Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
revoking a covenant is the same a breaking a promise.
God does not break promises.
The Palestinians get it the worst because of the other states in the region. The Jews should not be forced to accept eventual rule by Islam to have peace in their communities.When I look at maps of the land before WWI and WWII, I see a large Palestine getting smaller and then disappearing. Now, I will be the fist to admit that I have a LOT to learn but I keep thinking about how a nation would feel if it were suddenly just taken from them and given to others. Are there Any instances in history where this was passively accepted without bloodshed?
I've tried to think of a hypothetical example and have come up with this. Let's say the UN started an effort to give land to Native Americans allowing them their own sovereign nation with borders. Let's say that this UN group was made of members from Europe and South American nations. Now let's say that they decided to give Texas to the Native Americans and forced the US to do so. Can you even begin to imagine how angry Texans would be? Could you imagine them going peacefully? Could you imagine the US being satisfied with this arrangement and never trying to get the land back for the Texans? I don't understand why people don't see why there has been a continued sense of uproar ever since Palestine was taken and given to others.
Am I condoning the violence? No, but I understand it. Am I against a Jewish state? No, but I don't see why I am expected to believe that the Jewish people were so 'entitled' to this land that people who don't live there were allowed to give it away and everyone was just supposed to be happy and accepting of it. Again I ask, exactly where else in history has this kind of thing been done without subsequent bloodshed?
The Palestinians get it the worst because of the other states in the region. The Jews should not be forced to accept eventual rule by Islam to have peace in their communities.
You still do not get it do you Carey?
It is the people of Israel that broke covenant.
But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today. If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God. (Deut 8:18-20)
The promises made to the nation of Israel were ALWAYS conditional upon their obedience.
NOpe you are wrong the covenant was between Abraham and God not the people of Israel.
The reason God made the covenant was because of Abraham's faith not the people of Israels faith.
The Only condition for Israels people to recieve the civenant was circumcision and considering Yahweh the one and only God.
REad it yourself it is very plain.UNDERSTAND this is a seperate covenant than the covenant for salvation and everlasting life.
This is the covenant for that piece of dirt that once belonged to the Philistines called canaan then and now called Israel.
Genesis 17 : 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreignerthose who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
They stopped circumcising for a while and started intermarrying with pagans and other races then God temporarily cut them off from their land but he never cut all of them OFF from their land and as promised has Given it back to them as referred to in Jeremiah 30 and Isaiah 60.
REMEMBER the covenant for salvation has nothing to do with this covenant. NOTHING
Uh tell me where again is it found that faithfulness is not required?
Here ya go simply read...
Genesis 17 : 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreignerthose who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
What school teaches that Circumcision is separate from the Abraham covenant? This being the case, according to you, why did Abraham need to be circumcised?
I refuse this narrow minded theology and hen picking of scripture. Over and over again the OT is filled with examples of consequences resulting from ones faith or lack of. Tell me Carey what was the incentive again for a man, with the advanced medical technology of the time, to go out and have his fore skin cut off? Abraham was 99 when he seal his covenant of faithfulness to God and the only land he owned he bought and paid for, at market price to boot. Abraham's purchased land was used solely for the burial of his deceased family. Abraham, whom is the sole reason this covenant exists, was content to live the life of a Bedouin knowing, in his heart, the true reward and fulfillment of God's promise was blessedly assured. Abraham was the example by which man was to live, Abraham's faith in God is the key to all. FAITH is always the requirement and NOT circumcision alone.
Circumcision [EBD]
cutting around. This rite, practiced before, as some think, by divers races, was appointed by God to be the special badge of his chosen people, an abiding sign of their consecration to him. It was established as a national ordinance (Gen. 17:10, 11). In compliance with the divine command, Abraham, though ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised on the same day with Ishmael, who was thirteen years old (17:24-27). Slaves, whether home-born or purchased, were circumcised (17:12, 13); and all foreigners must have their males circumcised before they could enjoy the privileges of Jewish citizenship (Ex. 12:48). During the journey through the wilderness, the practice of circumcision fell into disuse, but was resumed by the command of Joshua before they entered the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2-9). It was observed always afterwords among the tribes of Israel, although it is not expressly mentioned from the time of the settlement in Canaan till the time of Christ, about 1,450 years. The Jews prided themselves in the possession of this covenant distinction (Judg. 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26; 2 Sam. 1:20; Ezek. 31:18).
So by your definition anyone who is circumcised is entitled to the land, this includes Ismael and his descendants.
