God told me to invade Iraq

[MC Prussian]

swisspiss, put me on ignore, or if you cant bare to live without reading my posts, refrain from your ignorance, try to be positive dude.

God is a creation by Man to give a reason to all sorts of questions that cannot be answered.

God is a creation by Man to justify inhuman actions against people with a different race, colour, religion, belief, value system.

And this sort of world view it is still going strong. George Walker Bush and his entourage are a prime example.

[Rincewind]

That seems positive to me. Rational thought is always better than irrational thought.

[Thracian]

God is a creation by Man to give a reason to all sorts of questions that cannot be answered.

God is a creation by Man to justify inhuman actions against people with a different race, colour, religion, belief, value system.

And this sort of world view it is still going strong. George Walker Bush and his entourage are a prime example.

What utterly ridiculous generalisation. Are you some kind of anti-American/anti-Bush activist or what? Which nation/Government of saints do you represent? I can certainly say that Switzerland is hardly whiter than white with its reputation as money-laundering capital of the world and a damn sight more that I won't bother going into.

[MC Prussian]

What utterly ridiculous generalisation. Are you some kind of anti-American/anti-Bush activist or what? Which nation/Government of saints do you represent? I can certainly say that Switzerland is hardly whiter than white with its reputation as money-laundering capital of the world and a damn sight more that I won't bother going into.

What is so ridiculous about it?

I go to school with Americans on a daily basis and share an apartment with two of them. They're good folks. I'd certainly distinguish between American citizens and the American Government.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? I have thought a lot about the reason why religion(s) and God(s) are existing among us humans.

And why, oh why, Switzerland and "a damn sight"?

I don't understand you. Are you trying to bash others for having their own opinion(s)?

[Thracian]

What is so ridiculous about it?

I go to school with Americans on a daily basis and share an apartment with two of them. They're good folks. I'd certainly distinguish between American citizens and the American Government.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? I have thought a lot about the reason why religion(s) and God(s) are existing among us humans.

And why, oh why, Switzerland and "a damn sight"?

I don't understand you. Are you trying to bash others for having their own opinion(s)?

Okay, I'm listening. Just how did your thinking lead you to arrive at your conclusions in paragraph two "God is the creation of man etc...?

Regarding the "damn sight" I have no desire and see no purpose to be gained in slating the Swiss people or Swiss politics other than to point out that they have their own skeletons (as do we here in the UK). As I believe you are aware, It is a country I like very much in general but it is certainly not without its blemishes (which I see no point in discussing here).

[Gamesmaster]

Okay, I'm listening. Just how did your thinking lead you to arrive at your conclusions in paragraph two "God is the creation of man etc...?

he said by man, not of man. and i agree, man has made this symbol we know as god, a fictional charachter, like peter pan, but peter pan can fly

[Rincewind]

What Swissfox put is more or less what I put in my post but he did it in fewer words

[Guest]

Must admit, Swiss speaks sense to me. Gods and goddesses came into being to explain the unexplainable. Over time, these then became the law, and eventually the monotheistic religions came into being with stricter rules and regulations.

What amazes me is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same origin, it's the same God, yet throughout history they've fought over interpretations. This is why I believe society should be secular.

[Thracian]

Must admit, Swiss speaks sense to me. Gods and goddesses came into being to explain the unexplainable. Over time, these then became the law, and eventually the monotheistic religions came into being with stricter rules and regulations.

What amazes me is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same origin, it's the same God, yet throughout history they've fought over interpretations. This is why I believe society should be secular.

I didn't contest paragraph one about the unexplainable. But I still haven't heard SwissFox explain his contention in paragraph two.

Certainly my concept of God (explained elsewhere) would NEVER justify inhuman actions of any sort nor can I seriously believe that was the original concept of God (were there ever a single identifiable concept).

If SOME choose to abuse or manipulate the concept of God to evil ends then that only reflects the ruthlessness of some men in their pursuit of power and their disregard for humanity in doing that.

