This was indeed a pleasure to watch. Thanks!

You ask why U.S. evangelicals are the most pro-Iraq war. My take is that evangelicals are Old Testament literalists and find war there to be a prominent demonstration of being on "God's side."

BTW, Alex, did you mean "non-U.S. evangelicals" or U.S. non-evangelicals? The first would imply they are not U.S. citizens.

Yep, evangelicals outside the U.S. There are millions around the world!

Very good post. Thanks for sharing! Here are a couple of lines from the video that particularly caught my attention:

"Don't they know that 'God bless America' is not in the Bible?"

"Why is it that followers of the Prince of Peace are easiest to convince to go to war?"

"Let's not pit unborn children against poor children--this is the wrong battle."

"Supporting low income moms is one of the best ways to reduce the abortion rate."

Thanks, Alex for the clarification. Since the article (sorry I can't get video with dial-up) seemed to be addressing America, I assumed the evangelicals questioned were also Americans. Weren't most of non-U.S. opposed to the war, not just evangelicals?

It has been interesting, but not surprising to have determined that Fresno and Shasta counties were the ONLY ones in California that preferred Romney over McCain in the GOP. That area of Fresno county is strongly Mormon.

Speaking of Romney, he just bowed out.

Great video segment. I'll be hearing Wallis speak at an event at City Hall in Los Angeles tomorrow at a "brown-bag" event that certain groups were invited to. I'm really hoping I get to engage with him about his recent book. I've not finished it yet, but I agree that it's nice to see him moving past the polarity of Left and Right.

Glad that y'all liked it.

Yeah, it's interesting to see -- even on this site -- to see folks employing those old frames. But apparently getting things like the Iraq war wrong does not make some folks reevaluate their world view.

It's really interesting to see how folks on the Left and Right rethinking their past choices during this election.

Elaine, you're getting right at the point. A majority of Biblical literalists outside the U.S. opposed the Iraq invasion, while a majority of American Biblical literalists supported the war. The same is increasingly true with global warming. It's not the text itself, but the world view that we bring.

As David Larson as shown there are actually a variety of literalist hermeneutics, and some folks in America cloak their nationalist fears and misunderstanding of science inwhat they think is the text, but in fact this goes much deeper. They fear that they have to give up that easy-to-read foundation, but in fact, more and more Christians are seeing that folks with the same foundation can draw different conclusions, based not on a level of sinfulness, but on security with Otherness.

We all need to read more current work by N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, and Wendell Barry and less of the humanists vs. God polemicists of the 80s and 90s.

Alex, when the majority of Biblical literalists outside the U.S. oppose the Iraq war (and no doubt, Afghanistan), does that indicate that their positions are based more on geography and national culture than religion?

Isn't the great American "religion" based more on pride of country and superiority than on religious views? Aren't we Americans first and church goers (Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, etc.) second?

The disdain for the USA -- hatred even -- that continues to ooze from the pages on this site amazes me no end. Just don’t get how this is supposed to represent “Christian” thought. So let me say that I was probably far less impressed by this rhetoric that those here. And how can it be such a mystery why US evangelicals support the war? They have a very different history -- don’t they -- being Americans? Has everyone forgotten the motto “Live Free or Die” which birthed this country? That this very Liberty to think/speak/worship as one’s conscience dictates was seen as emerging from our very humanity as beings created by God? Who understands better than an American the price OF that Freedom? We worry that we do not think like the European evangelicals? Why would we? Did they spill their blood to secure our Liberty? No…

Yet it is now seen as fashionable -- even a “great awakening” -- to mock it. The hatred of this war is not a great awakening at all; it is, rather, more like the great drifting off to sleep of a weak and forgetful and frightened and complacent people. Corpulent and comfortable, she has forgotten that peace and freedom comes at a price; and, in the human history of the USA, that price is payed in human blood. Blood which is casually mocked by those who do not have the vision to see the danger that lies ahead.

OK OK OK… That is not me, Bob Rigsby, but merely how this mythical “American Evangelical” -- who never seems to grace us with his presence here -- might have responded. Though I do think his hypothetical visit serves as some sort of balance to the simpleness of what is offered here…

Does no one here see that all their detesting of the war only works in the context of a pro-war policy to hate? The latest evidence of this dynamic is the cover story on the Economist...

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10608425

Titled:
Has Iran Won?
subtitled:
“The ayatollahs have wriggled off the nuclear hook, but there is a way to put them on again”

Here we have the astonishing alarm -- by a magazine that is about as far from neocon as you can get -- at the duplicity and lies of a very dovish twist of facts in the NIE report. So eager to please their enlightened European critics, these NIE doves, so eager to discredit the current administration, wrote a willfully deceptive document. Except the Euros are not pleased at all it seems! Such dovishness has consequences; and they don’t LIKE them! For it seems that the only way the anti Bush doctrine makes any valid sense is to have a viable and vigorous Bush doctrine IN PLACE against which to mutiny! They bash Bush, all the while NEEDING Bush!

Read this article -- and maybe read kurtz too if you want...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzU0MjMyMGZlMWQwNjg3OTUxMjA1YTRjODd...

And this is the precise sort of pathetic dynamic Wallis stumbles into -- it seems to me. He is SOOOO anti war…. But listen to him…
Does he not STILL assert that we are arrayed against “evil”?? (this might be code for -- what?)
And does he not hint, if not openly admit, that such a thing as “just war” is in fact conceivable and real??
It seems to me that ALL he is saying is that he draws the line in a little different place than does George Bush. For he STILL allows that it may come to war --- just not THIS one… You WILL have to fight a war eventually perhaps, just not this one...
Please. This is no great awakening; it is rather a big yawn.

How will I know a great awakening?? When Wallis wakes up and eschews ALL violence! Violence is NEVER in God’s ultimate plan. THAT will require faith which few now possess. Wallis straddles the line, plays politics with his religion, and is unable to take the step that ALL Christians must take eventually; TOTAL renunciation of violence. Even at the obvious risk of submitting to one’s own annihilation. Wallis has not come close to doing this. Why? because he knows it won’t sell; it’ll be seen as weak. And besides, we all know that violence eventually saves us -- right??

Sorry all: but this is not the messiah you had hoped for.
Bring me a really brave man of faith -- will you? And I will follow him with you.
A little less smugness among you anti-war types would go a long way to enhance your credibility… I want to know: just how anti war ARE you??

And for a little more perspective, (not necessarily mine) another essay I ran across recently…

Why American Evangelicals are the West’s Last Hope??

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/why_american_evangelicals_are.htm...

Novel take on what has been written. "Live Free or Die" is New Hampshire's motto, and the size and topography of that state gave rise to that saying. Most states or countries in mountainous terrain can afford to ignore their neighboring citizens. Why is Switzerland still not joining most of Europe with the euro? Why are the Basques and Balkans such freedom-loving people? It goes with the geography.