Christian and Jewish principals don't make you have to fold to Islamic law, or put yourself in a position were that is the outcome. We aren't required to let people attack us, and we have every right to defend ourselves, nonetheless, the conditions in Palestine are deplorable, and Israel needs to set things straight or its only going to get worse and harder and they can pass their problem onto their children, once again, a basic affront to God and country.Maybe because the Jews were also commanded to love their neighbor? But then there is nothing Jewish about the military and political state called Israel.
Christian and Jewish principals don't make you have to fold to Islamic law, or put yourself in a position were that is the outcome. We aren't required to let people attack us, and we have every right to defend ourselves, nonetheless, the conditions in Palestine are deplorable, and Israel needs to set things straight or its only going to get worse and harder and they can pass their problem onto their children, once again, a basic affront to God and country.
1)How does one set up a state in which Jews can reside while simultaneously allowing Muslims full rights and privileges under the law?I am curious what you think Islamic law is? Islamic law has nothing to do with Israel's decision to steal another's land, bull doze down another's home, to randomly kill innocents, to deny another their basic human rights of life liberty and justice. Hamas is in power in Gaza because that is where people saw any chance for hope. Again I ask you what you think Islamic law is?
I recommend reading the Washington Report of Middle East Affairs
About the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.
The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.
AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET's Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.
Founders
The American Educational Trust was founded in Washington, DC in January, 1982. Its founding chairman was Edward Firth Henderson, a British Army Officer during World War II who served in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Co-founders were Andrew I. Killgore, AET's first president, who was U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar when he retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 1980; and Richard H. Curtiss, AET's first executive director, who was chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency when he retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 1980.
In addition to the three founding directors, other initial directors of the American Educational Trust were Prof. John Ruedy, director of studies at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies; former Democratic Member of Congress Thomas Rees of Los Angeles; John Law, Middle East correspondent for U.S. News & World Report for some 20 years before he founded Mideast Markets, a publication of the Chase Manhattan Bank; and Dr. John Duke Anthony, president and chief executive officer of the National Council on U.S. Arab Relations.
Subsequent board chairmen have included Dr. John Davies, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and the current chairman, the Reverend Dr. L. Humphrey Walz, former associate executive of the Presbyterian synod of the Northeast.
1)How does one set up a state in which Jews can reside while simultaneously allowing Muslims full rights and privileges under the law?
2)Do Hamas and Hizballah respect the "local Jew's" right to self govern?
3)How do you propose, in a pragmatic way, to get around these difficulties?
The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not turn to Hamas in this election chiefly because of PNA corruption and mismanagement, though they were certainly significant issues; nor did they do so because they saw Fatah as extreme. They did not vote for Hamas out of support for terrorism or for continuing warfare. The main reason they backed Hamas was that they saw it as a more determined and effective defender of Palestinian rights and interests. Most are not interested in the details of its ideology. They value the pluralistic and generally tolerant character of Palestinian society; they want more democracy, not less. The more sophisticated Hamas leaders understand this and it now has to be seen whether they will act as a faction out to impose its own beliefs on Palestinian society or embrace the responsibility of being a representative government.
Once again, the history and creation of Hamas is a relatively recent thing in comparison to the beginning of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel's problem did not begin with Hamas and/or Islam. Israel's problem began when the indigenous population of 'God's holy land' were displaced, slaughtered, had their basic human rights striped which still continues today. Palestinians suffer daily humiliations by having ones very existence/livelihood in the hands of a brutal 40+ year occupier. Even in OT times the people of Israel were commanded to treat their neighbors justly and fairly. In studying history ones finds that Muslims, Christians and indigenous Jews have lived peacefully side by side and, yes, still do today. There are many representatives, of these three Abrahamic faiths, working together, side by side, for Palestinians rights, justice and peace.
No Hamas nor Muslims reject Jews, (Jews as are Christians are people of the book) it is the occupation they reject.
Five Views Hamas Electoral Victory, Hamas and Democracy
There are so many wonderful interfaith organizations working together attempting to achieve peace. These people working together as Christ taught by simply treating neighbor as self.
Combatants for Peace
Jordanian Interfaith Coexistence Research Center
Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by ...
Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by Tehran ... is impossible for Jews to get senior positions in Iran Air, the national airline, ...
www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html
Micah you are so bent on lies,misinformation, and propoganda you miss the facts I have shown in the word so many times.
If I were Bin Laden I would hire you...hahahaha
In the Old Testament a spiritual idea is attached to circumcision. It was the symbol of purity (Isa. 52:1). We read of uncircumcised lips (Ex. 6:12, 30), ears (Jer. 6:10), hearts (Lev. 26:41). The fruit of a tree that is unclean is spoken of as uncircumcised (Lev. 19:23).
