Debunking Bushwhacking

The following is a little debate my daughter is involved in and I couldn't help myself but I got involved in it too. My statements are the first anonymous and at the end. To read the whole thing follow this link http://usdlaw.blogspot.com/2005/01/bushwhacking.html

At 9:24 PM, Anonymous said...
I'm sorry, but reading all of this is very disturbing. Chemist, you really need to understand bible theology better because Jesus came to this earth to die a horrible and gruesome death to save all of us from our pitiful and sinful selfs. But He also said "He is the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through him." It is only by us repenting and humbling ourselves to him and seeking forgiveness and then putting our trust in Him that we will be saved. He also said He came with a sward in His hand. Sure be nice to people is correct and helping others as well. But Jesus never said it was governments role to help the poor it is the churchs role to help the poor. That is why Bush's faith based initives are so important. There is a rehab center called Teen challenge that has a success rate of over 80% and it is because they preach the gospel and not some feel good fellings so no one is offended.I also believe that you and Kafka need to do a little more research into the truth behind Bush's policies. You have twisted many of them and you need to listen to both sides of the arguement befoire casting judgement. I will expound on this later I have to sign off.
At 4:30 PM, The Chemist said...
Anonymous, I guess I don't understand what your criticism of me proves, or what point it's supposed to make. Maybe I have to wait for you to expound on this later.I'm not thrilled with your statement that I don't understand Bible theology, but I'll respond to it. "Chemist, you really need to understand bible theology better because Jesus came to this earth to die a horrible and gruesome death to save all of us from our pitiful and sinful selfs. But He also said "He is the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through him." It is only by us repenting and humbling ourselves to him and seeking forgiveness and then putting our trust in Him that we will be saved."OK, I don't disagree with any of that. I can probably quote you chapter and verse where to find all those ideas in the Bible. Show me one post where I say something that contradicts your statements and I'll give you a cookie. " He also said He came with a sward (sic) in His hand."I assume that here you refer to Matthew 10:24, which says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." In the Bible, the Word of God is described as being "sharper than any double-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12) and a "sharp double-edged sword" coming out of the mouth of Jesus at the End Times (Revelation 1:16). Jesus here is saying that he came to bring the Word of God, which is capable of "penetrat[ing] even to dividing soul and spirit..." (Hebrews 4:12). For a look at Jesus' words on actual, literal violence, I refer you to Matthew 26:51-52, when Jesus is being arrested: "With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.'Put your sword back in its place', Jesus said to him, 'for all those who draw the sword will die by the sword'".Obviously you can see which one I think carries more weight. You can also see why I think that Jesus would not have approved of pre-emptive war, and why Bush is creating conflict between his words and the actions of the government that he controls."Sure be nice to people is correct and helping others as well. But Jesus never said it was governments role to help the poor it is the churchs role to help the poor. That is why Bush's faith based initives are so important. There is a rehab center called Teen challenge that has a success rate of over 80% and it is because they preach the gospel and not some feel good fellings so no one is offended."Great. I agree with you that faith-based programs are a good idea; I think that faith-based programs (like AA and many other drug treatment programs) do a great job. And I'm not very PC...I don't care if people get offended. And if you don't think it's government's role to help the poor, you must think that this falls to individuals to take care of. And I would agree with you; individuals should do more giving. Especially our President. As Joanna pointed out above, the man is worth billions, and yet he pledged only ten thousand dollars to the tsunami relief effort. He spends more on that every year in hay for the horses he's afraid of. "I also believe that you and Kafka need to do a little more research into the truth behind Bush's policies. You have twisted many of them and you need to listen to both sides of the arguement befoire casting judgement. I will expound on this later I have to sign off."I absolutely cannot wait. I can't speak for Kafka, but I would wager that I have read more about Bush's policies and the reasoning behind them than have a substantial fraction (say 3/4) of people that voted for Bush in the 2004 election. Question my opinions, but don't question the fact that I have come to them after hours of informed study. That goes for politics and religion.
At 5:53 PM, Amicus Curiae said...
Some administrative stuff-I really thought I'd never have to say this, especially on my own blog. But I think it's only courteous to own up to your posts...posting anonymously is not only cowardly but silly (are you that afraid of being stuck with your own words?). I say dumb things at times, but at least I own up to it (and I know others here would agree for themselves). Seriously folks, if you comment, then please make yourself known. I've never required commenters to be registered blogger users, but if people insist on coming up for guerilla commenting attacks then perhaps I will. Oy.
