Show: Imus in the Morning
Channel: Fox Business
"Ron Paul: U.S. Shouldn’t Support Israel’s Gaza Blockade"
whoah whoa whoah there! Are you saying you are taking a position of one side against another? That's not very non-interventionist of you.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike: 6 7
Im laughing really hard at the fact that alot opf you guys want to do the intention of harming israel by defunding them of foreign aid etc.... The foreign aid only accounts for 1% of israels gdp. In fact israel has one of the most innovative entrepenueral free market economy in the world. And all the foreign aid accounts for all the strings attached that cuts israels throat diplomatically, defensively. Here is an example for you guys before the USA was giving any assistance to israel France was supplying israel weapons etc.... French prrime minnestor de gaulle said he is going to fund the sryans and give them the weapons israel had already bought from them. And after that whole mess of idf special forces doing missions to intercept the weapons from france they had already bought the israelis realized they needed to develop there own weapons systems a few years later the merkava 1 was created. The moral of the story is infact that dependence on other countrys made israel weak and they realized self efficiency was one of the only ways to make there country secure. so ron pauls foreign policy would be great for israel. Idk if ron paul has the intention of doing israel any harm but with his foreign policy israel would bennefit the most.
Like or Dislike: 7 7
It's not so much that people want to harm isreal as much as it is that people are tired of parasites sucking off of our tax money. But I realize that by trying to prevent a jew from taking my money causes him great emotional stress.
Q:What kind of slimy person asks another person for money when they have a pocketful of their own? A: An Isreali.
Why don't you tell people how isreal used terrorism to push the British out of Palestine, and how you promoted communism is Europe? How about telling them how our good friend and ally has stolen from America, how you've murdered our citizens,bombed our ships and spied on our country numerous times. If you shine a light on all that is happening here in America and has happened, all that is rotten, you will find a nest disproportionately filled with jews; that's not simply my opinion, that is a fact!
Karmas coming around the corner, and thats the one thing you can't cheat!
Hotly debated. What do you think? 12 12
Blah Blah Blah...
The Isreali Government is a deplorable institution, and anyone who supports their plight are greedy and selfserving evil minded people. That we lend ANY type of military aid or finacial support to Isreal disgusts me. It is WRONG!!!
The U.S. should not support Isreal's government since its main objection is to displace,and destroy innocent people by oppressing them; denying them basic needs, and liberties.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 15 13
I love the "out of his ass" statistics that Jordan quotes to make his points, as valid as his final conclusions may be. To say US aid is trivial to Isreal is a sham. Nobody knows, least of all Jordan, how much aid goes to Israel under the table in tax-free grants when they put their fairy-goons to plead american dollars for their poor Russian immigrants. Official aid totoals to $3 a day for each Isreally jewish citizen. Think what a 3rd world starving victim could do with that.
Like or Dislike: 8 8
Although the Bible commands us not to kill (Exodus 20:13), it also gives at least three exceptions to this command, or you might say three situations where the taking of another's life is not killing in the biblical sense.
1. A murderer is to have his life taken. God told Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6). Capital punishment is God's plan in this case.
2. An exception is made for self-protection. Exodus 22:2 states, "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." If you took a life to protect your own life or the lives of others, God accepts that as a proper cause.
3. War is the final exception. About the same time that God was giving the commandment to not kill, He was also numbering "all that are able to go forth to war in Israel" (Numbers 1:3). The Bible allows for the killing of enemy soldiers in war. Even Jesus spoke of going to war as a natural condition on this earth (Luke 14:31). Paul speaks of a ruler as "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4). This would include going to war.
However, even though God allows for war and even though Christians are not told that they cannot go to war, that does not mean that Christians have to blindly follow every war without consideration. Peter said, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). This shows us that there are times when the laws of man go against the law of God. If a Christian knows that a war goes against God, he has the right to refuse to fight it in obedience to a higher power. However, he should be extremely careful in his decision and realize that he will have to pay the consequences no matter what they are.
It is not a matter of whether or not we agree with the war. It must go much deeper than that. The war must go against another clear command of God. Only then do we have a right to refuse to fight.
Like or Dislike: 5 7
An eye for an eye is not Justice, it is absolute revenge, it rights no wrong, and never brings peace. When man seeks revenge rather than peace, he wastes his life away. That the Bible condones killing for any reason is only further proof that it was written by man in an attempt to rationalize his limited powers. Those who seek Justice by such violent and vengful ways are weak in mindfulness and lack spirit in charactor.