'Sfunny, I hadn't noticed a disdain for America. Or, is that a sixth sense? When we can no longer criticize our government, we will have become a dictatorship. Those countries living under a dictator dare not say anything against their leaders.

There are millions of reasons the Europeans detest war: It has usually been fought on their turf; unlike Americans whose only war after that for Independence was an internal conflict, the countries of Europe have suffered centuries, even millennia of war long before America was invaded and taken from the natives.

Whose liberty are Americans fighting for in Afghanistan? Iraq? Do they even understand what liberty means? They would simply like to have the services we take for granted: electricity, sewage disposal, security, jobs, education.

In WW II, our allies, Europeans, fought for their liberty, but also to prevent the Nazis from taking over all the civilized world, including the U.S. They fought for a number of years before we came to their aid. Thre is no reason to expect that they should come to our aid in the Middle East, especially when this administration said they weren't needed and we could go it alone. Don't you remember?

Bob, do you believe that the invasion of Iraq is a "just war"? Is there a legitimate Christian excuse or reason to engage them in war when we were not attacked by them? When do you justify violence?

Personally, I'm proud to be anti-Bush. He has almost destroyed America's moral position around the world; given us a debt that our great grandchildren will still be paying, caused the death of nearly 4,000 soldiers for what?
Is Iraq now a much better nation? No established government; no constitution; spotty security; internal civil war between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds with hatred that goes back more than a thousand years, and we had the audacity to think we could magically turn it into a democracy?

When you speak of NIE lies, the lists of lies that this administration has attempted to pass off on the public would take many pages. No. l was the lie that Iraq had WMD and repeated so many times and so often, that there are still a great number of people who still believe it; proving that a lie repeated often enough becomes "truth."

We should be more worried about the extreme religious right in their endeavor to gain control and impose their positions by law.

If it's a choice between American Evangelicals and atheists, the latter will be the ones to protect our liberty, not the first.

Per poster Bob Rigsby- "........peace and freedom comes at a price; and, in the human history of the USA, that price is payed in human blood."

So assuming we are continuing to purchase peace and freedom in Iraq, the cost to date is:
3,952 US soldiers lives,
29,000 US wounded,
80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths
$492,777,507,741 (slightly more by the time you read this)

This seems kind of expensive considering, as it turns out, Iraq was never really a threat to our "peace and freedom".

Interesting Bob.

Not the three "Oh My Gods" of your recent black theology response, but about as theologically selfish.

"Disdain" and "even hatred" for America? You imply that these apply. Are you man enough to accuse me of that directly? And prove it. (I'd love to show your attempt to my WWII vet Grandfather or my immigrant relatives on my mom's side.) Are you being logical, or just spewing from some vague feeling you get when you realize that some folks aim their Christ-following, not their missiles, roughly middle-eastward.

Let me make this clear. I argued against attacking Iraq. I and even more folks now -- some right in '02, '03 -- now see the same sort of rush -- rash and fearful -- to strike another country. The threat is inflated by the very rhetoric that the Economist and the National Review (both wrong on Iraq) employ. It is this ideology -- free trade at all costs, including life -- that gets America into these messes of late. Instead of reading websites, I recommend books, with footnotes. And not Michael Crichton, who I recall you used in in one of your old denials of global warming science. Do you still think that the U.N. is a part of a socialist plot?

Here's your American Thinker at work: valuable information is gained from water boarding "every time it has been tried." False.

Having once thought along similar lines, I can understand your worries and insecure prolixity. It should be troubling to realize, as Wallis points out, that it's not the Bible that's your foundation, but fear of the Other. Realizing that conservative evangelicals around the world would oppose your arguments means that one of you is putting something above scripture. And they got Iraq right.

You love the feeling of national superiority more than Christ's clear words about peace and violence thus you use words like hate to describe other Christians.

Let me introduce you to evangelical Frank Schaeffer, who probably will save more lives than Vasco's silly little screeds about the Left having a secret plan to "subvert the war on Terror."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_8...

In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company's interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.

The so-called evangelical leadership -- Dobson, Robertson et al. also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves to help women and babies, their evangelical "leaders" did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and represent themselves as power-brokers to the craven politicians willing to kowtow to them.

I assume then that you -- like your arguments that people of color must lose their identity in Christ -- have an equally clear me-o-centric explanation of why you love our country more than Other Christian citizens here.

Hey Alex:

Amazing the ability I have to get under your skin huh?
And now to the list of epithets you have given me is theologically selfish. Lovely. I’ll add it to the ever lengthening file.

But can I ask you how it is you so often and so badly miss the point of what I’m saying?
You clearly have not a clue what I was saying over on the Black theology thread.
Read these words; the same idea is expressed here as what I was trying (obviously not well enough for you though) to express...
“Although Jews, Greeks, Chinese, Africans, Indians, barbarians, and others used to be all for and by themselves—each in their own quarters looking out for their own interests—when they heard the sweet and radically inclusivist teachings of Christ, they began climbing over the walls, making friends, BECOMING ONE BODY.”
This is of course By Samir Selmanovic -- this weeks Sabbath School commentary.

And boy did you miss the point of THIS response. (And sorry you didn’t appreciate the words of my visiting “American Evangelical.” I’ll keep him out of it next time.) You piled verbiage upon verbiage to condemn a stance I don’t come close to having and a person I don’t come close to being. (It seems that, for you, it is ME who must play the role of dreaded “Other”??)

The point, to repeat, is illustrated by the duplicity of, in this case, Europeans (just these particular Euros who think this way, OK) who freely criticize the possible future use of violence against Iran as utterly unwarrented, yet when that very option is forced off the table by the deceptive NIE report they now cry that their diplomatic efforts can only WORK while the implicit threat of violence remains!

And what I DID say is that I see much the same sort of thing going on among my liberal (and a few conservative eg Cliff G) friends here who are very anti war. Because not a one of you has been willing to walk the path OF TOTAL non-violence. With me. Do you think I’m kidding about this Alex -- just because I’m a conservative? Why DON’T you see that the Christians ONLY proper place is as TOTAL non-violent witness? Does the fact that everyone here (if I missed anyone who is willing to raise his hand with me -- great!) most likely DOES have a point beyond which, if pushed there, they WILL employ violence, therefore mean that your screeds on “fear of Other” now applies to THEM?

Alex: if you don’t HAVE an answer to what I’m saying, that’s fine. But don’t attack me for saying something I’m NOT saying. Pretty please?? Just tell me now WHY you are afraid to walk the path of TOTAL non-violence? Is it because you are afraid? Have too little trust in God? Hey; join the crowd.

