• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Me-What's the real reason I oppose war?

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by Susan, Feb 20, 2003.

  1. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Both sides are guilty of various atrocities. That's a no-brainer.

    The essential difference between the two is that the Israelis have a right to be there, while the Palestinians are simply trying to steal someone else's land, using terrorism to get what they want and propaganda to buy foreign sympathy. :cool:
     
  2. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11


    Its very simple...if you believe it to be the word of god, then shouldn't you as an aspiring christian follow the wisdom in the good book and not set it aside as&nbsp;inconvenient, incorrect, or poorly translated?




    Actually, for me it was.



    Because previously you told Angel75 that she was using the term literal out of context...I thought that the definition of literal might help you see that there aren't alot of different applications of the word.



    Well, I happen to know several people in person who do believe it quite literally.

    Yes I do recognize the difference, and I agree with Angel75. There are those that take every passage as law and those that&nbsp;just take a few here and&nbsp;there as law.&nbsp;If I were to suddenly cross over and become a christian tomorrow, it would make so much more sense to me to read the bible and take its text literally....choosing which passages do and don't apply just doesn't make any sense to me.
     
  3. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Two premises:
    1) Israel has a right to be there.

    Agreed.

    2) Palestinians are simply trying to steal someone else's land...

    Serious questions about this. I'm woefully ignorant of the real history behind the present conflict, but my understanding is that the West Bank and Gaza strip are not part of the territory included in Israel's charter, and are the ancestral and traditional homelands of the majority residents who identify themselves as "Palestinian". Furthermore, given what knowledge I have of Zionist tactics in the WWII era and earlier, would you have said then that the Zionists were just trying to "steal someone else's land?"
     
  4. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    No, there is no one who takes every passage as law. When was the last time you saw a Christian take a rebellious son to the town elders and have him stoned? When was the last time you saw entry to the church denied to a man who was missing a testicle? How many Christians you know of strictly avoid eating any shellfish ever?

    How many Christians do you know who&nbsp;believe there are floodgates in the sky which are opened to produce rain?&nbsp; (literally)

    If you are aware that the Christian religion believes man to be imperfect, and man to be the agent by whom God's message was conveyed, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that man's errors are present in the text. What most Christians (really) believe is that per 2 Tim 3:16, God's messages dealing with doctrine and ethics are conveyed accurately in the Bible, whether or not all statements of mundane historical or natural fact&nbsp;that fallible men used to convey that message are absolutely "true".
     
  5. Aurelius

    Aurelius Member

    102
    +0
    Hi Jerry. :)

    I'm hear to help in my own small little way. :)

    The Palestinians have no "ancestral and traditional homeland." They are, for the most part, nothing more than displaced Syrians.

    No, I would have said that they were trying to get their ancestral and historical homeland back - through methods that were not always morally justifiable.

    At the end of the day, however, the UN vote vindicated the Jews' claim to their original homeland.
     
  6. Aurelius

    Aurelius Member

    102
    +0
    Ah, you see.

    I think this is what was being debated before.

    I am a Christian but I don't take every word of the Bible literally. Verses such as this one simply will not tolerate a strictly literal reading.

    Having read the exchange between HS and E, I think this is what Evangelion was trying to say but I am not sure if HS really understood him?
     
  7. jeffkrantz

    jeffkrantz New Member

    20
    +0
    Sadly, this discussion of literalism began (I think) with a claim that Romans 13:1-6 says we should subject to the government.

    This isn't even a good literal reading of that text. Note that it says "governing authorities," not government. As an exquisitely written book on Romans has pointed out, Paul here speaks not of "government" at all, but rather the authorities that governed the Roman synagogues within which the Christian congregations still worshiped. (At the time of the writing of Romans, and for some time thereafter, Christians did not have the right of assembly granted to Jews, so they continued to worship with them.) Paul here argues that Christians are to be obedient to these authorities, so as not to scandalize them, and make it more diffuclt for them to accept Christ!&nbsp; For more, read Mark Nanos' splendid book, "The Mystery of Romans."

    This passage has been used with lethal effect to force peoples all over the world to submit to unjust government, and it is being used that way again by Dr. Stanley and some other misinformed preachers. It's time to stand up and let Paul speak for himself.

    Jeff
     
  8. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Thanks for the&nbsp;help..&nbsp;So, is it fair to say that&nbsp;the people&nbsp;that are now called "Palestinians"&nbsp;are recent arrivals to the West&nbsp;Bank and Gaza? Or&nbsp;were they living there&nbsp;in an&nbsp;Arabic society before Israel&nbsp;annexed those territories (or before Israel's charter was&nbsp;granted)?&nbsp;Are you saying that&nbsp;their ancestors did not live in that&nbsp;area, too?&nbsp;&nbsp;

    So you are saying they were not trying to steal the lands of another country. And you say the Palestinians are. How do the two cases differ, precisely? The Jews had ancestors who inhabited the area that was granted to them in Israel's charter, but the Palestinians do not have ancestors who inhabited the area that is in contention now? If the UN voted to create a Palestinian state that includes part of what is now Israel, or under occupation from Israel, would the Palestinians current efforts retroactively change status from attempting to steal to something more benign?