Man should ALWAYS seek resolution through nonviolence. In doing so we accomplish more...Broaden our minds which allows for us to better understand our purpose.
Like or Dislike: 3 3
It serves as a warning. Karma in action. It's applying the judgement of ones own self ...to himself.
It's saying ''if you think it's ok to take a life then you need to live by those rules''...
Think about it.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
War does not resolve differences, nor does it establish true peace; capital punishment is not justice.
We use the Bible and all kinds popular rhetoric to justify our inhumain actions. We even improve our methods of killing as a means to make ourselves feel better...Just because leathal injection "appears" less violent then the guillotine, hanging, stoneing, firering squad, electric chair, doesn't mean it is any more humain or justifiable...And if we are okay with Capital Punishment, why did/do so many people, and the courts, fuss about assisted suicide?
I know I am digressing from the subject of this thread, but once again I can't help but to charge those guilty of being hypocrits and hideing behind a book.
Like or Dislike: 4 3
And so ends the boredom.
OK what about the fact that a person who committed murder obviously believes that it is alright to murder.
If I kill my neighbor then I am obviously not opposed to murder.
So I am not someone who has chosen to live under the ”murder is wrong” rule.
So if I don’t play by that rule then why should I expect others to play by that rule?
Still two wrongs do not make a right, and I don't believe that everyone who commits murder "believes it is alright". I certainly am aware that there are a "few" individuals who are evil spirited and plot destruction upon the wellbeing of others and should not be tollereated, and yes by our emotions they deserve no forgiveness. But we do have a place for them...Prison. Prison can be a resource for peace, offering one to face their penance. For those that prove themselves as unfit and a danger to society...Life without parole. This is the true intention of prison.
Please don't mistake my passion for nonviolence and plight for true justice as being forgiving of murder.
Like or Dislike: 0 2
One thing you are right about is that not everyone who kills is a cold blooded sociopath. But there are laws about self-defense and temporary insanity etc. which take that into account.
And I actually do believe in rehabilitation.
I'm ok with a life sentence instead of a death sentence. On the other hand I never lost a loved one to homicide and I'm not sure I feel right telling people they can't avenge.
War is a different issue.
I think war is just wrong. Period.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
I too have never lost a loved one to a homicide, so I don't actually know how I would be emotionally. I hope that I would still be able to keep my wits about me and not allow what the popular concensus encourages as my right...revenge through anger...It's not justice. I guess in some ways I look at that type of revenge as having an equal or greater negative impact on society, especially all those connected with a murder. I can honestly say I have been so angry at another person for being so calus and crude towards me that I have wanted to do something hurtful to them, but I never have, something else has always come along to asure me that I am stronger spiritually for not. I can put this to the test over and over in my mind, meditating, as being the family of the murder victim, as being the family of the murderer, as being the murderer, and as being the victim. And still I find nothing satisfying, no justice, no oportunity to, in time, right a wrong; just hurt and anger and loss of humanity.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
There is no New Testament commadment to go to war or even to fight.
Christians are told to flee if they are attacked. Flee? That doesn't sound like war. Does it?
How about the infamous ''we do not wrestle against flesh and blood''?
The word myth is defined by Webster’s Dictionary this way: “A real or fictional story that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving expression to commonly felt emotions.” That definition expresses exactly what has happened to the American church in regards to politics.
An emotional, heartfelt desire to see our Christian ideals represented in government has led to the creation of a myth. That myth says this: Christians will lose their religious freedoms unless they become actively involved in the political system. But is that true?
In the 1970s and 80s, this philosophy caused the largest grassroots movement of evangelical Christians into the political process that we have ever seen. That movement helped elect a conservative president to the White House twenty of the last twenty-eight years, and it subsequently changed the makeup of the Supreme Court.
While these are good results, it is easy to see that politics have not solved our real problems. At best, many social ills were stayed off a little longer. Abortion still claims the lives of millions of innocent children every year, and the moral fabric of America appears to be unraveling at an alarming rate.
Does this mean we are doomed? It does if we believe the government can do what only the church has been called to do. Our form of government was never intended to change society; it is incapable of producing morality through legislation. It may help restrain immorality, but only if the church has established a moral foundation in the hearts of the men and women who govern.
As we have seen through judicial activism, judges with great legal power and no moral character are making judgments contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the law. They are calling good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20), often making the victims feel guilty while creating sympathy for the perpetrators.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, wrote in 1789, “Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other…Free government rests upon public and private morality.”It is not our government that has failed; it’s the church that has failed to be the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13).