Alex: you might find this interesting (but maybe not; so firmly am I ensconced in your pantheon of racist, bigoted, knuckle-dragging hayseeds) but I had a long discussion yesterday with my Muslim partner about the war and the US involvement in the Middle East. (He and I and one of my Jewish partners all own land together out West. Which wouldn’t be possible if I’m the bigot you make me out to be...) And our points of agreement were far far more than were our points of disagreement. We both had made a lot of incorrect assumptions about each other.

Oh -- and PS: can you PLEASE -- once and for all -- just give us a list of spectrums blogs APPROVED READING?? I’d rather guess it amounts to the stuff ALEX has read???
Hmmmmmm….

Happy Sabbath all...

Bob- I'm confused. Do you support the US invasion of Iraq or "TOTAL non-violence"? Hard to tell if you are just here to play devil's advocate or you truly have a personal position.

Interesting again Bob. Perhaps the need to be clearer rests with you. That's four commenters in a row, all reading you above as advocating violence.

By selfish, I mean statements like this:

"Who understands better than an American the price OF that Freedom?"

Like Anonymous above, I'm puzzled by you attacking doves while claiming to be one. The three links you supplied certainly don't support your TOTAL nonviolence stance.

I just hope that your not of the these both ways thinkers, that war brings peace, which worked so well in Viet Nam and Iraq.

Did you support the Iraq war?

Alex:

I take your response (actually, lack of response) to mean you either can’t answer my question, or don’t want to. Either way, why not just admit it?
And while you’re at it, it would be really helpful if you could tell us when you WOULD use violence. Since I’ve never heard you disavow it, I assume you believe it’s got a proper place. Well guess what; for me that places you in not too different a place than GWB who also has a place for violence… Just that it’s not the same place as yours. And yet clearly you see yourself as by far his moral superior.

Again, have you commented on the point I told you I was trying to make?
No.
Why not?

And oh -- if I have 4 people write to you and tell you they understood me, but not you, would that sort of even things up? (actually felt pretty good when someone came up to me in church and told me in effect “That Alex really doesn’t have a clue what you said on the Black Theology thread does he??” And he usually agrees with you -- and disagrees with me! But he does at least know what I’m saying… Interesting huh??)

I bet you really do think I bring the ideal of non-violence here to embarrass you -- don’t you. Can’t you at least throw a tiny bone my way and acknowledge it’s a great dream to have? And Anonymous (are we up to Anonymous #50 by now?? I quit counting a while back) is quite right in being confused by me. Guess he’s not read my inner conflictedness re: violence in past threads… but you have Alex. And YOU know it’s a place I really want to go -- a place I really want to live -- but it seems more and more clear you don’t know how to get there either… if in fact you dream of it too…

Oh PS: I really was impressed with Wallis claim that he wanted to get a plank in the Democratic platform re: abortion. THAT position really does seem to represent going beyond the liberal/conservative divide. I do think he falls far short though in his treatment of the war...

cheers...

Bob,
Maybe your computer doesn't recognize lower case letters:

DO YOU SUPPORT THE US INVASION OF IRAQ?

(and can you limit your answer to a simple yes or no?)

Brian,

It seems we also have Bob asking Alex a simple yes or no question, "Would you (Alex) ever be in favor of use violence in the form of military or other conflict?"

Perhaps both can answer the question?

Hey Brian:
Like the sarcasm; SWEET! Rather reminds me of myself…

Sorry to ignore your question so long (another of the rudenesses routinely seen on this site… Elaine seems best at answering all questions asked her...) -- minor family crisis called. (not minor to the person involved though…)

But the other reason I didn’t answer the question is that, if you understand what I’m talking about, you’ll see that it’s essentially irrelevant. I’ll try to explain.

Note though Brian: your question is rather different from that of Alex. Here’s the answers to both of them:

DID I support the war?? YES! a chest thumping, hand over heart, full of just fury and righteous indignation yes…

Your question, DO I support the war?? No. A much more tentative, subdued, and worried no. Subdued and worried because I also think it the height of irresponsibility to just walk away now. As unthinkable as leaving the OR while caring for a patient when it becomes obvious that we never should have operated in the first place.

But all this accepts a view of reality that I find entirely wrong. (My movement from acceptance of the war to where I am now occurred in the context of my trying to figure out if God really does have a place for violence in His universe… see prior posts) The way Alex has framed the question here, and other questions before it on other threads, is that there are two paradigms to choose from. In this case, there is the Excess violence paradigm; Bush/Cheney/Rummy evil, overdone, unwarranted, irrational violence. The other paradigm, to which Alex and many others here grandly insist that we are called, is that of just the right kind and amount of violence. Lets call it the paradigm not of excess violence, but of “Goldilocks” violence; not too much, not too little, but just right. So leave Bush’s paradigm and have a great awakening and move to the Wallis “Goldilocks” paradigm.

What I’ve been trying to say is that this does not represent reality at all. For in fact, the above two paradigms are merely subheadings under the paradigm of “Violence”. Both are paradigms “of the world” in that violence has a rightful and proper place here. It cannot imagine not having a role. The only question is “how much”. So the OTHER paradigm from which to choose is really that of NON-Violence. This is the “NOT of this world” paradigm. IT is the paradigm of God; and it’s witness was Christ Himself who came not to show us how to choose the better of violent options, but came to show exactly the cost and value of HIS paradigm. Part of waht I was trying to say over on the "Torture" thread...

Thus the question I asked Alex has far more relevance to me because when I ask if one would EVER be in favor of using violence I’m distinguishing between the paradigm of Violence and the paradigm of NON-Violence. All your question does is seek a quibble over exactly how much violence I’m willing to encourage. And Alex demonstrates he doesn’t see the enormity of the difference when he comments “Like Anonymous above, I'm puzzled by you attacking doves while claiming to be one.”
The point being that there is no such thing as a “dove” (in the way I think it should be used) who is willing to use violence. I was pointing out that when “dove” is used in the context of too much violence or just the right amount of violence, any dove can and will eventually become a hawk. Including Alex. Which means he is stuck in the paradigms of this world. And has yet to choose the paradigm of Non-violence.

And yes; this is very strange and unfamiliar territory for me. And no, I don’t begin to have all the answers. But I do see clearly that the movement from what one considers excess violence to a “just right” amount of violence is not really a “great awakening” at all. The truly great awakening is the one which calls to the “not of this world” paradigm. NON-Violence… And you all here on this site are wonderful confirmation of how hard it really is to choose that paradigm. For no one is willing to do it! (At least publicly.)

I think we have the labels wrong! It is not evangelicals per se it is Scofieldites many who call themselves evangelicals without an ounce of Good News in the bunch who are calling the shots in American international affairs.

They think they are forcing God's hand while smugly assuming they will be snatched away!

