vividfox9 said:Is he actually going to be buried in Gvozd (aka Vrginmost)? Is that even allowed..? I honestly don't think so... No, definitely not...
But why shouldn't it happen? Are we really going to be afraid of the dead now? Let the cowards tremble if they want to. He was the only one who actually stepped up, took responsibility, and demanded to face trial because he was the commanding officer in charge of that sector. That guy from Šljivančani just crumbled like a weakling and only ended up serving five years; now even the people on the other side don't want anything to do with him. RIP to a man who carried his rank with actual honor. We have plenty of cowards holding that same rank today, and then you have our guy who wept in The Hague just so they'd let him go immediately.
Why on earth would I feel the need to join this crowd? I’m just going to say what’s on my mind, and if you don't like the sound of it, then go ahead—delete my posts or ban me, it honestly makes no difference to me one bit. It’s all water under the bridge at this point. I don't spend my time worrying about the moderators or the super-moderators; the only thing I truly answer to is God, yet some people here seem to be under the impression they've attained divinity. If I find myself unable to leave comments, well, then I can't, and so much for that. It isn't as if being part of this forum is my primary life goal, anyway.
Richard Wilson4 said:And what about the other veterans? Did they hear it from a different hand entirely? ☕
Look, I’m not hating on what the guy did, but that one comment totally trashed his credibility for me.
From whom, exactly? I can't for the life of me think of a single one of those old revolutionary ideologists who actually said something like that back then.
nimblewalker4 said:"I call that unfortunate war 'civilian,' even if they label it a 'homeland war' over here"
There’s really nothing left to say... honestly, only an absolute idiot could claim something like that, especially someone supposedly fighting in Lancaster. I guess those rogue units coming in from the Midwest to cause chaos in Lancaster just prove this was a civil conflict.
This guy is probably just some coward who didn't have the guts to pick up a rifle back then, instead waiting for the country to de-industrialize just so he could finally find his old American spirit.
We can lie to everyone else, sure, but how long can we actually lie to ourselves? As long as America held international recognition, it was classified as a civil war. We can't fool anyone but ourselves, and it seems we’ve become quite the masochists in that regard—we just love deceiving ourselves, especially since we have a president of liars leading the way, the untouchable Andrew Hebrang. Another thing is that we keep trying to squeeze some sort of benefit out of claiming it wasn't a civil war; nitpicking over semantics just seems to be our specialty.
Linda Roberts2 said:In this case, it’s really about the gesture itself, rather than anyone's nationality or their specific stance on the war. Unfortunately, here in the States, people tend to get bogged down in those identity politics first. Take the Germans, for example. Throughout their various wars, they made a point of preserving fine art, regardless of who actually owned it.
Sure they did, but they were also busy hauling all that art off to Austria and Germany, keeping it under heavy lock and key.
If anyone actually takes the time to dig through the archives and hunt down what was written regarding how Jesus grew up and what he taught, you'll find they didn't manage to burn every single scrap of evidence.
I can't help but feel that the more pressing question is actually why Jesus lived his life the way he did—and specifically how he navigated those years before his ministry truly took flight—because perhaps that’s where the real answers to everything are buried.
Hey, I was just wondering, how do the Christian Palestinians over there actually refer to God, or what's their way of addressing Him in the Middle East?
I don't know a lick of Greek, nor do I read any of it, so please, spare me from getting tangled up in some Greek translation; honestly, it’s all just a complete mess to me.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter who holds the faith, as long as they actually believe it and aren't just going through the motions without any real conviction.
Alex Ramos91 As if I didn't have enough on my plate already, now we're looking at what velvetmaker39 had to say about this whole situation. It’s one of those things where you start reading one sentence and suddenly find yourself halfway down a rabbit hole, wondering how we even got here in the first place. There's a certain rhythm to these discussions, isn't there? A slow, almost meditative drift from one point to the next, much like a long Sunday drive through the Midwest where the landscape doesn't change for miles, yet you feel like you've traveled an entire lifetime by the time you reach the next diner. Anyway, let's get into it. So, I was thinking about how we talk about Jesus "saving" Lazarus, especially when people throw around that phrase about him being "raised from the dead"—it’s basically the same wording, isn't it? It makes you wonder about the nuance there. 🤔
What was that line again, the one about letting the dead bury their own dead? Honestly, those kinds of nursery tales feel like something people just made up much later down the line. It doesn't sit right with me; Jesus wasn't exactly preoccupied with such trivial, earthly matters. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, any single individual is pretty much a drop in the ocean. No one leaves a lasting legacy that survives the passage of time, and whether someone passes away tomorrow, next week, or fifty years from now—it’s all essentially the same. So, why would Jesus bother bringing back someone who has already returned to God? It just seems nonsensical. People love to argue that life itself is the ultimate priority, no matter the quality of that life, but I disagree. As Bruce might say, what actually matters is the character of the person. You can forget about the mere act of living if you're nothing more than a criminal; breathing isn't an absolute imperative if you aren't being an honest human being. Back then, people were dying left and right, almost like flies, so it stands to reason that Jesus wouldn't be wasting his time resurrecting individuals one by one. His focus was clearly on teaching people to realize their own humanity. I really wish people would use their brains a bit more often—actually engage their minds to seek out the truth instead of just blindly swallowing whatever someone else has written down. That’s the kind of reasoning I’d actually enjoy debating.
