1 - 10 Next
Ah, genocide jokes are a sure fire way to tickle the funny bone.
What you propose is even more insane than the North Koreans. You are talking about killing 70+ million. Mao and Stalin would be so proud of you! Lets see what that would be like without euphamisms like "turn it into a parking lot." Consider a mall that has 10,000 shoppers per day. If you sat there with turrets and gunned down all 10,000, it would take 7000 days straight, or about 20 consecutive years to kill as many people as you nonchalantly propose.
Yes, but why these eternal treaties? Cold war ended over 20 years ago. South Korea is prosperous, North not so much. Why are we subsidizing the defence of so many countries across the globe. This is yet another regional conflict that we would not be involved in if we just left.
In response to:

The Drone Debate: A Matter of Trust

scottbushee Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:05 AM
Or you could read the Constitution? Since that document outlines the powers of the government, we don't really have to deal with hypotheticals. Neither Barack Obama, George Bush, nor any other president has the authority to order an American killed without due process. Youbcan say citizenship dissolves once someone takes up arms against the country, but it doesn't matter, because they would still have to be shown to have done that via due process.
In response to:

When AIPAC Went AWOL

scottbushee Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 1:35 AM
No, that's not what most conservatives say. They act like an attack on Israel is an attack on us. We have no obligation to defend Israel from Iran.
In response to:

When AIPAC Went AWOL

scottbushee Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 8:57 PM
One of the most frustrating things about the US/Israel relationship is that we do not have a fromal treaty with Israel. There is no legal reason why we should defend them. Anyone who disagrees with this, please name the treat that obligates us to defend them.
I think the bible guides our lives today, yes. So yes, I'd rather follow Jesus than the democratically elected Obama. I think Romans 13 is horribly misused. Especially by conservatives when there is a conservative president in office. Paul wrote that when there was mass persecution of Christians. Nero was probably on office. So its clearly not a blanket "obey the government." Compare acts 5:29. It says submit, not obey. Submit means you might be punished for disobedience,but you tkake the punishment.
But it is the question of whether or not you would sacrafice for your enemies? If salvation matters, and you, as a Christian, have as your chief calling to be an ambassador of that salvation, then under what circumstances should you deny anyone of the chance for salvation? Almost all Christians believe that nonbelievers go to hell when they die. Your killing of a nonbelievers sends them to hell. If you die, you go to heaven. But really, Christian pacifism is hardly the denial of self defence. We have God to protect us. Look at all of the weapons and armor he equips us with in Ephesians 6. And since our real enemies are spiritual, not flesh and blood, we should be fine.
Jesus came to die for us while we were still enemies. We follow him. Maybe we might someday be asked to do the same for our enemies? Why are you all so afraid of dying? Are you uncertain of the promise of Heaven?
So if it's our own government, and it's a republican, it's Romans 13 time. Did not Romans 13 apply to the revolution? The one quote you have from the bible is about two swords for 12 people. Was Jesus saying: Two of you will be ok, the other 10 are screwed? There are a couple of other circumstantial incidents in the NT, but they don't mean the ditch the Sermon on the Mount. Just out of curiosity, when He says to love our enemies, which ones should we actually love? Only really charismatic ones, who don't do 'really' bad stuff? Or is that an abstraction, and Jesus didn't really mean it? When He says "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person," do we just cut that part out of the bible because it's contrary to modern thought?
1 - 10 Next