    I am really interested in hearing all opinions about this (and with due skepticism, since the issue seems so highly polarized).. And I'm not kidding that I don't have enough real information to go on. I don't know the whole history of the Palestinian or the Zionist movements. And I find the situation very puzzling. It must be that someone is right and someone is wrong, but I have a heck of a time figuring out which is who on what points.
     
  9. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11


    I know of&nbsp;atleast one person who takes&nbsp;everything literally. That's why I would even venture on this conversation.&nbsp;He is really a strange character, but he comes from a church where they all believe that, he wouldn't attend anywhere&nbsp;else as he thinks they are misguided. Just to give you an example of how this guy is....he thinks that all Catholics are heading southward because they place to much emphasis on Mary, inadvertantly participating in false idol worship.

    Well then, that gets me close enough to my original point...you can't choose to accept some portions as legitimate guide, and not others. Because as far as moral and ethical standpoints are concerned its all correct right?



    That's a fine story and a great educated&nbsp;interpretation of what Paul might have meant, but the only one that can know for sure is Paul himself.

    Besides, I noticed that he said "higher power", "government", "governing authorities", "higher authorities", and the "authoritites above".
     
  10. Mr. John

    Mr. John New Member

    77
    +0
    Great, everbody had a collective brain fart here. This thread is about why those of us oppose the upcoming war. I made mention that it could POSSIBLY be a war for Israel rather than for the security and interest of the U.S. I also mention that Israel had a sex slave industry. Here is the link:

    &nbsp;

    http://www.metimes.com/issue98-35/reg/israel__no.htm

    &nbsp;

    I don't have to cite scriptures to why I oppose the war. We are being lied to by our own government. It's that simple. I say that we should bring our boys and girls home and let them fight among themselves and not be caught up in any centuries old blood feud among the Semetic tribes. I hate to pee in your Wheaties but they are all genetically&nbsp;the same&nbsp;anyways. No links about that since the ADL, et al, has pulled those stories from the entire web.

    Another thing that really bugs me is that no one even bothered to mention South Africa or the meglomaniac Mugabe. Is it too far over your heads or they just don't rate as the Israelies do? By the way Infowars is online today.

    &nbsp;

    Thoroughly Disgusted,

    &nbsp;

    Mr. John
     
  11. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    Suggestion:

    1)&nbsp; If Romans 13 is to be debated, please make a post in General Apologetics.&nbsp; I didn't think it would go this far in the News forum, but apparently it has.

    2)&nbsp; Please keep the tone nice and civil, or the thread will have to be closed.&nbsp; Please get it back on topic.

    Thanks!
     
  12. Aurelius

    Aurelius Member

    102
    +0
    Hey there Jerry.

    You're welcome. :)

    Yes indeedy.

    There was living there an Arab society before Israel's charter was granted, but those people were not "Palestinians." They were various Arab immigrants from various Arab nations. That's why the UN saw no reason to deny Israel's claim to the land.

    That's what I'm saying.

    That's what I'm saying.

    One group has a legitimate, historical link to the land. The other clearly does not.

    That's the essential part of it. Not the full story, but certainly the essential part.

    Perhaps in the minds of some people. But not in my mind, that is for sure!

    That's cool. I appreciate your skepticism. It's perfectly justified. :)

    Well, that is what I am hoping to help out with right here. :)

    It is a common misconception that the name "Palestinian" refers to a distinct culture, a distinct language, and a distinct nation of people. But none of this is actually true.

    The name "Palestinian" is a geographical reference, not a cultural, linguistic or national one. There is no distinct "Palestinian culture." There is no such language as "Palestinian." There is no nation by the name of "Palestine." The Arab group currently lobbying for the ownership of Israel has no right to that land whatsoever.

    It is true that when the Israelites invaded Canaan (as it was known in those days) the land was not a nation, and it was not held by any single ethnic group. Canaan was inhabited by a large number of warring tribes who fought viciously amongst themselves.

    These were the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. None of these tribes even exist anymore. But the Jews do, and they are the ones who continue to live in a land which they conquered more than 3,000 years ago.

    The Jewish people have demonstrated an unbroken connection with Israel for almost 3,700 years. There's hardly a government in the world which would deny that this constitutes a legitimate claim to ownership. Just ask the Saami people of Sweden. Their claim to Sapmi is based on the same criteria which the Jews now use to prove their ownership claims.