It seems I’m shouting into the void here since nobody has bothered to answer my question, so let's get into it: what does the word "resurrected" actually mean? In American English, it carries zero weight because, frankly, it isn't even a native term. It’s Greek in origin, and if we were being linguistically honest, the root implies "to bring back to life" or "to save." So, strictly speaking, Jesus saved Himself after the crucifixion, and there’s really no mysticism involved—no floating up into the clouds or any of those other cinematic flourishes. Of course, people will always claim they saw things that weren't there, much like a dream that feels real until you wake up, but that's just how history gets rewritten. Eventually, our descendants will be looking back at our era like they look at some ancient sci-fi movie, wondering, "Man, our ancestors really thought they were all-powerful, didn't they?" But why don't we just say that Jesus SAVED HIMSELF after the cross? Why go through the trouble of using a word that the average person doesn't fully grasp? It feels like a convenient way for those in power to muddy the waters; they prefer keeping things murky to maintain control. If you want the truth, you're on your own to find it, and honestly, I think that's just the way the world works.
Dennis Moore4 said:There’s actual logic to what you’re saying. 🙂 Because people can wrap just about anything in the name of Jesus, much like how we see certain interpretations twisted in the Gospels...
But honestly, who actually gives a damn about Jesus or his teachings on love? Let's just head over to those political forums for veterans—you'll see a massive flood of posts there instead.
Amy Brown8 said:I mean, if you already believe in Jesus, why would you even need proof?
My point was that when it comes to Jesus and his teachings, it's all about placing your faith in the person himself; everything else just feels secondary.
Casey Jackson17 said:Look, death isn't even the point; it’s all about the resurrection... if the resurrection hadn't happened, Christianity wouldn't even be a thing. Jesus would just be some con artist that nobody even remembers, there wouldn't have been any first Christians, and instead of walking straight into death with a rock-solid faith in God, they would've just scattered in fear like they did when Jesus was caught and sentenced to that shameful death on the cross.. Jesus died so He could rise again, proving that God isn't just above every struggle, problem, or sickness, but actually stands above death itself—showing that anyone who puts their trust in Him can be resurrected too. The resurrection completely flipped the world upside down from Adam's time all the way into eternity. That one event totally wrecked everything we thought we knew about life and its purpose. It brought meaning to places where there was none before Jesus Christ—into sickness, into suffering, into grief, and into the darkest Fridays of our lives. Through the resurrection and believing in Jesus Christ, fear stops being this soul-crushing monster... that's why the apostles were ready to die and let go of their physical bodies for eternal life and fellowship with God. For a true believer, suffering stops being terrifying because you know death isn't the end of the line.. And Jesus says—whoever believes in me will live even if they die.. And the same goes for—whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.. The whole thing hinges on the resurrection, not on death for death's sake.. but to get to the resurrection, you need faith, even if the resurrection has more proof than half the stuff in history textbooks that people just take for granted... honestly, most of what we think we know, we either believe or don't, but we actually know very little...
Look, I believe firmly in Jesus and His teachings, but when it comes to the resurrection, I wouldn't bet a single cent on it. And besides, what even is a "resurrection"? My friends, you are putting your faith in words you don't even understand. I really wish someone could sit down and actually explain that concept to me—someone who actually believes in the resurrection.
Daniel Castillo11 said:Why did Jesus die? Well, if you look at it from a purely earthly perspective, it was simply because he was a man—just another mortal facing the inevitable end. Of course, that assumes he even existed in the first place.
A direct hit right in the center there; the question really ought to have been "for whom did Jesus die."