Iran

[Servant222]

What about China? Has the soldiers, nuclear weapons, and missile delivery systems.

 

[icedtea]

I thought they were the Kings of the East with an army of 200,000.

 

[psalms 91]

They bare Persia in Ezekiel 38 and 39 so hitting them accomplishes what? Gods Word will be fulfilled. My real question about this is what about Pakistan. Muslim, Al-Quieda hideaway, unstable, and many nuclear weapomns already.

 

[Servant222]

I thought they were the Kings of the East with an army of 200,000.

I think you can now add at least two zeros to the number of soldiers in China.

Western China also has a large number of Islamic fundamentalists (the Uygurs) in Xinjiang Province.

 

[Tonks]

I believe the biblical position is that once Israel is reestablished, it will never be reconquered. I believe that Revelation predicts divine intervention at one point in the future.

Yes, but Scripture is not necessarily referring to the modern nation-state of Israel.

 

[Cromwe11]

Yes, but Scripture is not necessarily referring to the modern nation-state of Israel.

not NECESSARILY... but in my opinion, pretty likely.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, but Scripture is not necessarily referring to the modern nation-state of Israel.

Isnt it Matthew 24 that states when Israel becomes a nation which it did in 1948. Also China and related armies are the kings of the East as Russia and former sattellites along with others is the North. If you draw a line from Israel directly North you gop right through Moscow. Also Persia is Iran presently and a part of Iraq.

 

[Tonks]

The above is just Scriptural interpretation through a modern lens.

 

[Tonks]

not NECESSARILY... but in my opinion, pretty likely.

In essence, the "dispensationalist" view is that God has a special love and regard for a secular political entity located on a narrow strip of sand bordering eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the majority of whose populace deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

While I agree that God chose Israel, we have to ask who is Israel?

Israel are the chosen people of God who are faithful to Him and through whom God works out His plan for the salvation of the cosmos.

The Church did not "replace" Israel. Israel is the people who CONTINUED to follow God when God the Son assumed human nature. Israel is the people who followed god's road even when it took a curve, rather than following their own tradition straight off the edge of the cliff. Israel is the ones who saw the Son of Man, knew He is the Son of God, and worshiped Him. Israel is not those who deny Him.

 

[psalms 91]

The nations mentioned are easy enough to determine if you take the ancient names and follow them up so I dont think that is modern interpretation nor as some of the areas mentioned are actually cities in Russia oe the satellites is that guesswork. As for Israel, who are the witnesses in Revelation? Where does Jesus set His feet when He returns?

 

[Cromwe11]

In essence, the "dispensationalist" view is that God has a special love and regard for a secular political entity located on a narrow strip of sand bordering eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the majority of whose populace deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

While I agree that God chose Israel, we have to ask who is Israel?

Israel are the chosen people of God who are faithful to Him and through whom God works out His plan for the salvation of the cosmos.

The Church did not "replace" Israel. Israel is the people who CONTINUED to follow God when God the Son assumed human nature. Israel is the people who followed god's road even when it took a curve, rather than following their own tradition straight off the edge of the cliff. Israel is the ones who saw the Son of Man, knew He is the Son of God, and worshiped Him. Israel is not those who deny Him.

I'm not a dispensationalist. Actually I can't stand dispensationalism.

I recognize that the Church is the continuation of the assembly of God's congregation.

The covenant God made with Abraham was a covenant of faith. Thus the children of that covenant, the children of abraham, are all those who have faith.

That, however, does not preclude, or nullify all the promises that God made to the other patriarchs, and to the people of Israel down through the ages. It doesn't change the fact that Paul says Israel will be restored. God has veiled Israel because of their unbelief (that obviously doesn't refer to the Church) and is using the unbelief of the Jews in order to save the gentiles. He is using the faith of the gentiles to make the Jews jealous, and when the harvest of the gentiles is finished, the Jews will be brought into the Kingdom of heaven, into the Church. Within the Church we are all children of Abraham.

Dispensationalism has a lot of problems because it imposes a completely man made foreign structure over the bible, one which often times doesn't make a lot of sense to the actual bible.
It does recognize a few important points, but on those points it usually goes way too far and as a result even ruins those things.

the relationship between Israel and the Church is one of those things. Dispensationalism recognized that there is a distinction between physical Israel and the Church and that physical Israel still has a destiny and they are still chosen.
They go way over board by imagining, completely contradictory to the bible, that there is a seperate gospel for the Jews and the gentiles, that God deals with them in significantly different ways. God deals with them in exactly the same way and within God's kingdom they are one. Physical Israel is suffering judgement as a result of their unbelief, just as happened numerous times in the old testament. They will be brought back to faith, however, and when they are, it will be through Jesus Christ just as the gentiles are.

 

[SolomonVII]

Iran is a unique situation. It is really the first mullocracy, or Islamofascist state, but its populace is not at all onside with the Islamist agaenda of the mullahs.

And as far as the economy goes, it is a failing state. It is bound to fall on its own harder and deeper than communist Russia ever did.
Very likely, it it falls on its own, the whole idea of Islamofascism will start to look less and less appealing to all the Muslims who are playing wiht the idea that a return to sharia just may be the way to go.

The best case scenario would be to Iran to stay around even a little longer, for the longer that this country slides, the more that the whole concept of Islamofascism will be discredited.

But if America is again involved in the overthrow of the mullahs, the blame again will fall on outside forces rather than with the idiocy of the corrupt evil of Islamofascism, where it most directly belongs.

Iran would be the one state that needs to fail on its own, because fortunately the Persians themselves are a sophisticated, educated and modern people who may jsut be able to build their country into a real country instead of the Islamist basket case that it has been for the last almost three decades.