It was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace as well as of the national covenant between God and the Hebrews. (1.) It sealed the promises made to Abraham, which related to the commonwealth of Israel, national promises. (2.) But the promises made to Abraham included the promise of redemption (Gal. 3:14), a promise which has come upon us. The covenant with Abraham was a dispensation or a specific form of the covenant of grace, and circumcision was a sign and seal of that covenant. It had a spiritual meaning. It signified purification of the heart, inward circumcision effected by the Spirit (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28; Col. 2:11). Circumcision as a symbol shadowing forth sanctification by the Holy Spirit has now given way to the symbol of baptism (q.v.). But the truth embodied in both ordinances is ever the same, the removal of sin, the sanctifying effects of grace in the heart.
Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were identical. No one could be a member of the one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in both. Every circumcised person bore thereby evidence that he was one of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it then existed, and consequently also a member of the Jewish commonwealth.
IRI Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Wednesday usurper regime of Israel has been suffering from lack of legitimacy throughout the past 60 years.
Mottaki added at a press conference in Paris, "Palestine belongs to the entire Palestinians, including the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians."
He said, "The defeat of the Zionist regime in the scene of legitimacy is more significant, deeper, and more catastrophic than that regime's military defeat in the course of the 33 Day War against Lebanon."
The Islamic Republic of Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs elsewhere in the press conference reiterated, "The greatest philosophy based on which the founders of the Zionist regime have tried to build upon and propagate over is a sentence uttered by an author during the era of US former president John F. Kennedy. He says 'A land without anation and a nation without a land.' That is the philosophy based on which this regime was established in Palestine." Mottaki said, "Both sides of that equation are wrong, since neither that land was without a nation, nor those who were forced to immigrate to Palestine were without lands, since they were citizens of European countries."
He emphasized, "The aftershocks of the 33 Day War are still shaking the foundations of the Zionist regime since that war proved the falsehood of the claim that that regime is invulnerable. The significance of the matter is that Israel was not defeated in a war with a classical army, but in confrontation with a resistance movement."
The Iranian Foreign Minister added, "Iran believes it is necessary for the international community to confront that regime, because Israel has always been breaching the entire international rules and regulations quite openly."
Elsewhere in the conference Mottaki expressed the Islamic Republic of Iran's satisfaction over the reached agreements in Doha, asking for their full implementation by entire Lebanese groups in order to secure the establishment of peace and security in Lebanon.
He added, "The problem in Lebanon was that some people were trying force the implementation of their personal viewpoints, rather than that of the Lebanese nation, while the developments during the past 20 months in Lebanon proved that such a mentality is doomed to defeat there."
The IRI Foreign Minister who is in France to participate at a conference to support Afghanistan took part at a press conference at the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Wednesday morning and talked to the French and international media reporters on significant regional and international issues.
If this wasn't such a serious subject I would laugh at your humor.
Be specific Carey disprove anything that I have posted and also prove the propaganda....and this coming from someone who posts from jihad watcha site that only incites hatred.
This is how I see it,
Circumcision
Why did you evade my questions?
Here is what Iran says:
Israel suffers from lack of legitimacy, says Mottaki
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0806128380012458.htm
The land was stolen from the Palestinians, there is no doubt. But, compensation has been paid... probably seven times seven times. Compensation?? The greatest problem is the inability to live next to each other without firing rockets and spreading animosity. Wonder how you would react if you suffered what the Gazan's suffer daily? Palestine, with all the aid the world is willing to give and is giving, could be one of the most advanced civilizations on Earth. Yes it is a fact that Palestinians hold more Doctorics than Israelis. What the Palestinians receive, if they receive it, is nothing compared to what the Israelis receive from the U.S. alone.
Do you have answers for these questions? I do and I did provide the answers in the reading I provided.
1)How does one set up a state in which Jews can reside while simultaneously allowing Muslims full rights and privileges under the law?
Palestinian, Israeli scholars to advance one-state solution in London Report, 12 November 2007
Leading Palestinian and Israeli scholars and activists will be among the speakers at an unprecendented conference to explore a one-state solution, at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London on 17-18 November.
Organized by the London One State Group and the SOAS Palestine Society, the conference, "Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Israel/Palestine," will explore new models for a just peace including binationalism, secular democracy, a 'state of all its citizens' and federalism.
2)Do Hamas and Hizballah respect the "local Jew's" right to self govern?
