|US medic brutalizes Saddam...||mohair_chair|
Dec 16, 2003 7:13 AM
|VATICAN CITY - A top Vatican cardinal said Tuesday he felt compassion for Saddam Hussein after seeing video pictures in which, the prelate claimed, American forces treated the captured Iraqi leader "like a beast."
In the first Vatican comment on Saddam's capture, Cardinal Renato Martino said Saddam should face trial, but he stressed the Church's opposition to the death penalty. He told reporters the Vatican hoped Saddam's arrest would "contribute to the pacification and the democratization of Iraq."
Martino said he felt "compassion" for Saddam, even if he was a dictator, after seeing images of "this destroyed man" being "treated like a beast, having his teeth checked" by an American military medic.
Dec 16, 2003 7:45 AM
|NO WONDER Dentists have the highest suicide rate of any profession! They must feel guilty about brutally checking the teeth of their patients!
I think the Cardinal should go back to buggering little boys.
|"Is it safe?"||Dave Hickey|
Dec 16, 2003 7:59 AM
|Marathon Man was one of my favorite movies. I never liked Dentists after that movie!|
|I have one question about that movie||landru|
Dec 16, 2003 8:05 AM
|well, actually the book. in the book when he was throwing the diamonds in the pond he thought he was going to be the biggest thing since Sonny Tufts. Who is Sonny Tufts??|
|I have one question about that movie||Dave Hickey|
Dec 16, 2003 10:17 AM
|He was a famous b-movie actor. I have no idea why he choose him.|
|Dentistry IS torture! -nm||filtersweep|
Dec 16, 2003 5:26 PM
|if he thinks *that* is brutal...||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2003 8:16 AM
|Has he paid any attention to the reports of what Saddam and Sons did?
Saddam *deserves* to be tortured, drawn and quartered, minced in a blender, then incinerated to oblivion. Whatever treatment he receives short of that will be merciful and fair.
Dec 16, 2003 8:23 AM
Dec 16, 2003 8:28 AM
|I take it you won't be the lawyer for his defense? ;) Being a lawyer...how does a defense lawyer go about representing someone he knows is guilty?|
|don't know; never did it nm||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2003 8:48 AM
|Hey Doug, are you not against the death penalty?||Fr Ted Crilly|
Dec 16, 2003 8:43 AM
|I may be wrong on this, but I thought I read several months ago that you opposed the death penalty? Please correct me if I'm wrong.|
|yes; I'm just saying what he "deserves" nm||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2003 8:47 AM
|Well, I don't know how anybody who calls themselves...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 16, 2003 8:33 AM
|a Christian, and believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ could feel otherwise. Isn't it all about love, understanding, forgiveness, redemption?
I don't share this guy's beliefs or viewpoint but I see where he's coming from based on what I've read about Jesus and the book I'm reading now on the development of hristianity from 200-1000 AD.
A little off topic but after seeing a guy talk on C-SPAN this weekend about the faith of G.W., it really struck me how his and most "conservative" Christians' theology bears such little relationship to the teachings of Jesus and the early church. It might as well be a different religion, more akin to conservative Judaism than christianity.
|Saddam's now a Christian?||DougSloan|
Dec 16, 2003 8:51 AM
|Somehow, I just can't see Saddam being reborn, professing love for Jesus, and asking for forgiveness. I don't think the concept of forgiveness extends to genocidal, ruthless, unrepentent, murderers. I could be wrong, but I think there are limits.
|I believe you are wrong...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 16, 2003 9:06 AM
|redemption extends to everybody no matter how evil they were before they found Christ. That's what makes it such a powerful concept. Whether you believe it's all hogwash (as I do) or not, it is a wonderfully appealing concept. To exclude the baddest of the bad erodes the whole concept. But I was really commenting on how a true Christ-like christian should feel about Saddam.|
|yup...all sins are equal to God||ColnagoFE|
Dec 16, 2003 10:33 AM
|At least the brand of protestant Christianity (Missouri Synod Lutheran) I was taught. You can be the biggest bad-ass in the world and as long as you are truly repent of your sins and accept Jesus before you die you will go to Heaven. Killing someone is the same as having impure thoughts about your neighbor's wife or stealing a candy bar according to the New Testament--at least in the eyes of God--though maybe not in the eyes of man. God leaves it up to man to decide proper punishments for crimes on Earth (how convenient for the ruling class huh?) Just another one of the contradictions I could never resolve with my religion.|
|I believe you are wrong...no i believe you are!!||bic|
Dec 18, 2003 5:38 PM
|"But I was really commenting on how a true Christ-like christian should feel about Saddam."
