch), are pretty dismal, but don't necessarily make human life impossible. Certainly not in the immediate sense. OTOH, when I said that humans have endured difficult times I am not only thinking in more recent times. Early humans went thru ice ages of extreme severity. We are a highly adaptive species, which is one reason we are so much trouble.

 

The earth has a remarkable capacity for regeneration, but I'm not so sure the earth has a mandate to include humankind in the regenerative process.  I do think that mankind has a responsibility to the earth that, currently, is not being met.  It remains to be seen what will come of all of this.

 

I definitely do agree this is possible. The earth would recover in its own way, of course the recovery process may make it more pleasant to be an anarobic bacterium!

 

--des

Edited March 4, 2005 by des

[Lolly]

Hi, Des!

 

I think we agree then... I suppose what the underlying issue may be is that I see the potential for big problems, but don't at all relate this to any sort of biblical prophecy, whereas some do.

 

I see it as a direct result of the way humankind has treated the earth-- and I believe that the way some folks interpret scripture can significantly add to the problem, particularly if the popular belief is that none of what we do matters because God is going to restore the earth for his faithful once it's been plundered beyond recognition.

 

That really scares me, actually, because while I figure the big picture is... well... bigger than I can comprehend, I still don't want to see that happen.

[des]

Yes, I think in the grand scale fo things we might agree. I don't think it is any kind of immediate near term thing. (Within 50 years say). What *could* happen, but as I say we know so little about the enormities involved in changing the planet (yes, we are changing it, regardless of whether or not you would agree with the whole of the global warming arguments). (There are arguments that say that increased emissions will increase cloud cover and thereby cool off the planet. But we don't know the ramifications of that. We only know we are pumping LOTS of junk

into the atmosphere, and are changing it. I don't know of any serious scientist alive who doesn't agree with that much. What we are doing, and how much is a matter of lots of debate. The policy of "waitiing til we know for sure", is a little like waiting til you know if a cancer is for sure going to kill you or not. Do you want to sit around and wait?) The thing I think we might in the short run is more hurricanes, more smallish changes in temp. resulting in increased draughts, flooding, etc.

Do we know if this is just part of a cycle that will right itself in tens to hundreds of years? We don't. I don't think there is anything like impending doom though.

 

As for progressives (and others) who do not believe in a "scientific end of the earth". Well there is no reason at all to believe that the earth will continue infinitely. After all the universe had a start. OTOH, that end would be long after there were people or anything else. Not so that you'all lose sleep but in billions of years hence the sun will exhaust its fissionable material and become a red giant, and swallow up the near by planets including earth. I'm not real worried as we will be long gone by then.

 

--des

[jamesAMDG]

I guess I failed to catch the attempt at humor.... often difficult in this forum..

 

Glad to hear that you aren't in favor of forcing peace upon peoples/nations via imperial military action.  Indeed, I feared you may've been one of those who champions the modern-day version of Pax Romana; i.e. George Jr's Pax Americana.  To my ears, Pax Romana refers to that which Chrisitianity seeks to liberate people from and to rid the world of.

 

This said, it seems odd that you prefer to see yourself primarily as a Catholic instead of as being a Christian - who happens to be a Catholic.  Keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Church pre-existed the Roman Catholic Church by many years so its not like the Roman Church is the end all and be all.

BrotherRog,

 

Indeed, I feared you may've been one of those who champions the modern-day version of Pax Romana; i.e. George Jr's Pax Americana.

 

The false peace of George W. Bush? Would that be the false peace of the people in Afghanistan who had their first election after the US liberated them from the theocratic tyranny of the fascist Taliban? Or it would it refer to the millions of Iraqis who got to vote for the first time EVER following the liberation of Iraq from the fascist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein?

 

This is not to imply that everything W has done is good, but the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan are both infintely better off under the American occupation then they weever where under their native tyrants and the evils of Islam.

 

I don't know about you, but I'll take the Pax Americana over the Pax Islama (I have no idea what Islam is in Latin and don't really feel like researching it right now)

 

This said, it seems odd that you prefer to see yourself primarily as a Catholic instead of as being a Christian - who happens to be a Catholic.