The problem is that the fanatics and the power chasers so often gain a disproportionate influence over the moderates and the many who would always wish to respect humanity and who abhor anything to the contrary (as I do).

This is probably at the core of my instinctive dislike of being manipulated by "authority". I don't like being used for the ends of so-called people in power and more so when I haven't had a say in the wisdom of such ends. And yet it happens every day.

"God" should be personal, not public, because "God" is personal. However can an argument about a nebulous concept be proved or otherwise? And therefore how on earth can that concept be justifiably used/abused by people in power claiming to represent God's will on Earth?.

It is people who are to blame (again) not the concept. People, sadly, will justify anything if it suits them.

[Guest]

It is people who are to blame (again) not the concept. People, sadly, will justify anything if it suits them.

Exactly. It annoys me when people blame a religious group for atrocities when it is a minority of extremists who are in fact responsible.

Why can't people live alongside each other harmoniously, accepting that although their own beliefs may differ, nobody is right or wrong in this instance?

[MC Prussian]

Exactly. It annoys me when people blame a religious group for atrocities when it is a minority of extremists who are in fact responsible.

Why can't people live alongside each other harmoniously, accepting that although their own beliefs may differ, nobody is right or wrong in this instance?

Religious violence always starts with a minority that claims to "know the truth" or that has been "told by God" to do so. The tricky thing is that they still need to convince a majority. If those fanatics succeed, it means that the political and social rules are not working properly. If they don't, the majority demonstrates reason. In most countries, it is called Democracy.

[Thracian]

Religious violence always starts with a minority that claims to "know the truth" or that has been "told by God" to do so. The tricky thing is that they still need to convince a majority. If those fanatics succeed, it means that the political and social rules are not working properly If they don't, the majority demonstrates reason. In most countries, it is called Democracy.

Still no answers to my questions but wow, don't you add 2 + 2 and get your own score.

That being your inclination, of course, you are forever likely to absorb all sorts of information - and then draw the wrong conclusions cos you've not investigated the truth of what you've absorbed deeply enough.

Example: If the majority is supposed to demonstrate reason how on earth did Hitler win power?

[MC Prussian]

Still no answers to my questions but wow, don't you add 2 + 2 and get your own score.

That being your inclination, of course, you are forever likely to absorb all sorts of information - and then draw the wrong conclusions cos you've not investigated the truth of what you've absorbed deeply enough.

Example: If the majority is supposed to demonstrate reason how on earth did Hitler win power?

How well do you read other people's posts? I clearly stated that "If those fanatics should succeed, then the political and social rules are not working properly".

Germany was a mess after WWI, politically highly instable, Political parties that rather fought against each other than supporting Democracy. The German population was terrified, apathic and later haunted by the "Dolchstosslegende", as well as the same old military leadership that remained from that World War. All of this, among many other reasons, was the basis for Hitler's success.

Next time, please read exact and then make appropriate comments.

[Thracian]

How well do you read other people's posts? I clearly stated that "If those fanatics should succeed, then the political and social rules are not working properly".

Germany was a mess after WWI, politically highly instable, Political parties that rather fought against each other than supporting Democracy. The German population was terrified, apathic and later haunted by the "Dolchstosslegende", as well as the same old military leadership that remained from that World War. All of this, among many other reasons, was the basis for Hitler's success.

Next time, please read exact and then make appropriate comments.

What political and social rules apply to a true democratic vote?

Wouldn't that be democracy with manipulation/propaganda/verbal coercion/political bribery etc?.

We've got that sort of democracy, certainly. Blair decided, for instance, that however he spun the debate he wouldn't win a vote on the Euro Constitution so we didn't have one. He waited and waited til someone else saved his blushes.

When he does allow a vote and calls an election he manipulates everything from the BBC downwards with the result that the self promoted good guy wins every time. Unfortunately that isn't what democracy is supposed to be - as you well know.

The Germans absorbed such information as they wanted to, drew the wrong conclusions in manypeople's retrospective view (as some people do) and gave power to Hitler.