    Let's cast our minds back to the day which followed the declaration of the re-created Israel...

    In 1948, seven Arab armieswar on thestate of Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the Jewish state were encouraged (by the invading Arab armies) to leave, so as not to be caught up in the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. They were also promised all Jewish property after the Arab armies won the war.

    Nineteen months later, the war had ended. Against all the odds Israel had been victorious. Those Arabs who did not flee immediately became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

    The result of this war was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which had been proposed by the United Nations two years before. What remained was taken by Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year Trans-Jordan formally absorbed this territory into itself and granted Jordanian citizenship to all of the Arabs living there. Since Trans-Jordan was no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself "Jordan." So in the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine. But astonishingly, they wanted even more...! :eek:

    From 1948-67, when all of Judea-Samaria (the West Bank, including Jerusalem!) ended up under Arab (Jordanian) control, no effort was evermade to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Yes, that's right - the idea to create a Palestinian state was first proposed after this land had already left Arab hands!

    The Jordanians certainly had no intention of creating an Arab Palestinian state. Now if I was a Palestinian, I'd be somewhat peeved at the fact that my Arab brethren possessed the most disputed sections of Israeli territory for nineteen years, and didn't do anything with it! If the Palestinians really belonged there, why didn't they create their own state while they had the chance? Why didn't they do what the Jews had done?

    Finally some information from the library of the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise - a non-partisan, non-profit organisation based in the United States of America...

    Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

    Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.

    When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades.

    Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine.

    When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said:

    • There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.
    Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

    • We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.
    In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine:

    • There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.
    The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said:

    • Palestine was part of the Province of Syria
    and that,

    • politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.
    A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri (later the chairman of the PLO) told the Security Council:

    • It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.
    Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

    Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.


    I hope this helps to set the record straight. :)
     
  13. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11
  14. notto

    notto Legend

    +627
    United Ch. of Christ
    These are a threat only if they can be smuggled into the United States (along with their cargo), assembled, and set to flight without being discovered.

    This story seems to contain a lot of "could"s.

    It is interesting that Fox news labels the story "Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities". There seems to be little evidence that this is even a plausible concept. Pure speculation at best. There is no evidence that they have even attempted or are planning to attempt to smuggle this equipment into the US. How we go from that to "Iraqi Drones May Targe US Cities" is quite a stretch.
     
  15. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11
    They don't have to smuggle it into the US. The tested drone flew 350 nautical miles....they could simply launch these things while out at sea.

    Besides, my main point is that there are lots of possibilities.
     
  16. Blindfaith

    Blindfaith God's Tornado

    +76
    Non-Denom
    Note: Evangelion is on vacation, and won't be able to respond to the posts.

    &nbsp;

    Suggestion:&nbsp; If a further discussion on Israel/Palestinian land rights would like to be further discussed, I can split this thread and create a new thread elsewhere.&nbsp; The discussion that's currently happening is very interesting, and civil.&nbsp; I'd be happy to do it.&nbsp; Just pm me and let me know.

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;
     
  17. Red Panda

    Red Panda Member

    127
    +0


    That would require getting within 350 miles of the American coastline.&nbsp; Quite a feat, for a coastal navy whose ships are old and not blue-water capable.&nbsp; And whose every move is being watched.

    My take on it is that Fox News has (once again) gone for the sensationalistic nonsense.&nbsp; Everything that Fox produces - whether it's news, or just comedy shows - seems to have this glitzy sensationalism about it.&nbsp; Which wouldn't be so bad, except that CNN has had to respond to Fox's inroads into the US media market. How did they respond?&nbsp; Now CNN is becoming less professional, and more mass-media oriented.&nbsp; One bad apple is dragging all the other apples down with it.&nbsp;

    Washington Post and BBC News - that's where it's at. :D

    Right, but some are realistic, and others are simply wishful thinking and/or sensationalism injected to drum up readership.&nbsp; I think that was the distinction that was being made here.
     
  18. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11
    Given some ideas are sensationalized, but some people like to act like the idea of the US getting attacked is preposterous. It doesn't require a navy vessel to launch a UAV by any means. A somewhat decent size civilian vessel could do that same, they don't even need runways, just a small catapult mechanism....and it would be extremely easy to get that within 350 Nm of the coast.
     
  19. Aurelius

    Aurelius Member

    102
    +0
    A catapult system?

    What is this, Dennis the Menace? :confused:
     
  20. My Higher Self

    My Higher Self Sense Offender

    599
    +11
    Are you kidding me....did you think I was joking....that's how most UAV's are launched...requires no runway...something similar to this:

    [​IMG]

    If you don't know what you are talking about perhaps you should ask instead of balk.
     
Loading...