SDA eschatology is only a smidgen better in that it is less hostile and/or aggressive but still away ahead of Revelation.

Now a story for David. One evening at dinner the door bell rang. I answered the door. A man was selling cemetary plots. I said, "We didn't need one". He replied: "Do you have one already? I said, "No!" He said, "Everyone needs one!" I said, "We don't we will be raptured." He looked stunned. I closed the door and returned to the table. Betty said, "Why did you say that?" I said, "I bet he was ready for any excuse but that one, he'll go home and toss and turn all night trying figure out an answer."

P.S. We have a plot in Westover right next to the Augusta National Golf Course just about due South of par 5 # 15. Tom

Well Bob,
You responded like the responsible gentleman you are. Now is it Alex's turn?

Tom,
I have driven by there. Pretty... Rest in Peace...but no sooner than necessary!

Thanks Pat.

We are in no hurry. Tom

Ah yes, Pat tells me to "get a life" when I defended the reasoning powers of married women ("Women are obviously superior at creating confusion...how do you explain and counter a feeling?!" always the gentleman, that Pat), then while I'm out living my weekend, he adds little to the conversation but an urge to rush an answer to that "simple" question: whether humans should ever use violence.

While we're all asking each other questions, Pat, in what ways do you disagree with Bob?

To share my understanding: Yes, there are times when violence is a moral good, precisely in those situations when non-violence leads to greater violence, particularly toward the innocent. I believe that non-violence is an achievable goal for humanity and I aim to embody non-violence in my actions and voting choices, but there still remains times when violence must be stopped, sometimes by force. (This involves a complex moral and, importantly, an epistemological calculus.)

For a variety of reasons, in part because I was reading beyond the National Review (nice Mitt endorsement!) and the American"Thinker" I didn't make Bob's mistake of supporting the Iraq disaster. I was reading people like Juan Cole and Robert Wright and Homer and I detailed my reasons in a debate at Andrews in front of 160 students and faculty. I wasn't watching cable news very much either. Rather than root my ideals in the abstractions of arguing "TOTAL"ity further here, I prefer to read the perspectives of compassionate, tough-minded journalists who write from the ground.

I recommend three articles:

George Packer in World Affairs "Over Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the Abstraction"
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/winter-2008/full-iraq.html

Sy Hersh in the New Yorker "A Strike in the Dark"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh/

Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books Iraq: The War of the Imagination
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=19720

Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you now argue that you were for the Iraq war before you were against it. I've noticed a habit in swinging rhetoric as well as poorly supported positions on Intelligent Design, denying global warming, and in favor of broadly applying Islmofascism. Of course you wouldn't think they are poorly supported, but let's look at a few examples.

I'm sure your motives in supporting the Iraq war arose from your good heart, but I wonder about your care with logic.

In thinking about your rhetoric, I pulled up this old jewel of yours attacking the IPCC on its global warming consensus:

http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/02/what_can_c...

"except this is a United Nations organization. And that is the most corrupt, political, socialist organization I can think of!"

Of course, you're never provided evidence for these three assertions. And this is why you distrust the IPCC? Listen to Matthew Lee who actually covers the UN everyday. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8496

This was my reply back then:

All that stuff about the UN being a socialist organization needs some evidence because I'm familiar with the old 50s anti-pinko John Birch conspiracy theories, the 70s Nixon is a tool of internationalists, and the militia movements' worries about the NWO and I'd hate to think that you really believe that the 145 governments including the Bush administration that take global warming increasingly seriously are all part of an international Marxist cabal. Is everyone at the UN who doesn't believe like you a socialist? If not, then where does the pinko scare stop?

With your hyperbole, I find that you discredit yourself on these political questions, but more importantly: How do you know that your quoting of global warming deniers like Ross or Crichton won't lead you to the same mistakes in judgment that led you to supporting the Iraq invasion?

And while we're reading your language closely, can you square these two recent statements?

They have a very different history -- don't they -- being Americans? Has everyone forgotten the motto "Live Free or Die" which birthed this country? That this very Liberty to think/speak/worship as one's conscience dictates was seen as emerging from our very humanity as beings created by God? Who understands better than an American the price OF that Freedom? We worry that we do not think like the European evangelicals? Why would we? Did they spill their blood to secure our Liberty?(Perhaps for their's though, are you familiar with WWII?)

And:

peace and freedom comes at a price; and, in the human history of the USA, that price is payed in human blood (sic).

With this?

How will I know a great awakening?? When Wallis wakes up and eschews ALL violence! Violence is NEVER in God's ultimate plan. THAT will require faith which few now possess. . .And besides, we all know that violence eventually saves us -- right??

If you're making the point that opposing a war is morally complicated (innocents die both through action and non-action) and that supporting a war involves compromise, I believe that most folks realize that. The real issue is are the reasons that a government employs real (the Hersh article has a good note on the "stovepiping of intelligence" at work on Iraq and now Iran) and do they add up to a compelling reason.

One of the problems I see is these "just war" debates is that they are often argued abstractly. You seem to fall into the all or nothing approach. This sort of ethical debate from absolutes misses the much harder task of measuring conflicting evidence: WMDs, threat levels, biases and competence of our leaders, media, etc.

Also, can you elucidate this?

Blood which is casually mocked by those who do not have the vision to see the danger that lies ahead.

I'm sorry Bob, where exactly on this site has that blood been casually mocked?

Then you also engage in discrediting hyperbole again:

About the Economist: by a magazine that is about as far from neocon as you can get

There are many magazines farther from neocon-ism: The American Prospect or The New York Review, even Newsweek. I point this out not to score a easy point, but to show your repeated habit of loose logic. In fact, while the Economist is more concerned with free trade than the sort of pin-democracy-on-the-map gamesmenship of the neocons, they did support the Iraq war and a close reading of the article to which you link reveals a strikingly different argument than the one he makes about European doves needing Bush.

But beyond this points, Bob, I think that that good heart of yours can do better than calling me and our fellow Spectrum Blog commenters haters and disdainers of America. I notice that you haven't proven it yet.

I believe that you wrote:

The disdain for the USA -- hatred even -- that continues to ooze from the pages on this site amazes me no end. Just don't get how this is supposed to represent "Christian" thought.

That is the language of Redstate.com and it doesn't belong in the kingdom of God or this blog. So, while you're now swinging to the "TOTAL non-violent" side, perhaps you might exhibit that TOTAL charity that will turn all our dreams to reality and apologize for questioning our love for America.

Alex,
Glad you had a good weekend.I was trying to be a facilitator. Seems you guys would not answer each others yes/no question.

I believe war is at times necessary just like the local police force. We live in a world of violence and violence must be met with violence at the civil level in an attempt to bring order.

When the church attempts to create legislation that tells the state it is immoral to use the sword, is this not reverse "church state interference?"