 

I prefer to refer to myself as a Catholic because the fullness of the Christian Faith subsists within the Catholic Church. Something taught since the time of the Christ and the apostles and recently re-iterated in the documents fo the Second Vatican Council "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, this holy Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim on earth, is necessary for salvation" (Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 14).

 

Besides, the word "Christian" has been so badly abused by Protestants, Orthodox, cultists and progressives that I prefer to use the proper title fo the Universal Church.

 

Keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Church pre-existed the Roman Catholic Church by many years

 

Is that so? So when the Orthodox left the Catholic Church (properly understood, the Catholic Church is Roman and Eastern, as it includes all those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, commonly known as the Pope) it was because they had existed before the Catholic Church huh? A few historical references would be nice if you plan to back this idea.

 

so its not like the Roman Church is the end all and be all.

 

No, the Roman Church isn't. But the Catholic Church is and it includes the Roman Church as I explained earlier.

 

pax Romana

jamesAMDG

 

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

 

p.s. - sorry about the lateness of this reply

[BrotherRog]

James,

1) the Church existed in the East long before it was ever established in Rome.

2) It seems that you are indeed an imperialist - pax Romana seems to suit you just fine.

 

Pax Christi,

 

Brother Rog

[BrotherRog]

Some links:

Hall of Church History—The Eastern Orthodox... "A vision ... Orthodox Christianity developed from the church of the Byzantine Empire. ...

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/orthodox.htm -

 

The origins of the Orthodox Church can be traced back continuously to the earliest Christian movement. So can the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Community, and many other Christian faith groups. Each has their own belief system about their group's origins. The following is based on the historical record, rather than on any one group's beliefs.

[and note how the Church is established in the East long before it ever reaches Rome]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_orthh.htm

[BrotherRog]

Another from a neutrual unbiased source:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy

[BrotherRog]

And yet another from an objective source. This is perhaps the most succint timeline and makes it most obvious that the Church was up and running in the East long before it was in Rome:

 

http://www.darkcoding.net/christianity.py

[jamesAMDG]

BrotherRog,

 

Where do I begin? Should it be with your ignoring of what I wrote about the Roman Catholic Church being part of the Catholic Church which includes the Roman or Latin rite as well as the non-Latin rites, usually called Eastern Rites? Maybe your choice of sources, like Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"?

 

sigh.

 

Maybe the best place to start is where you started (and seeing as I have a class in 15 minutes, I'll save the historical stuff until later this afternoon.

 

2) It seems that you are indeed an imperialist - pax Romana seems to suit you just fine.

 

You are an imperliast. Ahhh, the lasrt refuge of the left when they can't respond to an argument. I presented two cases where I believe that American intervention (under George W. Bush) has halped people in foreign lands. Two cases of people living under tyranny who no longer do so. I think that the citizens of these countries are much better off, and apparently so do they. The celebrations in Kabul (and elsewhere aroud the country) after the fall of the Taliban and the incredibly large numbers of Iraqis who voted DESPITE the threats of violence againt them from Islamo-fascists.

 

You declined to explain why this was not an accurate assement of the situation. You offered no other solution to the plight of these people. What would you have suggested?

 

Should the Taliban have been left in power? if so, how can this be justified from a social justice point of view (I am speaking specifically about the lack of free political expression, lack of religious freedom, extreme abuses against women, etc.)?

 

Should Saddam Hussein have been left in power? given his track record of using chemical weapons against minorities, religious repression, political totalitarianism, etc.

 

What does your compassion call for? What would you have told the Iraqis in Saddam's torture chambers? Are these people better off having been released from a totalitarian police state?

 

More on history later, but before you descend to insults (something that I think is below civilised, adult debate) I would appreciate if you answered these questions for me.

 

God Bless,

 

Pax Romana,

 

Victory in the Mosr Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

 

Imperially yours,

jamesamdg

 

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

[des]

Well I'm totally staying out of the Pax Romana argument. And just about the situation in Iraq. I think the invasion of Afganistan was much more justifiable. There was also a clear exit plan I think and that sort of thing.

