No Eye Deer

2003-05-21T19:56:00.000-07:00

Jordon is under attack after his post about Church bloggers. I think he should be too. I've got no problem with Christians posting about Church, even if its exclusively.

The good thing about his post is that its brought about something that I've never seen before - he has responded numerous times in comments and is actually interacting with his readers! I always wondered why he had comments if he wasn't willing to dialogue with his readers. I was starting to wonder if he really cared what us simple folk think!

2003-05-06T17:18:00.000-07:00

Alot of bloggers seem down about their blogging of late.

Irene is worried she's posting just for the sake of posting and risking repeating herself (I'd be happy to read her thoughts at least twice, but maybe I'm just slow!)

Cre8d is wondering if blogging has been encroaching on her prayer life. (interesting)

Rich is contemplating the changes in his life and the impact the will have on blogging. (he resolves to keep on blogging)

LivingRoom is getting freaked out by the impact blogging is having on his life (funny stuff).

Rick is cutting back on everything EXCEPT blogging which he'll use to help record 'the journey'.

Gooddogbaddog (love that name) is undergoing changes in his life - which seem to be manifesting in a new look blog.

2003-04-02T04:35:00.000-08:00

I like this post about the 'entertainment' factor of the war coverage. I had been thinking the same thing.

2003-03-25T04:39:00.000-08:00

It was interesting to watch the Oscars coverage yesterday and see the variety of responses to the Iraq situation in those that had a chance to appear on stage. There is obviously as much variety of opinion among America's celebrity set as there is in its public.

Moore's speech was the most obvious part of proceedings that was anti war - but I think I spotted a few other subtle references to similar things which was promisings. Moore perhaps did it a little too crassly but I admire his courage in speaking his mind.

More interesting to me was the fact that he actually WON the award which says something about how acceptable his message is in the academy ranks.

2003-03-20T01:49:00.000-08:00

Did you see the media scramble today? Did you see the pure excitement in some of those reporters eyes? Did you see the dissappointment when the attack wasn't 'the big one'?

This war is going to leave 1991 for dead when it comes to comparing the media coverage. In a way we've never seen before we will be able to watch hundreds - no thousands - of people killed live on television.

Of course similarly to last time the media won't be allowed into areas where they can film dead bodies strewn on the battle field.

2003-03-19T20:15:00.000-08:00

Alot of people have a JUST WAR theory - I've read alot of the articles on it (some I won't even pretend to fully understand - I'm not an academic type) and given it alot of thought.

The point I've come to (so far) is that I think that there are circumstances where I could see a JUST war being arguable - however I'm not sure that the current Iraq crisis fits the criteria.

I'm not convinced George is really on about JUST WARS - I think he's more coming from the MUST WAR school. It almost seems like he never saw any other way.

2003-03-19T04:43:00.000-08:00

Last night I was watching late night television. I saw an interview with a couple of US defence officials. They were being questioned on the capabilities of US weapons that will be used in Iraq. I was astounded by the massive power of the bombs that they will drop.

I found this link today which also got to me. Here you'll find a "human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003." It has an up to date casualty count - its already up to 14 civilians killed. On the page there you'll also find this report;

The B-2 bomber carries 16 2000lb.JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb doesnt fall outside its specified margin of error of 13 meters...) then here is what ONE such bomb does:

1. everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;
2. to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a person must be at least 365 meters away;
3. to be really safe from all effects of fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away (thats 1 kilometer!)

The b-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad.

2003-03-18T16:28:00.000-08:00

having some technical difficulties, stupid blogger

2003-03-18T04:56:00.000-08:00

Thanks to

2003-03-17T19:56:00.000-08:00

Jake Rinard calls us with the banner of his blog to pray for the troops. Nice call Jake - I agree, I hope that by 'the troops' you are including the Iraqi ones!? Perhaps we should ALSO be praying for those without guns in their hands that are about to have all hell break loose around them while their children are killed and their homes destroyed.

2003-03-17T01:30:00.000-08:00

Strange some of the links that are coming to my blog today. One came in from a Dixie Chicks Controversy site of all places!

The second was from a site called Martin Roth who has sent a fair bit of traffic my way by saying:

"I’ll go further still. When they start canonising the Christian internet saints I reckon Dean will be up there in the pantheon."

Wow - what a statement!!! St Dean the Mean!

2003-03-16T19:56:00.000-08:00

Not sure how accurate the poll is I'm afraid - there are more votes than there were hits on the site for the corresponding time! Stupid free polling system.

Also sorry to those who've lost their comments - the system must have gone down. Stupid free comments system!

Sorry for those who couldn't access the site yesterday. Stupid free blogger!

On other matters - still awaiting an email in reply to one I sent to Dean at B4G late last week. Strange that he seemed so keen for me to get in touch personally yet is not so keen to reply!? I understand that they are making changes to their system to accommodate people like me.