A HUMAN TRAGEDY CALLED GAZA
One and a half million Gaza Palestinians - Muslims and Christians, men, women, and children - are incarcerated in the largest prison on earth. Gaza is also one big refugee camp. Over seventy percent of its population are refugees living in eight large refugee camps. These refugees were driven out of their towns and villages in the south of Palestine by the Jewish Zionist forces in 1948. The Gaza strip is totally encircled by walls, fences and towers. The Israeli army controls its air, sea, and land, with nowhere to escape. The people of Gaza are suffocating. Visitors who go to Gaza have testified to this fact.
The desperate situation of the people explains the firing of the qassam rockets. From our faith perspective, we do not at all condone these rocket attacks or any form of violence. We condemn the indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians perpetrated by both sides. However, we feel the government of Israel bears the greater responsibility because it has created this situation with its over 40 year-long occupation that contravenes international law.
3)How do you propose, in a pragmatic way, to get around these difficulties?
A one state solution... could be considered a valid long term goal, I would think, but I don't think that it is currently feasible. Ripping people from their houses is always unjust.Return to a fair and just peace process and EDUCATION, this means all of us. Question anything that promotes hate and incitement. As I have repeatedly said Christians, Muslims and Jews have and do live side by side in peace. I am sorry Islam is not the enemy, ignorance is.
No clash of civilizations, says UN report
A UN-sponsored group says the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of global tensions.
Dan Murphy
The Christian Science Monitor
November 14, 2006
UN Alliance of Civilizations - THE REPORT
CAIRO – A UN-sponsored group called the Alliance of Civilizations, created last year to find ways to bridge the growing divide between Muslim and Western societies, released a first report Monday that says the conflict over Israel and the Palestinian territories is the central driver in global tensions.
"Our emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not meant to imply that it is the overt cause of all tensions between Muslim and Western societies," write the report's authors, a group of academics and present and former government officials from 19 different countries. "Nevertheless, it is our view that the Israeli-Palestinian issue has taken on a symbolic value that colors cross cultural and political relations ... well beyond its limited geographic scope."
But while the authors hope their report will invigorate and create cross-cultural dialogue, its tone implies that it is unlikely to be well received by the United States and Israel, focusing as it does on allegations of double standards by those two nations while giving less time to the faults of the Palestinians or specific Muslim governments.
Criticism of US policies, though at times oblique, is a major feature of the document and hits on themes that have angered representatives of the Bush administration in the past. For instance, in a discussion of Al Qaeda's attack on the US on Sept. 11, the report states: "Later, these attacks were presented as one of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, whose link with them has never been demonstrated, feeding a perception among Muslim societies of unjust aggression stemming from the West."
While that is indeed a common view in Muslim countries, it is unlikely to gain the favor of the current US administration, whose representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, is an ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq and a frequent critic of the world body. Earlier this year, Mr. Bolton characterized the UN Human Rights Commission as packed with officials from "some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers."
The report is the result of a UN-sanctioned "High Level Group" meeting of some twenty "eminent personalities" that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed last year. The group, which was cosponsored by the Prime Ministers of Turkey and Spain and included among its authors Nobel Peace Prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami, issued the final report on Nov. 13 at its final meeting in Istanbul.
To be sure, the report is also framed as a direct challenge to the notion that a "Clash of Civilizations" is imminent – a concept first popularized by Samuel Huntington's 1996 book of the same name.
In a statement, Mr. Kofi Annan said it was clear that religion is not at the root of current tensions.
"The problem is not the Koran or the Torah or the Bible," Mr. Annan said. "The problem is never the faith, it is the faithful and how they behave towards each other."
That sentiment was echoed in an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle on Sunday by three of the report's authors, who also said that political repression in the Muslim world contributes to extremism.
"Denying peaceful opposition movements the freedom to express their views and jailing their supporters generate anger and resentment, encouraging some to join violent groups," wrote Mr. Tutu, former Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas, and Andri Azoulay, an advisor to Morocco's King Muhammed VI.
"When Western governments lend their support – tacitly or overtly – to authoritarian regimes, they become part of the problem," the authors wrote.
The overall objective of the paper is to set out problems between the Muslim and the West as a matter of politics, and not of culture, and tends to see anger and misunderstanding as largely a problem of inadequate education.
For instance, the authors point to a recent Gallup poll that found 57 percent of Americans either responded "nothing" or "I don't know" when asked what they most admired about Muslim societies, as evidence for a need for education systems in both the West and Muslim countries to provide a "basic understanding of religious traditions other than their own."
The authors also point to another recent survey that found 30 percent of US government money for cultural exchanges go to programs with Europe – the societies with which the US has the most in common – while just 6 percent go to programs with the Middle East, arguably the place where such efforts could do the most good. (continued)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?