 

OTOH, just because Sadaam Hussein was a very bad guy (which he was) doesn't necessarily justify the invasion. Initially , remember we were not told that that was the reason for the invasion. We were told (wrongly) that he had WMD and that he was allied with Al Kaeda. To say right now that the situation is great now, gee we got rid of this really bad guy-- well we don't know the end situation of Iraq. For all we know, in our arrogance, it could become worse. In terms of Al Kaeda we may be worse off, as we have set up an ideal trainign ground for terriorists. We certainly haven' t endeared ourselves in the eyes of many in the world, including Iraqis who mostly see us as an occupying force.

 

We were all happy to see Iraqis vote, but I would remind you we aren't seeing the end, don't know the end. And do the ends justify the means?

 

We also hopefully will nto go into all countries with bad guys running things or there will be no end in sight. We hear that GWB is making saber sounds at Iran and Syria. Do we know the ends in those countries. I think we ahve started a slippery slope in terms of first strike.

 

As to bad guys, are we goign to invade Tibet, which means of course China. Of course we will not. So we will only invade bad guys we can get away with and do.

 

 

--des

[BrotherRog]

To make it clear:

 

I actually supported retaliating against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan - such action met the criteria of Christian Just War theory (an admitedly sinful accomodation to the ways of the world).

 

However, the invasion of Iraq was simply an imperialistic exercise in realpolitik. Moreover, it is a MYTH to assert that it was an either/or situation; i.e. either wage full scale war with Iraq or "to do nothing" about Saddam.

 

Indeed, I, along with millions of others, was supportive of George Jr's initial tact toward Iraq (between Jan. - March 15 2003); i.e. the imposition of those sensible ultimatums upon Saddam. Saddam agreed to and was actively meeting EACH of those demands. He agreed to allow the UN wmd inspectors to resume their work, but this time with carte blanche access to any and all sites at any and all times; dismantling the al-Simud missiles, etc. Alas, George Jr. and Co. didn't expect Saddam to be so ammenable and so they flip-flopped and waged war any way. Thus, proving that George Jr. was acting in bad faith and LYING when he stated that "war with Iraq has not been predecided and it will only take place as a last resort after all other means have been attempted."

 

Those who are trying to say that "things are better in Iraq now" are unwittingly employing the Stalinist rationalization that "the means justify the ends."

 

And yet, it is in NO way clear that things are better in Iraq. Yes, they've had democratic elections, but it could well mean the alienation and of the Kurds and Sunnis due to the creation of a radical Islamist theocracy. Which in turn may well result in genocide and/or civil war.

 

Finally, by attacking Iraq in the way and manner that we did, we've stimulated increased recruiting for al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations; we've turned Iraq into a war zone and a hot bed for terrorism; and we've killed some 100,000 civilians - which means that there are many, many Iraqis who are not pissed at us and who will want to seek revenge.

 

George Jr's actions have resulted in placing an even LARGER "Kick Me!" sign upon our nation's backside.

 

Now, you ask what would I have done differently?

Answer:

I would have let the UN wmd inspection teams back in, as the UN was wanting (and which George Jr. falsely SAID that he backed). And then if any of the inspectors were either met with violence and/or denied access to a site, then we would have had FAR greater legal and moral standing to wage war on that nation - AND we would've had FAR more of the world's community on board with us.

 

If after 6 months of inspections, no wmds were found, we could still demand yet another round of inspections, and so on... and all the while, we would have MET our goal of ensuring that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors or to the U.S. - withOUT wasting so much manpower, resources, time, energy, money, and LIVES to acheive it!!

 

Had those 140,000 troops that George Jr. sent to Iraq been sent to AFGHANISTAN instead, we would surely have had FAR greater progress in capturing Osama and reining in al-Qaeda than we have by now. Moreover, a fraction of that money that we've wasted in Iraq would have allowed us to beef up security at our nation's borders, ports, airplanes, water treatment plants, food supplies, and power supplies. And it would have allowed us to make FAR more progress in securing the unsecured nuclear materials in the lands of the former USSR. AND we would have been in better position to respond to ACTUAL genocide in The Sudan.

 

Case closed.