It is always easy to criticize from the sidelines when one is not responsible for decisions which are very complex to respond to on individual "civil" issues without foreknowledge or the benefit of "after the fact" information.

Wallis supposedly has now changed his mind that membership in the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) was rather radical in his college days. Also his rather radical positions at Trinity when Pinnock knew him and later his part in the "Road to Damascus" document.

All of us need to continually scrutinize positions held by ourselves and others before swallowing their leaven...that by the way can be true on the "Left, Middle, and the Right."

Some "Past" thoughts on Wallis by "your friend" Ron Nash...understandable why you dislike him.

“The Road to Damascus.” This publication was distributed in the United States primarily through the efforts of Jim Wallis and his Sojourners organization in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the document was to enlist Christians to help Marxist/Leninist efforts to consolidate Leftwing governments in at least seven nations. All signers of the document were Leftists from these nations—the Philippines, South Korea, Namibia, South Africa, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala. "

"The thrust of the document was to paint communism as the true representative of a Christian theology that “sides with the poor and oppressed” and to condemn Christians who side with the rich and oppressors of the poor. The “good people” in this struggle are the proponents of liberation theology, while the bad people are the Christians who oppose Christian Marxism. To make certain that the point is not missed the document identifies anti-communist evangelicals as “members of the forces of darkness.” Good Christians are portrayed as pro-communist while anti-communists are Neanderthal, non-progressive, conservatives. "

Sound familiar?

PS. Lest you label me, I was and am oppossed to Big Corporate and Labor Union advantages in Legislation. I am also against China Trade policy where there is no exchange float which Bush and the Treasury dept. have failed to address in part due to Investment bankers and Corp. Influences. The "conundrum" of interest rates was primarily caused by the recycling of these trade dollars back into US treasuries which helped in part set the stage for low long rates and the housing speculation boom and the present "subprime" housing "crisis."
In addition I oppose McCain's, Huck's,Bush's,Clinton and Obama on immigration policy. Every foreign worker should be required to have a "sponsor" to work in the US. They (employer) would be reponsible for all benefits rather than the state and local governments...we tax payers. This was the policy in Hong Kong...and a good one.

It took 5 years for my wife to become a legal US citizen. My wife and I have no sympathy for "illegal immigrants" and politicians demanding fast tract citizenship.

We live in an imperfect world. Politics is a necessary evil but I do not put "salvation hope" in it. The quicker Wallis and others realize this they might also be interested more in offering the "everlasting gospel" to the whole world. Our only hope along with a "new heaven and new earth."!!

Alex:

Boy! You sure do know how to make a fella feel warmly welcome in the “community” don’t you!

And I suppose I should be flattered that you went to all that trouble looking up stuff I’ve said over the months. Stuff which, apparently, serves as proof for you that I am some kind of recalcitrant reprobate. In looking for a common denominator to all those varied quotes and topics, I guess, for you, their common thread is that Bob seems to be pretty stupid; inept at logic and reason, willfully ignores evidence the rest of the world accepts, ignorant perhaps (because his reading list is clearly inferior), and maybe, (say it ain’t so Lord!) evil.

Though you’re not quite as blunt, your ways and words have often reminded me of this Richard Dawkins quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

In an essay by Dawkins defending that quote, he recites the quote, then begins like this:

“I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.”

That’s sounds very much like Alex! I thought to myself…
With such a winsome, humble, and self-effacing style, I’d bet Dawkins wins over the hearts of all sorts of creationist foes -- don’t you think?
I love it Alex when you talk about how my problem is denial/dehumanization/fear of the “Other” -- because could it be any clearer that I play the role of “Other” to your own lofty morality? Since you too seem to need demons to slay, I’m happy to play that role for you Alex.

So yes: I marvel at the continued irony of a place that calls itself “spectrum” yet it looks from here to be anything but. It seems, rather, unable to welcome, accept, or deal with, or understand, the full “spectrum” that really exists out there. It is blatantly obvious that there really are ideologic litmus tests of varying types here and woe unto anyone who “fails” to make grade. This reality hit me hardest perhaps as I watched the way this “family” treated our friend Tom Zwemer when he veered from the acceptable line on homosexuality. (Though I’m happy to see Nic S being treated more decently now than in the past over on the abortion thread…) I clearly, and unapologetically, don’t make grade on most of your litmus tests. And no need to enumerate the list; we both know it well.

But there is a way you have blessed me Alex by your words here on spectrums site; you have given me a new appreciation for … Clifford Goldstein among others. There was a day, in the not too distant past, where I found him to be quite the annoying demagogue; and I did not like at all his blunt suggestions that to disagree with his interpretations somehow meant I wasn’t part of the family, or didn’t belong, or maybe was unworthy or something. But you have proven Cliff’s superior with your own abilities at this role Alex; congratulations! And since I figured out a way to reasonably (at least to my satisfaction) belong to a church WITH Cliff, I’ve now embarked on the task of figuring out how to belong to one with YOU. Plus, I’d really like to prove my friends wrong who tell me “Bob, don’t be stupid; you can’t talk to a liberal.” (One of the consequences of my crazy belief in Universalism is that I’m silly enough to think I should be able to get along with ANYBODY down here. Though I am sympathetic to your likely doubts that I’m trying very hard….)

This, in particular, worries me -- well, saddens me -- about you. You seem all for change; in the interest of a better world and so on. (Funny though how the “change” desired is usually a change in someone ELSE!) And I come here and tell you of what seems like an extraordinary change which I’ve been experiencing with regards to war and violence and your response is to MOCK me! Wow -- didn’t see that coming -- even from you! (Alex: “ you now argue that you were for the Iraq war before you were against it”) You actually act like I’m some politician running for office. Pathetic really. So I undergo a “change” in direction that is rather dramatic, and decide not to stop over in your “Goldilocks” version of violence and move straight to total Non-violence. But that is too abstract to be of any use to you, so you mock it. Wow. Took a while though for me to actually get you to admit that “Yes, there are times when violence is a good, precisely in those situations when non-violence leads to greater violence, particularly toward the innocent.” --- which is not very far at all from the way George Bush justifies his actions I bet. Once violence is admitted in the door, it’s just a matter of how much. You yet remain in the spell of the myth of redemptive violence Alex. Right there with George Bush. Good violence. Maybe some day you can explain exactly how Christ worked through the “epistemological calculus” of violence in HIS life.