And a lot of em wouldn't have complained, indeed, would have wallowed in his success, if only he hadn't lost.

How had the protective political and social rules failed? Are you saying they really wanted someone else but not enough wanted the same someone else?

You seem to suggest democracy works if the political and social rules, the propaganda/manipulation (however soundly reasoned) are successful and we elect the "right" guy but doesn't work if the manipulation/propaganda for the "right" guy isn't successful.

Yet I thought, theoretically, that democracy allowed for a free vote - for people to choose the guy of THEIR choice.

Bullshit of course. But I thought that was the theory. And Germany's choice was Hitler. It doesn't say a lot for democracy really. Even what you think of as being democracy.

Your point about reading "exact" is accepted, it may surprise you to know.

I might remind YOU that you still haven't had the good grace to answer my questions.

[MC Prussian]

What political and social rules apply to a true democratic vote?

Wouldn't that be democracy with manipulation/propaganda/verbal coercion/political bribery etc?.

We've got that sort of democracy, certainly. Blair decided, for instance, that however he spun the debate he wouldn't win a vote on the Euro Constitution so we didn't have one. He waited and waited til someone else saved his blushes.

When he does allow a vote and calls an election he manipulates everything from the BBC downwards with the result that the self promoted good guy wins every time. Unfortunately that isn't what democracy is supposed to be - as you well know.

The Germans absorbed such information as they wanted to, drew the wrong conclusions in manypeople's retrospective view (as some people do) and gave power to Hitler.

And a lot of em wouldn't have complained, indeed, would have wallowed in his success, if only he hadn't lost.

How had the protective political and social rules failed? Are you saying they really wanted someone else but not enough wanted the same someone else?

You seem to suggest democracy works if the political and social rules, the propaganda/manipulation (however soundly reasoned) are successful and we elect the "right" guy but doesn't work if the manipulation/propaganda for the "right" guy isn't successful.

Yet I thought, theoretically, that democracy allowed for a free vote - for people to choose the guy of THEIR choice.

Bullshit of course. But I thought that was the theory. And Germany's choice was Hitler. It doesn't say a lot for democracy really. Even what you think of as being democracy.

Your point about reading "exact" is accepted, it may surprise you to know.

I might remind YOU that you still haven't had the good grace to answer my questions.

I don't know how you can draw connections between Germany in the 20ies and 30ies of the last century and nowadays Great Britain... Two different time periods and the circumstances both countries found/find themselves in were/are very, very different, too.

Do you suggest Tony Blair would start a war against France? Or kill unwanted, innocent people within the country? THAT is ridiculous!

You questionned my thoughts concerning the line

"God is a creation by Man to justify inhuman actions against people with a different race, colour, religion, belief, value system."

The American War On Terrorism is a modern Christian war against Islam.

If we go back in history, WWII was started by the Germans to compensate for the losses in WWI. Later on, all sorts of unwelcome minorities were killed: Jews, Communists, Liberals, even Christians.

Or how about the Holy Crusade? Or the Inquisition?

[Thracian]

I don't know how you can draw connections between Germany in the 20ies and 30ies of the last century and nowadays Great Britain... Two different time periods and the circumstances both countries found/find themselves in were/are very, very different, too.

Do you suggest Tony Blair would start a war against France? Or kill unwanted, innocent people within the country? THAT is ridiculous!

You questionned my thoughts concerning the line

"God is a creation by Man to justify inhuman actions against people with a different race, colour, religion, belief, value system."

The American War On Terrorism is a modern Christian war against Islam.

If we go back in history, WWII was started by the Germans to compensate for the losses in WWI. Later on, all sorts of unwelcome minorities were killed: Jews, Communists, Liberals, even Christians.

Or how about the Holy Crusade? Or the Inquisition?

Regarding Tony Blair I haven't actually suggested that, but truthfully nothing would surprise me about Tony Blair if it served his purposes. He got involved in starting a War in Iraq which has ended with thousands of innocents dead over there and a few more in consequence over here. I still fail to see the justification because it was only, inevitably, going to provoke reaction - and there is now no telling where that reaction will lead.