How can someone who says it's all hogwash, as you did, have any idea what a true Christ-like Christian feel about anything?
|Well, I don't know how anybody who calls themselves...||Pygme|
Dec 16, 2003 9:14 AM
|Exodus 21:12 He who strikes so as to cause death shall surely be put to death himself.|
Dec 16, 2003 9:33 AM
|Great Point||Jon Billheimer|
Dec 16, 2003 9:44 AM
|Dwayne, you make a great point. Conservative Christianity bears little resemblance to New Testament doctrine and both in spirit and practice is closer to Judaism. At any rate the practice of Christianity is no different than the practice of Islam or any other religion. Various practitioners always justify their beliefs and behaviour by applying "true believer" labels to themselves. Religion is just as fractured and syncretic as politics.
Regardless, I'm with Doug. A guy like Saddam deserves the identical treatment which he doled out to so many others, in my moral calculus.
|Somehow the concept of..........||Len J|
Dec 16, 2003 10:13 AM
|two wrongs making a right has been lost.
Perpetrating evil deeds against someone who committed evil deeds makes us more like them, not more righteous. I understand the feeling that he deserves to die, but there is a hugh difference in my mind between feeling someone deserves to die & actually acting on that feeling.
Just my opinion though.
|made obsolete by the New Testament (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Dec 16, 2003 10:35 AM
|what are you talking about??||jaybird|
Dec 16, 2003 12:51 PM
|Explain how "conservative christian theology" bears little relationship with the teachings of Christ?|
|You tell me...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 16, 2003 2:34 PM
|What are the essential kernels of the teachings of Jesus and the early church (who I think we could argue should be philosophically closest to Jesus)?
What are the major political/philosophical issues that conservative Christians concern themselves with in the U.S. at this point in time?
(Here's a hint, when was the last time you heard the christian right in this country advocating for the poor and down-trodden?)
|I was hoping you would share and support YOUR beliefs.... nm||jaybird|
Dec 16, 2003 2:54 PM
Dec 16, 2003 4:10 PM
|I'm an agnostic, not a christian but I like history, and the historicity of the gospels and the bible/early church interests me.
FWIW, from what I've read the teachings of Jesus were primarily concerned with the establishment of the "Kingdom of God" (whatever that meant) which I think for his ministry and his disciples meant returning of all Jews (even the prostitutes, poor, lepers, etc, etc.) to living a redeemed pious life in anticipation of the coming of the "Kingdom of God", which was viewed as a real end of the world (eschatological) type of event. I would say that his essential teaching was that EVERYONE no matter how low was capable of being forgiven and entering the kingdom. And that one's spiritual well-being is what matters not the concerns of this physical/materialistic world (because the Kingdom of God is just around the corner).
He dies, the "Kingdom of God" doesn't materialize in the decades after his death. Although I think for decades it's clear the early Christians thought this was about to occur at any moment! So, the "Kingdom of God" is transformed from a real event (for the most part, but revitalized at points in history like the millenia) to a spiritual Kingdom of God right here on earth.
By the time the early church is establishing itself, you already have people rejecting its worldly nature and you start to get monks/hermits types (who are admired but clearly this won't work if the church is going to grow as an institution). Constantine wins the battle of the Milvian bridge thanks to the Christian God and the rest is history.
If I thought I had an eternal soul and that salvation was only obtainable through Jesus I'd try to figure out what he and his immediate followers were talking about, not what much later christian theologians had to say or what a church obviously corrupted by worldly concerns had to say on the matter.