At 8:53 PM, B said...
I have been one of those posting as Anonymous. Is B any better? You speak of posting anonymously as cowerdly yet you yourself have a Pseudonym, Amicus Curiae. Isn't that just as anonymous? I thought the whole purpose for this type of blog was to spawn debate and encourage dissenting views to come to light. Does it really matter where they come from?
At 9:10 PM, Amicus Curiae said...
Golly, I didn't know I touched such a nerve. My point is that it's nice to have a sense of a commenter's personality...a point of reference if you will. When people post anonymously there's no way to have any continuity of identity for which to hold someone by those things that they say (for better or for worse...just to know where everyone stands; it helps lift the fog from the room). My other point was that posting anonymously is cowardly for the very reason that people can pop up and drop a few bombs without being identified with (and held accountable for) their remarks. So yes, this blog is to help foster debate, and this is best done when one has some sort of idea with whom he's debating. I have a very fine reason for posting under a pseudonym, but I'm not "anonymous." You know my personality, my opinions, and can better dialogue with me because you know whom to reference, etc. You can pick me, or any of these other folks, out of the room. But almost anyone can be "anonymous." That's why I respect "Poirot" so much--sure I have no clue who this person is, but I have a point of reference for all comments from him/her.
At 12:27 AM, kafkaesq said...
Anon #2- As you can see, having mulitiple anonymous posts in confusing, as AC said. You shouldn't be so quick to defend Bush against Chemist and I...until you do YOUR homework on what has actually transpired under his administration. Hint: look beyond talk radio and Fox news.I await your more specific response...
At 6:30 PM, The Chemist said...
It's been almost 2 days...you think he's coming back? I can't wait to hear exactly why I am so wrong about Bush's policies and about how we have "twisted" our descriptions of what Bush has done while in office.
At 9:04 PM, Garth said...
I am anonymous #2. Sorry for not coming back sooner. I have been extremely busy. Let's talk about Bush's policies and hopefully you will have an understanding of where I am coming from. You speak of the war and the number of soldiers dead about 1400 to date. While that is not good for those families it is a by product of war. Those who enter the service are well aware of the possibilities and most welcome the chance to serve their country and even die for their country. The true number you should look at is the millions of babies killed through abortions, something Kerry and most democrats favor. Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortions a procedure in which the baby is partially born feet first and while the head is still in the birth canal a scissors is jabbed in the back of their heads and the brains are sucked out to allow easy birth for the mother. This is an atrocity that is supported by most democrats but not Bush. Do you believe in the sanctity of life? Marriage, bush favors marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Just how God designed it in the bible. In 7 states in the last election the people also voted in favor of this by overwhelming margins. To support gay mariiages goes against God's will and desire for mankind. The bible speaks of homosexuality as an abomonation. I can see that you have a good knowledge of the bible. But do you believe that it is truth and fully God's word. If you do you must believe all of it not part of it. That doesn't mean we hate the people we just hate the sin. Just like any sin that I or anyone else commits.Taxes: Did you receive a tax refund a few years ago? Thanks to Bush he has reduced our taxes. Now if you want to pay more go ahead and send some money to the government. But I am going to keep mine so I can help stimulate the economy. The war: Take a look at what Saddam did to his people. Mass killings, dipped them in acid to name a few. Iraq was an outpost for terrorists along with Syria and Iran, a safe haven for them to carry on their evils. While we sat around for months waiting for the weapons inspectors to go into Iraq Saddam moved his WMD's out of the country. They are probably in Syria or Iran. America can no longer depend upon other nations to help out because France, Germany and Russia conducted weapons for oil programs, that is why they didn't want to go into Iraq and help us out. Did you support Clinton when he sent troops into Bosnia during those atrosities? If so you should support Bush.President Bush is a great leader. He has vision and direction and wants only the best for this nation. He won't sell out to special interest groups and he is a man of his word. What he says he will do he attempts to do it. Even Mohmar Khadafi (sp) knows this. Bush told him to give up his weapons or we would be coming in to his country. He gave them up because he knew Bush would follow through. Do you want a man of confiction or one who flip-flops?