I'm still pretty peeved about the whole thing and suspect I'll probably not ever be a bit part of the 'Christian' blogging 'community' after such a rocky start.

Anyway, thanks to those that are stopping by this blog - appreciate it heaps. I hope it has not been too negative a start to my blogging career!

2003-03-13T18:15:00.000-08:00

Well, lets see what the public opinion is on the B4G thing. Place your vote in the poll on the left of screen. If you think there should be another option, let me know.

2003-03-13T15:02:00.000-08:00

Why is it that so many Churches and Christian organisations seem to feel so compelled to build barriers between themselves and 'the world'? Christians can be so good at making rules and regulations that make it difficult to participate in their worlds. We can be so good at making things 'neat' that we actually become irrelevant to the world we live in which, lets face it, is often so messy.

If I find it hard as a Christian to find a home in Christian communities because I don't fit the mould - what hope does an earnestly 'Non-Christian' who doesn't have a hope of conforming to the rules have!?

I find more community and acceptance at the local hotel than I find in most groups of Christians.

2003-03-13T14:48:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure if the discussion on Cre8d's site is out of my situation with Blogs4God or not - but I've appreciated the thoughts expressed there.

I'm very disappointed not to be linked to Blogs4God. I had no intention of 'abusing' them in any way shape or form. I am a Christian, I am a 'real' person, I have a name (although I choose not to reveal it online as I'm entitled not to) I do at times speak my mind and probably offend people, but intention is to challenge rather than to abuse.

I thank those that have sent emails of support to my email account. Yes it is a 'free account' Dean. I cannot afford to pay for one. My internet access is also 'free' so I have limited access to the net to be able to participate in ongoing discussions.

2003-03-12T22:05:00.000-08:00

Email from Blogs4God

At this time, blogs4God is not accepting submissions from anonymous bloggers due to some recent abuses.

Question - How do we know that any blog listed on blogs4god are written by the people they say they are? For example I know of at least one blogger that uses a pseudonym. If I apply again with the name John Smith will I be acceptable? Or does Blogs4God do security checks on all its 600 plus bloggers?

I choose to keep my identity secret for security reasons - I have provided the site with a live and valid email address so I can be hauled into line if I 'abuse' the site. And what 'abuse' could I do on blogs4god as a listed site that I could not do as a non listed site? Does being listed give me access to some inner workings of the site that needs a level of trust?

When I applied to Blogs4God to be listed I saw nothing on its sign up page talking about Anonymity. There is a statement about rejecting and removing blogs 'for any reason' - so I guess I fall into that catagory.

I guess I found another topic to talk about! Thanks Mean Dean - or is that your real name??? :-)

2003-03-12T21:13:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the obsessional posting on JC - thanks for the reminder to 'come back to earth' MD! Yes I have been concentrating a fair bit on him here, too much, but I do like to like to cover a topic for as long as the discussion goes. Will post on other topics soon.

2003-03-12T19:35:00.000-08:00

Mr Claybourn points out I am fond of cussing and calling Americans stupid.

1. Yes I do 'cuss' although I prefer to call it 'swearing'. I don't pretend to be perfect - I have not problem with using strong language to communicate a strong point.

2. I apologise for the 'stupid Americans' quote. That was 'stupid' of me. I get so frustrated that at times - I should not have made such a sweeping generalisation.

2003-03-12T17:59:00.000-08:00

I wonder when my site will be approved by Blogs4God? Its been a few days now - they normally seem so keen to add blogs to their list!

2003-03-12T13:43:00.000-08:00

Mr Claybourn puzzles me with his response to my latest comments. Firstly by him saying I'd "have us behave as the churches of France and let the German/Islamic radicals roll over us." Can't say I have any idea what he's talking about - perhaps he's putting words in my mouth as I am not sure I've mentioned and German/Islamic radicals in my postings. Perhaps his arguement is resorting to scare tactics - got nothing worthwhile to say? Lets scare people with mentioning Islamic radicals!

Secondly he asks 'do you not see the tension between pacifism and Jesus?' What in the world does this mean Mr Claybourn? Please DO explain! I'm absolutely fascinated!

As I asked in my last post - "Tell me where did Jesus say we should launch attacks that are likely to lead to hundreds of thousands deaths?" Again I ask the question...

I'm not convinced about the verses that Eric puts - they made me think of the other verse in the NT where swords were mentioned....I think it might have been in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus told his disciples to put their swords away and where he heals the person who is about to take him away to be killed. Interesting way of responding to a threat, maybe we could learn something from that!