An attack by US might just have the effect of coalescing the population to the mullahs. Further in an increasing nuclearized world, what is most to be feared is not a country with nuclear weapons, but a surging Islamist ideology that has access to these nuclear weapons.

The problem really is Islamism and not really nuclear weapons. In Iran, the first country to go officially Islamist, Islamism is on the verge of falling. Here,it has the biggest chance of failure.

My vote is to let it fall on its own.

 

[Latreia]

Sounds really good, Coyote Wild.

But how does that sound to their good Muslim neighbors, the OPEC Group?

Oil dollars in the millions support military and covert actions all over the world.

Perhaps they won't have enough left to keep Iran from falling......

Dunno

 

[JPPT1974]

Iran is a really scary place
If you all thought Iraq or Isreal were bad
Then Iran is beyond bad or even worse.
They have a dictator who is insane(Got many more words to say about him but will leave it at that and spare you those not nice words!)
But I feel for the people suffering there due to him.

 

[SolomonVII]

Sounds really good, Coyote Wild.

But how does that sound to their good Muslim neighbors, the OPEC Group?

Oil dollars in the millions support military and covert actions all over the world.

Perhaps they won't have enough left to keep Iran from falling......

Dunno

Sunni Saudi Arabia certainly won't use their petro-dollars to keep Iran from falling, and it not because they won't have enough money. They represent radically different forms of Islam.
As far as covert military actions go, this is very cheap, and Iran is the main state player behind most of this, be it Hezbollah, or Hamas anyways. There will always be enough money for this kind of mayhem. The terrorist activity though is ideology driven, and this is where the petrodolars are mainly spent ie in cultural activities in western mosques and madrassas to indoctrinate the next generation of whackos.

The point is that the economy of Iran is falling right now, with the public service not getting paid from the government, and no country is going to step up to the plate and pay Iran's debts for them.

 

[SolomonVII]

In essence, the "dispensationalist" view is that God has a special love and regard for a secular political entity located on a narrow strip of sand bordering eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the majority of whose populace deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

While I agree that God chose Israel, we have to ask who is Israel?

Israel are the chosen people of God who are faithful to Him and through whom God works out His plan for the salvation of the cosmos.

The Church did not "replace" Israel. Israel is the people who CONTINUED to follow God when God the Son assumed human nature. Israel is the people who followed God's road even when it took a curve, rather than following their own tradition straight off the edge of the cliff. Israel is the ones who saw the Son of Man, knew He is the Son of God, and worshiped Him. Israel is not those who deny Him.

This or that theology, who knows who's right and who has the means to prove matters of faith?


But if dispensationalist theology is now the one that most clearly states the case against the nuclear annihilation of Israel at the hands of the Islamonihilists, then on the practical level of morality, it is of a higher order than any theology that does not know how to make this case crystal clear to the flocks that they are teaching.
Pogroms and holocausts of the past, with their Christian involvement demand an ethical response for Christian theologies of any stripe.

And it is unclear, Tonks, whether the theology that you are promulgating is indifferent to the Israel that is not of the Chruch, or to what degree it may even hold animosity toward such a state.

On the secular level, or precisely the level at which the Zionist established their state, what we are being asked to recognize is the simple right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.

As a clear ally of Israel, America is no doubt committed to defending Israel against untoward aggression.

When that agression involves nuclear annihilation, as any nuclear strike against Israel surely would, then the old cold war poltics of MAD are all we have left.
This is something that should be made clear to the people of the region, as they shift their allegiance to the Muslim apocalptic movement.

So if that agression involves the nuclear annihilation of Israel, Israel will not be the only country erased from the map if the situation turns nuclear.

 

[nyj]

When that agression involves nuclear annihilation, as any nuclear strike against Israel surely would, then the old cold war poltics of MAD are all we have left.
This is something that should be made clear to the people of the region, as they shift their allegiance to the Muslim apocalptic movement.

Slight problem. The policy of mutually assured destruction served as an appropriate deterrent during the Cold War because both the United States and Russia (and all their allies) did not want to die. That policy needs to be rethought when one of the sides views their destruction as martyrdom and glory to their god. For them MAD is a winning scenario.

 

[Servant222]

Slight problem. The policy of mutually assured destruction served as an appropriate deterrent during the Cold War because both the United States and Russia (and all their allies) did not want to die. That policy needs to be rethought when one of the sides views their destruction as martyrdom and glory to their god. For them MAD is a winning scenario.

Absolutely correct- and that is why I keep saying that the option of waiting for Iran to make the first move before action is taken is not viable!!

Another point about MAD is that Russia and the U.S. are some distance apart, and are large countries. So even a surprise nuclear attack by one side would still have allowed the other side to respond.

This is not the case with Israel- where it is likely possible for Iran to deploy nuclear missiles in a neighboring country, and the Israelis would be vaporized before they even knew what hit them.

Finally, waiting for them to make the first move is simply not acceptable because it could still lead to the detonation of nuclear weapons in that region- the radioactive cloud from which would affect all of us.

 

[daveleau]

I'd be surprised if we had to, because I think Israel will take out this heinous threat to the West before we can get out of Iraq. But, I voted "yes" (meaning take out it's nuke facility in a large airstrike and then leave) because Iran will be the second country to use nuclear weapons if we do not. Only this time, the use will not be justified and millions will die because of their madman leader.

 

[SolomonVII]

Slight problem. The policy of mutually assured destruction served as an appropriate deterrent during the Cold War because both the United States and Russia (and all their allies) did not want to die. That policy needs to be rethought when one of the sides views their destruction as martyrdom and glory to their god. For them MAD is a winning scenario.

A helluva problem, for sure.
That is the hard choice that the nuclear destruction of Israel would lead to though. The Iranian people chose this revolution, and they will be held to be responsible for its effects of their fanatical insanity.