Dec 16, 2003 9:37 PM
|it wouldn't hurt to try and figure out what He's talking about anyway. Just act like you do believe it, whether you do or not, and maybe it'll get through to you. It seems like foolishness to the wise, anyway, right? Good luck.|
|I think I have...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 17, 2003 6:54 AM
|a pretty good idea what he (and most of his early followers) were about but that doesn't jive too well with "Christianity". To wit, without Paul (who never met Jesus) it's quite possible that "Christianity" would have remained a sect of Judaism and Jesus would have only been viewed as the savior of the Jews not of mankind in general. Hard to say if we would be talking about "christian" jews today or not. Afterall, there were several other Jewish messiahs who didn't catch on and now are forgotten to all but historians. Definitely the most surprising thing I've found in my readings is how much of a Jew for the Jews that Jesus was, to the extent, that some unflattering comments about gentiles attributed to him have even made it into the Bible. Of course, by the start of 3rd century Christianity had become a predominantly almost exclusively non-Jewish movement so necessarily Jesus becomes less of a Jew for the Jews and the universal savior for all of mankind (as Paul viewed him even in the 1st century) we know today.|
|Let me get this straight||53T|
Dec 17, 2003 12:03 PM
|You are reading records of Jesus's followers from the decades immediatly following his death? How many were they, 15? The only records I have read,including the gospels, were written many years after Jesus's death, some a couple of hundred years after. Am I incorrect?|
|Here you go...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 17, 2003 12:50 PM
This is a good website that lists the early christian texts (both canonical and non-canonical) in roughly chronological order with links to the scholarly works available on them or just to webpages with simple explanations.
From what i can remember, the earliest christian lit. is not the gospels but letters exchanged amongst the various christian communities (Corinthians, etc.) or their community and a "disciple" (mainly Paul I think). I imagine the way they date the gospel of Mark in part is that it is never referred to in these early letters?
Lots written on the gospels.
Mark was written around mid 1st century, Luke and Matthew late 1st century contemporaneouly but independent of one another (with both using Mark as a reference, and possibly the loss document Q). All were probably written by persons who did not know Jesus (for instance "Mark" is reported to have been a disciple of Peter from whom he gets his account of Jesus' life) and still viewed themselves as Jews. John is written latter, early 2nd century probably by a "Greek" and displays a somewhat developed "theology" that is absent in the earlier 3 gospels. Consequently John is given relatively little emphasis when looking at the historical figure of Jesus.
Also if you read this stuff you'll see alot of it goes back to interpreting the Greek words from the earliest known bibles or writings. I find it fascinating, it's like a good mystery novel but without the case being solved in the end.
|Those plaque scrapers are pretty brutal...||No_sprint|
Dec 16, 2003 10:59 AM
|especially with the amount of buildup that guy probably has. He's probably got gum disease too. Yep, a simple trip to the dentist will be brutal for him.
Those scrapers alone were enough for me to brush and floss starting very young.
Dec 16, 2003 2:21 PM
|been there,done that got the bloody tee-shirt.
Can't this be worked into our criminal penal code?
|Saddam asked for it.||Turtleherder|
Dec 16, 2003 1:14 PM
|CNN reported that the reason they were checking Saddams mouth was because he was complaining about a tooth ache. As for punishment, death is too easy. How about leaving him to live out his life in a small Iraqi cell, moldy bread and foul water, dumping in a bucket, with only a television that plays nothing but video footage of all his former palaces and George I and II speeches? Now that's punishment!|
|Saddam get better medical care than veterans.||Spoiler|
Dec 16, 2003 2:25 PM
|Whose a guy gotta blow to get dental coverage around here?|
|The medic was just doing a fitting||Leroy|
Dec 16, 2003 9:32 PM
|for the pole SH's head will be stuck on top of and set in downtown Baghdad in the courthouse square...if there's any justice.|
|Rumsfeld gave clear and valid reason why ...||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 7:13 AM
|Saddam was shown on TV while he was being subjected to a physical examination. He said there needed to be a clear picture presented to the Iraqi people and the rest of the World that he was indeed a prisoner who was not there under agreeable terms he negotiated. This point needed to be clear and unambiguous. I guess seeing someone inspect him like livestock made the point that he wasn't going to be sitting in the nearby Hilton waiting to be shipped off in exile to some luxury resort in Syria. It also gave a clear picture to his supporters that he was being compliant with his captors and not defiant. This image was meant to be powerful and was used to demoralize his supporters.|
|But we already knew he was compliant with his captors.||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 10:52 AM