2003-03-12T00:26:00.000-08:00

Mr Claybourn responded to my first posts here with this:

"Sometimes I see posts written about me that are so absurd, and so categorically false that I don't even waste energy addressing them. Then sometimes they're full of half truths, which is just enough to spur me into replying. I'm not sure where this one falls, but it's definitely one of the more uneducated I've seen recently. "NoEyeDeer" writes,

Some of the comments I've read around the blogs today remind me of the attitude of the German church before and during WW2. Where is the compassion, the desire for reconciliation and the desire for harmony?
Usually the anti-war crowd runs away from any WWII analogy, and for good reason. But since s/he brought it up, we can go there. Are we talking about the churches that teach "Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs"? Because that's what many, although not all, Germans believed. I shouldn't waste pixels on this. This is the same person that says I'm "leading the charge to blow Iraq to smithereens!" No, not quite."

I responded in his comments by saying:

"I was referring to the fact that many German Churches and Christians pre and during WWII did not stand up to their nations leadership despite it waging war upon innocent people. In fact many Christians and Churches at this time cheered Hitler on in his dispicable acts despite them being so blatantly opposing to the teaching of Jesus!

I cannot believe that Christians can endorse such an attack without hardly batting an eyelid! Tell me where did Jesus say we should launch attacks that are likely to lead to hundreds of thousands deaths? If you can answer me that one convincingly I'll endorse this war - but I honestly cannot see how one can justify it and hold onto the teachings of one who said 'turn the other cheek', 'love your enemy' etc?

I don't even get the sense from your (and others writing) that you even see a tension with your views and Jesus - that you're even uncomfortable with your governments actions!!!

I don't have a full proof answer - the situation is so complicated - Hussein needs to be confronted and kept accountable for his decisions in leadership - I'm not comfortable with his form of leadership at all and do not endorse him - however surely there are other ways!

Unfortunately every time I see an individual or nation suggest one they get howled down - boycotted - and told to pull their heads in because apparently there is only one solution and that is war."

2003-03-11T15:23:00.000-08:00

Why should the US pull their head in on the Iraq issue?

- In spite of George W's claims there is still not proven link between Hussein and the Al Quaeda network or Osama bin Ladan.

- The UN was appointed after WW2 to provide a forum for resolution of conflicts in order to stop global armageddon happening again. This institution was set up as a way of keeping ALL nations accountable for their actions. This includes both Iraq, the US and the UK. Until they give approval for such action it should not happen. Otherwise sanctions should be put on countries that do go against UN voting.

- One reason why the US justifies an attack on Iraq is that they weapons of mass destruction. After months of searching I've not seen much evidence of this. I see more evidence of such weapons in the build up of weaponry and personel at the borders of Iraq. Why is ok for some countries to have such weaponry but not others? Why is the US about to obliterate a country for having weapons that it itself has in a far greater form? Is this a case of 'do as I say - not as I do'? Also why are the US so concerned about Iraq yet seem to be ignoring North Korea? This article seems to show that the US is almost supporting North Koreas nuclear program!

- A second reason why the US is justifying an attack is on humanitarian grounds. A number of years back Hussein killed many of his own people with chemical weapons. At this time Iraq was still a favoured trading partner of the US. No action was taken by US government despite the massive loss of life. Oh and didn't the US give Hussein a whole heap of weapons back in the 80's to get the Iranians - kind of ironic as it was some of thoe weapons that they used to invade Kuwait and which they will be firing at the US this time around also.

- The majority of the worlds population is against an attack without UN approval. Have a listen to the population George!

- A conflict will have have devistating impact on an already suffering nation. In 1991 its estimated that 50,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed - over 3000 civilians were killed and thousands more lost their homes and posessions. After the coflict the civilian death toll rose into the tens of thousands due to shortages of medicine, food and water. UNICEF has documented that the impact of the last war over a decade of economic sanctions was to see 500,000 children die due to malnutrition and preventable disease. This nation is already crippled in so many ways - another war would be like putting a bullet in the head of it.

- The cost of the conflict will not only be on human life but will also be huge financially. It is estimated that it could cost up to 800 billion dollars! That just makes me sick - to think what else that money could be spent upon!

2003-03-10T21:43:00.000-08:00

Have a look at the flash intro to Adbusters site - keep your eye on the page or you'll miss it.

2003-03-10T16:37:00.000-08:00

Further more, why is it that many Christians are endorsing such an attack? I could not believe the postings that have been written on some supposedly Christian Blogs of late! Joshua Claybourn seems to be leading the charge to blow Iraq to smithereens!

Some of the comments I've read around the blogs today remind me of the attitude of the German church before and during WW2. Where is the compassion, the desire for reconciliation and the desire for harmony?

2003-03-10T16:23:00.000-08:00

America and Britain look set to ignore the UN and invade Iraq. Does this mean their leaders can be charged with war crimes?

I wonder what would happen if another country were to directly go against a UN vote and invade another nation?

Why is it ok for the States and Great Britain to do as they wish and not other countries?