Originally posted by treetalk
Lord - I have one.

Will you allow those of us going to heaven to urinate on George W Bush as he burns far far below us?

If yes, (and beer produces a constant supply of wee) is there any danger of drunkenly falling off clouds?

And lastly, would you mind letting in a few non-believers? They seem a hell (pardon me) of a lot more interesting to talk to ...

Here. . .Join me in a glass of wine my friend.

Originally posted by rubberjaw30
if love is a lie then i dont want to keep living...

Thats a circular argument. You believe in love because without it you would want to die. But you don't want to 'want to die' so you believe in love. But your faith in love is so weak that you must also believe in a whole fantastic mythological story in order to bolster your belief.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
But let's be realistic and be honest to ourselves. This lately, I'm not so sure if removing Saddam was the 'best' thing to do. I personally think that Iraq can't handle freedom and democracy. You really [b]need a dictator to keep things in order there! I'm not so well-versed with the statistics in Iraq, but I have a bad feeling that many, many more peop ...[text shortened]... therwise, everyone want to be the king! And these people will kill to achieve their goals.[/b]

I know its off topic, but I disagree with your suggestion that 'Iraq cant handle democracy.'
It is possible that Iraq cant handle a US lead dictatorship but that is hardly democracy. The main reason for the current violence is that a lot of the people are not happy about something. Surely if it is a democracy then the problems can be settled via a vote or parliament etc? Or are the divisions of opinion so deep that there can be no agreement on a middle ground?

I personally agree that Saddam deserved to die, but I don't think that the US had the right to make that decision, or that their way of going about it was the best option for the people of Iraq. I think Robert Mugabe deserves a similar fate but I don't see the US stepping in and 'helping out' there. I wish they would because that would hopefully mean a lot of American money coming into my home country of Zambia.

Originally posted by Queenofnight
Like I said in response to eatmybishop, I believe salvation is eternal and permanent. However, the people who were criminals on this earth, and who excepted Christ as their Savior, will no longer be crimminals in Heaven.
A child of the King,
~Queenofnight

Great point Queen. Look at the story of Christ suffering on the Cross. He was crucified between to criminals whom mocked him initially. Later before Christ gave his spirit up, one criminal on the Cross could see that Jesus was the Messiah and believed it. Jesus basically said that he will see him in Heaven. No matter what anyone has done, if they confess their sins, repent, and believe that Christ is Lord, they will be saved. Great posts to all of you....God Bless..... pure

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know its off topic, but I disagree with your suggestion that 'Iraq cant handle democracy.'
It is possible that Iraq cant handle a US lead dictatorship but that is hardly democracy. The main reason for the current violence is that a lot of the people are not happy about something. Surely if it is a democracy then the problems can be settled via a vote o ...[text shortened]... e that would hopefully mean a lot of American money coming into my home country of Zambia.

Not everyone really understand the true meaning of democracy. I believe Iraq has gone through the election process, which resulted in an elected president. It is a part of the so-called democratic system. But I don't think any amount of voting process or parliamentary decisions can make a difference in Iraq. We are dealing with frustrated, unhappy and vengeful people here, many of whom who consider hardly any more meaning to continue living. It is very difficult to fight people who have practically 'nothing left to lose' but so much to gain.

Therefore I am inclined to think that the best approach is to have a dictator to rule Iraq -- for now. Then slowly 'educate' the people and shift the power gradually to the people. I think China is doing that, and is still doing that now. So far, I believe it's working fine there. Not perfect!... just fine. Saddam did it differently. He held on to power with no intention to shift any power at all to the poeple. But that's just my opinion, I'm not a politician, so I might not be aware of other complications.