So, your stance for a “reasonable” place for violence makes me worry. Why on earth would I trust that your calculus is any better that anyone else’s? I realize you are deeply convinced of your own superior morality, but GWB also engaged in his own calculus and, because you don’t like it or agree, you demonize him. All the while you operate in the same paradigm. But you aren’t ready for Non-violence, far too impractical for you. (Was pretty impractical for Jesus too I bet…) Sorry dude: if I’m going to rely on violence for my safety and the protection of innocents I’m going with the guy whose trigger finger is a bit less tentative than is yours. Sorry Alex: if I need a war guy, GWB is my guy; not you. Which is what I finally figured out about myself and precisely why I must leave the paradigm in which you feel you must stay.

Winding down then, I guess I need to comment on your assumption -- which you clearly operate by here on your site -- that in order for an idea/doctrine/belief to be useful/correct/acceptable it needs to pass YOUR scrutiny. Not only are the proper books and magazines and authors to be read, but one must also read those things with the proper logic and conclusions. And the referee who gets the privilege of deciding all this?? YOU!! What a gig. So the fact that I could possibly disagree with you is defacto evidence I cannot possibly be processing reality correctly. SWEET!! For the record, in case you’re interested, I still believe the whole global warming deal is an astonishingly successful hoax, intelligent design is a wonderful paradigm in which to process how God created, the UN is a corrupt organization which does NOT have any interest in America except as source of financing, the free market system is by far the most successful at lifting out of poverty, and I hope it doesn’t upset you I’ve little need for your approval of those convictions. Nuff bout that...

Lastly, that our ways of speaking and listening are very very different is (again) illustrated by your exchange with Pat. You totally (that extreme word again!) missed who Pat is and that in some (sub)cultures what Pat said was humorous! He’s about the last person I know in the world who would insult a woman! His wife is a wonderful lady who adores him and who would have understood in an instant what he was saying. (And it may have earned from her a playful elbow to the ribs) So for me, it was entertainment watching you defend the entire feminine gender from that sexist Pat! What a hero! Oh -- and by the way, I can tell you what Pat thinks of my ideas if you want. Pat finds my views of the Atonement incredibly hollow and without substance. He finds my views on violence bewildering and wrong. And I’m rather certain (though we’ve never discussing this specifically) he finds my Universalism utterly unsupported and incoherent. These are all my words, not his… Big deal -- we disagree. We’re still friends.

And since I’ve not heard to the contrary, I’ll continue to assume we’re good too.
Hope this helps. (Are we beginning to sound like one big therapy session?? must be working -- because I'm feeling better already...)

Bob

Before I read your post above, I pondered "in the night season" how in the world can God accommadate the small clan of Spectrum bloggers in the same heaven let alone the same universe. And we are all the good guys, sorry Elaine--You are in a class alone--above the crowd.

We seem to agree on the agenda because we usually all jump in regardless the topic.

I certainly must have lived beyond my time, when I read all the movie and novel critics among the E.G.White defenders.
My night session did conclude with the thought that we all are a lonely opinionated subset of the Christian community.
So let us get along so we won't become lonelier. Tom

Not being so much in the loop here, I do have some thoughts on the subject under discussion. Born in Europe and having been brought up as a European; a citizen of the US, and living in Canada at present, I'm looking at the world picture from several perspectives.

I think we need to go back and re-live our reactions on 9/11. When I witnessed the mayhem that day, I knew that life, as I had become used to, was over, and the world was in an out-and-out war now. BUT, when George Bush decided to attack Iraq, I was bewildered and wondered what Iraq had to do with a bunch of Saudis having attacked US soil while their leader was hiding out in Afghanistan. - didn't make sense. It seems Bush seized the opportunity to put in motion his own agenda, not to say that Saddam Hussein didn't get what he deserved. Bush senior knew where to draw the line. His son, evidently did not. Having said that, IT IS WHAT IT IS; and now we are in difficult war and men have died, and we need to finish the war we started to the best outcome possible.

Europe is in a difficult position. Most of its affluent countries are over-run by Muslims, who have fled their own countries, but disrespect the ones that have given them a new start in life. Enough radicals are among them to to be a threat to peace in those countries. Europe is also within missile reach of Iran and any other out-of-control regime in the middle-east. Europe is in a state of appeasement and up a creek when it comes to dealing with the influx of immigrants from Muslim countries. Sharia law is now being considered in Britain, which places that nation in a vortex of utter confusion when it comes to law and order. Other European countries are inevitably to follow, and Canada (in our hemisphere) is toying with the same options.

Canada is in somewhat the same position as Europe in that alone, it's vulnerable. Without an effective military of its own, it relies on the US for all of its protection and its economy, but is struggling to maintain its sovereignty as a culture, distinct from the giant next door.

Regardless how we got into this mess, it needs to be finished, but to pull out and declare peace with men and women busy strapping explosives to themselves would be insanity.

US Evangelicals are in this war with strains of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and its kiddy version, "I'm in the Lord's Army" ringing in their ears. With visions of the march into Canaan and an unrelenting loyalty to Israel as part of the Christian eschaton, the evangelicals are pro-war with anyone assailing Israel. SDA theology has escaped this and has left the church standing on the sidelines, with at least one medic-soldier hero in its history, but perplexed.

Whether the violence is half the world away or in our own neighborhoods, the principle is the same. If any of us is met with a crazed suicide bomber or a gun-wielding maniac in our house, our first reaction is not to fall to our knees, but to call 911, hoping for someone who knows what to do with a gun.

Tom and Sirje, those last two posts have done me well.

Tom,

I appreciate your above thoughts but I believe Alex should take to heart what Bob said in this paragraph to Alex for the benefit of the Spectrum blog:

Bob Says..."Winding down then, I guess I need to comment on your assumption -- which you clearly operate by here on your site -- that in order for an idea/doctrine/belief to be useful/correct/acceptable it needs to pass YOUR scrutiny. Not only are the proper books and magazines and authors to be read, but one must also read those things with the proper logic and conclusions. And the referee who gets the privilege of deciding all this?? YOU!! What a gig. So the fact that I could possibly disagree with you is defacto evidence I cannot possibly be processing reality correctly."

My personal experience with Alex's method have been pointed out by Bob's observations.

Alex is to be commended for the work he does in operating the blog and creating conversation. However, if Spectrum is a community of expressing ideas then it should be allowed to be that without one's "credibility and rationality" being questioned by Alex of those who disagree with him. Of course we can differ and do (and strongly) but how is the dissenter treated and "labeled"?

If it is exclusively Alex's blog then he can do as he pleases. IF he supposedly REPRESENTS Spectrum and an openness to ideas then he needs to work on his caustic responses to those with whom he disagrees.

No condemnation Alex, we all are in need of growth.

Again an always timely and humbling thought from Chesterton-

"Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously."