Maybe (especially from an American perspective) the American War on Terrorism has become a Chrstian fight against Islam (a cannot speak for the Americans) but there are many here seem to think it is more a war over oil, access to oil and to some extent a war against provocation by Bin Laden's organisation and against the Islam attacks on Western influence in the Arab world (and beyond to some extent).

I do not think the English generally regard it is a Christian war at all really. Most of the Christians I know are against it, especially the war in Iraq but they do get irritated by the seeming determination of Moslem fundamentalists to blanket the world with their beliefs.

As I've said before, men may use God as an excuse for all sorts but that is the fault of men not God and the fault of those who are too easily influenced by the evil persuaders (or all kinds).

And, the same applies with the Holocaust and The Inquisition (I know little of the Crusades). Both horrified right thinking godly people. The former, in my view was about one man's lust for power (with the backing of equally loathesome opportunists) and the Inquisition was about the Church's desire for absolute power over people. It was NOT about God, nor was God created to accomodate the Nazi ideal. It was about men with ruthless ambition for power, for money and for control.

Godly people were disgusted - as well as being terrified - but it wasn't the reason God was conceived as an idea/nebulous entity. Once the idea was established and had grown in strength then there were opportunist men who would take advantage of people's godliness for their own ungodly ends.

God can have real value - but not when man abuses the concept of God.

[MC Prussian]

Regarding Tony Blair I haven't actually suggested that, but truthfully nothing would surprise me about Tony Blair if it served his purposes. He got involved in starting a War in Iraq which has ended with thousands of innocents dead over there and a few more in consequence over here. I still fail to see the justification because it was only, inevitably, going to provoke reaction - and there is now no telling where that reaction will lead.

Maybe (especially from an American perspective) the American War on Terrorism has become a Chrstian fight against Islam (a cannot speak for the Americans) but there are many here seem to think it is more a war over oil, access to oil and to some extent a war against provocation by Bin Laden's organisation and against the Islam attacks on Western influence in the Arab world (and beyond to some extent).

I do not think the English generally regard it is a Christian war at all really. Most of the Christians I know are against it, especially the war in Iraq but they do get irritated by the seeming determination of Moslem fundamentalists to blanket the world with their beliefs.

As I've said before, men may use God as an excuse for all sorts but that is the fault of men not God and the fault of those who are too easily influenced by the evil persuaders (or all kinds).

And, the same applies with the Holocaust and The Inquisition (I know little of the Crusades). Both horrified right thinking godly people. The former, in my view was about one man's lust for power (with the backing of equally loathesome opportunists) and the Inquisition was about the Church's desire for absolute power over people. It was NOT about God, nor was God created to accomodate the Nazi ideal. It was about men with ruthless ambition for power, for money and for control.

Godly people were disgusted - as well as being terrified - but it wasn't the reason God was conceived as an idea/nebulous entity. Once the idea was established and had grown in strength then there were opportunist men who would take advantage of people's godliness for their own ungodly ends.

God can have real value - but not when man abuses the concept of God.

Kudos to this excellent statement. I think we're on the same page now.

[Guest Gist]

Tottally agree. Because alot of voting americans believe in the god rubbish, if bush says god tol him, how can those voters say hes wrong.

They cant

[Scarby]

lets hope god also told Bush to jump of a cliff

[Thracian]

Kudos to this excellent statement. I think we're on the same page now.

We probably are on the same page but not quite the same place - cos that's not quite the same as God being the creation of man to justify ...etc" because the subsequent actions were a follow on abuse of the concept etc...). However I think we BOTH see each other's points more clearly now.

[Guest]

lets hope god also told Bush to jump of a cliff

That's almost what I said to Mr Lisa when we first heard this story.

[MC Prussian]

We probably are on the same page but not quite the same place - cos that's not quite the same as God being the creation of man to justify ...etc" because the subsequent actions were a follow on abuse of the concept etc...). However I think we BOTH see each other's points more clearly now.

*Shakehands*