Pat

I think there is considerable merit in Bob's comments.
I have attempted to ignore personal affronts. If one gets into the public forum, it is bound to happen. I have noticed that Alex and Bonnie have a bias toward some commentators and are highly defensive of others. Proves they are human. Tom

I tremble to dip a toe into this highly charged water here...I can see why some folks have told me that they like reading Spectrum but get intimidated by the force of the comments and commentors and sometimes choose to just bow out. That's a shame, because surely there are more voices to be heard than Pat attempting to get Alex and Bob to "answer up"--this feels like an online, digital version of a duel in some ways. (To be fair Bob, your "visiting" Evangelical with the hatred of America oozing off the page etc. seriously threw me off too, I couldn't believe that was you writing--I'd come to expect better, all caps bad habit and all!)

Pat, Alex is a blogger--that means that he puts forth ideas and opinions to try to start a dialogue. That's certainly not bias-free, that's not what a blog is about. These aren't necessarily "official" Spectrum positions--if anything, Spectrum as an institution has a reputation for allowing all voices to be heard (and for a long time it was the only safe place for liberal Adventist voices). There are actually a team of people who look for content for this site, and you'll notice that the blog (as opposed to the other sections) tends to be the most political--that's it's place, and it's definitely all of our places (Alex included) to call out bad logic, red herrings, and questionable data sources when we see them. It is my hope that we can do this while remaining respectful--we're here in the first place because we have much in common.

When each of us decides to participate in a blog, we should know beforehand that anything we say may be: agreed upon, strongly refuted, and more. This is why those who are timid-hearted do not join the bloggers for fear of getting trounced upon.

However, it should never descent to ad hominem arguments because when it does, it is a loud proclamation that the dissenter no long has valid refutations. Too many blogs and forums have become "your mom wears army boots," an admission that the declaration signifies all is lost.

When data and defense of a position can be summoned, that should be used. However, personal opinions are also welcomed, but minus personal attacks which should be beneath a blogger.

Two short, pithy, and humorous books explain logic very well: "Plato and Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy through Jokes" and "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak through Philosophy and Jokes" by Thomas Chathcart & Daniel Klein. A laugh a page but logic easily explained. These, for those who are logically challenged.

Daneen,

For the record, I think that it was Brian who wanted a yes/no "answer up" to Alex's question from Bob and then I responded to Brian seeking fairness a yes/no from both might be useful to solve the "standoff."

Please read again Bob's paragraph from my above post...whose position seems to be "only acceptable and logical?" Bob and myself as well as others on this blog have one or more post college degrees (not that any degree is necessary for a logical statement). I hope LLU, University of Tenn.and RTS did not graduate completely irrational and nonsensical folks unable to discern rational scholars holding different opinions on various subjects.

No one expects this to be bias free. We all have bias. However, one should realize they don't possess the only logical outcome (does not mean there are not better answers) and realize that "love" doesn't have to be puffed up,rude, caustic and rash...a message to all of us.

Yet love can disagree! At times it must!

Thanks for your input Daneen

Well, I'm certainly embarrassed to be the topic here.

Most importantly I nonplussed by the point that Bob makes and Pat echoes, that I set myself up as the decider. I've never censored a comment. I've never asked that a source be removed. Whenever someone employs a source that I've found contradictory evidence for, I just make my point. I will certainly aim to be kinder.

I'm not sure what the "gig" is, anyone who reads or comments can read, write, quote, and believe what they want.

I do ask: if we're not in agreement, I'd like to hear your view. Please give me evidence so that I can evaluate the merits, not just your experience. Sorry it is true, over AmericanThinker, I prefer the fact-checking of the New Yorker, or Harpers, or Foreign Affairs, or The Atlantic, or the NY Review.

Look at my comment above, I point out several cases where Bob is factually wrong, but he doesn't counter those, he instead writes about his impression of me -- without supplying any supporting evidence. The reason that I ask for evidence on issues from global warming to personal impressions is because that allows our discussion to move a little deeper than the first level of relativity. We are all limited by our subjectivity -- my goal is to read and listen as widely and critically as possible because I believe that formal and informal confirmations of experience give us anchor points for truth. If you think that two women in love should be singled out as sinners for their same-sex love, I want to know how you've reached that conclusion, not just that you have an opinion.

Look at my record of conversion on the old blog and here. If I disagree I give reasons, writing tens of thousands of words. Over the last year and a half I have supplied more links as confirming evidence than anyone else, and while several of the proofs that Bob and Pat have supplied -- the Oregon petition, Ross, a Car and Driver columnist, Francis Collins, the 400 "scientists" -- reveal a troubling pattern of them not countering my critique to their evidence, but rather complaining that I'm mean-spirited. Hey, if you think that the IPCC is a socialist plot, give me sources that have sources. I don't think I'm better, but do I think that my evidence is.

Tom, Pat, or Bob, et al I derive no joy from personally attacking others. Copy and paste the offending lines so that I know what I did, and I will learn, apologize and turn from my wicked ways.

That said, gentlemen, this is not a tea party. I really like looking for the best ideas out there. Unlike some sites, my goal is not just to get as many people commenting, all right in their own eyes. My goal is to get as many people talking so that we can find the best ideas, hone them and make Adventism even better. Because of the truth implications, I'm looking for more than opinion.

Bob, I missed your response to my request for clarification on your statement here:

The disdain for the USA -- hatred even -- that continues to ooze from the pages on this site amazes me no end. Just don't get how this is supposed to represent "Christian" thought.

On a side note (or actually on the initial topic of this thread) notice how Bob conflates "USA" and "Christian".

I, certainly, have not approached that descriptive or personal level, ever. Several days ago I asked Bob to back it up. Several comments later, he has not. Nor has he disagreed with the points I made about AmericanThinker and that "socialist" slipped out from he recent attack on the UN.

Friends, you're welcome to continue to make your arguments and disagree with mine. Know that I will continue to upfront about what I find. Just don't take it personally, feel free to write your best and supply the best evidence. Both of you are actually more educated than me.

Bob, I don't follow your logic here.

Sorry dude: if I’m going to rely on violence for my safety and the protection of innocents I’m going with the guy whose trigger finger is a bit less tentative than is yours. Sorry Alex: if I need a war guy, GWB is my guy; not you. Which is what I finally figured out about myself and precisely why I must leave the paradigm in which you feel you must stay

You attack me for not being welcoming enough to your new TOTAL nonviolence, then equate my don't-invade-Iraq stance with Bush's invade-Iraq stance. (Might there be degrees of good violence? I've noticed your habit of sweeping generalizations. Consider a woman slapping away an unwanted grope vs. bombing 100 children to death.)

And then in the end you conclude that you'll stick with Bush over me. Fine. But what are your non-violence principles again? I guess I just don't follow the logic. I'm not saying that you're illogical, but that the writing is not clear to me and I'd like to understand.

Also, where have I "demonized" Bush? Sometimes it feels like you're addressing me, but arguing against something larger.

Again, I've never personally attacked anyone. I've never censored anyone. All I've done is make my case and point out where I think the logic or evidence doesn't stack up. Anyone is free to do that to me. Many have, remember those evolution debates with Cliff and Ron?

All I want is clear thinking and evidence. And in the end, truth.

Alex:

This is cool; a helpful response. And I appreciate the time you put into responding… Slowly, I am beginning to understand you. And slowly, you are putting your moral preening aside and dealing with people. Thanks for that…

And of course it is not you (in the long run) who is the topic here, but a mindset; and one which can apply to any, or either, side.

But your mock shock at the notion that you wield a certain “jury and judge” purview here is, well, naive to say the least… Naive also is your apparent bewilderment that the “gig” is your assumption that your own moral evaluation trumps all the rest… How about this Alex: why not just assume and accept that each of us is capable of our own moral evaluations. And by some mysterious process we didn’t seem to get there needing your input.

And aren’t you also a bit naive when you thing that “your evidence” will neatly be promulgated by a simple “link” which experience has told us will be torn apart by you as “poor facts”, or character assassination, or simply because it comes not from the proper sources? I think I’ve an insight into part of the problem here: First, Alex lives and moves in the realm of grad students who seek approval (ie good grades) of their profs (likely liberal to the max; hey -- this is BERKLEY for God’s sakes!) so Alex has become VERY good at finding the proofs his profs want… and Second, Alex somehow sees himself as OUR prof here; the way you talk Alex, it’s like it’s like your grading my damn PAPER!
Please Alex: can you please understand that we’re not taking a class from you?? That even those who disagree with you actually seek community with you??

But to regress a moment: Factually wrong?? Excuse me Alex but your accusations of “weak facts” and slams against American Thinker (which is pretty well linked) seem to forget the likes in your ranks of men like Scott Beauchamp -- don’t you think?? Bet you liked him initially. Cause what he said fit what you already believed. Yet seemed he sort of morphed his politics into what his “eyes” therefore saw. (No, you’ve never actually commented on Scotts wonderfully insightful and “boots on the ground” insights)

And since you insist on bringing up Global warming, will you PLEASE tell me once and for all what the correct temperature of the earth is supposed to be? And Please tell me why they were raising crops in Greenland a millenium ago? 
And would you please let people read and decide for themselves Alex?? Isn’t that what you ask for yourself after all??

And really glad you brought up the two women in love Alex. You have persisted in demeaning we who do not believe homosexual expressions (read gay sex) as part of God’s created order as “finger pointers” -- as if we stand condemning them. This despite our constant and insistent rejoinder that we are no better than they, and are ourselves in equal need of Christ’s redeeming grace as anyone else. You ignore this Alex; and insist on calling us finger pointers. (Are you even listening to us Alex??)

You come to the table DEMANDING that we answer to YOU why we think the way we do?? Please ALex: do you really imagine that your answers to US actually satisfy US?? Again: who placed you as grand moral magistrate to decide for us all??

And you are quite good Alex at mocking and demeaning the links which contradict your personal convictions. You yet insist that my sole basis for my global warming stance is an offhand remark on my appreciation for Ross’ statement (as true now as it was the day I mentioned it…) and Crighton’s book, which does not constitute a fraction of why I believe what I do. How is it Alex that one as intelligent as you is so satisfied with tearing down Strawmen of your own making??? You are much better than that Alex…

You mock 400 “scientists” whose character you are oh so willing to assassinate -- yet are contemptuously willing to forego similar character examination of your claimed 50 thousand.

And Alex: we understand by now that my (not so mythical American Evangelical) friends comments are not welcome here. You insist on assigning them to me; will you please stop that? Yes: the person is real. No, the chance he will EVER comment on a site like this is vanishingly small…. So much for YOUR idea of “spectrum”… And, (this is Bob now) the conflation of “Christian” with USA perhaps mimics your own conflation of your OWN comments with the “kingdom of God”. (Guess you were not able to read my comments on Greg Boyd’s book Alex…)

Alex, given the nature of this discussion, I do not believe you able to understand the dilemma within me whereby if forced by you to enter the realm of violence, I choose George W Bush over yourself. Sorry you don’t get this; it’s the essence of our disagreement here… I have tried to go further; into the realm of NON-violence; but that’s not an option you allow me here, so, given your own paradigms, I’ll pick George Bush to keep me safer than you can. Don’t forget Alex: it is you who has insisted that the real and complex world includes violence; so if that is to be my paradigm, I’ll obviously pick the paradigm where violence benefits me most… Alex, I really think you’d be better off just saying you have no idea what I’m envisioning when I dream of a world of Non-violence than to ridicule me. It’s obvious you don’t understand; why is that so hard to admit?? Jeez; I’m just beginning to understand it myself! Do you have NO place here for those like me who will be forming their beliefs for eternity??

And “attack” is a strong word Alex; is that what you meant?? Is that what your comments to me were? If so, that is also the word which applies to how how you have approached me and my ideas.

Don’t play coy in pretending you don’t demonize Bush. To do so means language means nothing.

And oh yes: I do fondly recall those evolution debates with Cliff and Ron! That was good stuff Alex: wish more of both Cliff and Ron were here to replace less of you and me. Let me say this: if you would just treat everyone here as respectfully as you treated Ron and Cliff, I’d feel a whole lot more welcome.

Alex: you say you want truth? So do we. It’s just that when you seem to be so insistent that YOU are truths arbiter, well, hope you can see some of us don’t relinquish that role to you. Rather, we take that role for ourselves… You do understand that’s the only way a site like this works --- right??

We (assuming there’s one or two who agree with me here) don’t want a professor, or an arbiter of truth Alex: we want a traveling companion. That’s all I want from you Alex. For you do make a FINE traveling companion Alex.

Wishing you felt the same way about us…

Bob, I've been a "lurker" on this thread for a while. Your last post is way, way over the line. You thanked Alex for his cool response and subsequently went on a personal, polemic. I'm no young Berkeley grad school liberal and often find myself at odds with opinions here, but your tone and stance does injustice to the views you'd like to represent (some of them mine), so please, for the sake of your credibility past and future, calm down.

It's irrelevant, guys, this exchange of psycho-babble. It does not address the origin of your frustrations.

935. That's it. 935. And it covers only a small bit of our 'common era', from the latter part of 2001 to the start of the Iraq war. Epistemologically calculated that's about 1.5 a day. Lies, that is. Actually, it's 936, when we include the mother of all lies, 9/11 itself.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

It all started with the broad reading ability of GWB. For the first time in his life he took a serious book about a pet goat, but providence prevented him from finishing it. He was not destined to be a first grade reader. The one gift God had endowed him with was his ability to turn a lie into an argument that others dotted down and distributed as truth. Even here on this blog. And now you're fighting each other. Great.