Read what Dr. Jedediah Morse said in 1799: “In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom…Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.” He was saying that Christianity, not government, is the driving force behind true freedom.
When World War II brought America back to her knees, a revival broke out that is still referred to as the era of the highest church attendance in recent history. A time of repentance and seeking God brought peace and a period of great prosperity. The result of those good times was a church that was lulled to sleep. And while it was sleeping, a new generation, the “baby boomer,” became obsessed with materialism and freedom from moral constraint.
How did the church react? In variety of ways, some of which were very good. People began seeking the Lord, and the Lord answered through what is often called “The Jesus People Movement,” “The Charismatic Movement,” “The Word of Faith Movement,” “The Lay Witness Renewal,” etc. These revivals were not spearheaded by any individual, yet they had worldwide impact. Truly, these were mighty moves of God’s Spirit.
Yet, as a whole, the church responded by promoting political involvement as the answer to society’s woes. Make no mistake—Christians who live in a country that provides them the freedom to govern through voting or holding political office have a responsibility to participate. However, for many, politics has not been a weapon against the moral decline; it has been the only weapon.
Calvin Coolidge, the thirtieth president of the United States, declared, “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them [the foundations of society] if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country” (brackets mine).
Our society isn’t sick because of the government; it’s sick because the church has not made faith in the teaching of the Bible “practically universal in our country.”
Once we cease to win the hearts of men, it is inevitable that ungodly men will make their way into leadership and take the country with them.
If we change people’s hearts with the Gospel, the people will change government with their votes. Government merely reflects what people believe in their hearts; it does nothing to form those beliefs. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, wrote in the early 1700s, “Government seems to me to be a part of religion itself…Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad.”
It’s good to pursue legal action and political means to right wrongs. But the power of the Gospel has more power to change the hearts of men than all the military might and legislative bodies of any government. Billy Graham understands this. When asked to run for president in the 1950s, he responded by saying he would not lower himself to that position. He was not attempting to diminish the office of the president; he was elevating the office of a minister of the Gospel.
The Apostle Paul lived in one of the most immoral and politically corrupt societies that the world has ever known. Yet he advocated no political action. Instead he told the Christians to submit to government (Rom. 13) and pray for those in authority (1 Tim. 2:1-4). He effected change in society one heart at a time. In a short period of time, Christianity became the official religion of the empire that once threw its followers to the lions.
Elias Boudinot, president of the Continental Congress in 1783, and later a congressman from New Jersey who served as president of the American Bible Society, said, “The moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow.”
There is a civil war going on in America today, but it is not political. Sure, the courtrooms and congressional halls are the battlegrounds, but the war itself is between light and dark, the truth of the Gospel and the lies of the devil. It’s between the people of God and the children of the devil.
In this war, the enemy tries to hide his true objectives behind the mask of individual rights and personal liberties. But make no mistake—the real goal is the elimination of God and His influence from our society so thatpeople can indulge in their carnal lifestyles without conviction or guilt.
The way to win this war and save the political character of this nation is to use the Gospel to change the moral character of its people. Our founding fathers understood that. The quotation below shows that they weren’t looking to government to change their society, but to safeguard the values that already existed.
“Nothing can be politically right, that is morally wrong.”
Benjamin Rush, 1786
The church needs to refocus its energies back to the great commission that our Lord Jesus Christ gave us:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen”(Matt. 28:19-20).
Approximately 30 percent of Americans say they are born again. If each one, in the next four years, would lead just one other person to the true faith, over 60 percent of the population would be born again by the time we once again face a presidential election. If that happened, then there really would be change.
Jesus never told us to make converts; He told us to make disciples.
Like or Dislike: 6 3
babygirl I enjoyed reading your posts. There is nothing that I disagree with but I wonder why you don't mention ''wolves in sheeps clothing''.
It almost sounds like you're saying that christians should stay out of politics and stick with preaching.
That would not make sense.
Did I mis-understand?
If phony war mongering psuedo-christians are a potential threat to this country and if they are in the political arena, then real believers need to engage them and point out the lies.
Do you agree?
It almost sounds as if christians are given two choices
a)join the fight
b)shut up and preach
I agree with your assertion that we need to make disciples.
But I also believe that our media and politicians are presenting a phony view of what Christianity is all about. If left un-checked it would hinder many disciple-making efforts. Don't you think?
They present christianity as a group that ''wrestles with flesh and blood''.
If that were true Quakers and Mennonites and other groups wouldn't exist.
They're trying to intitiate some phony ''holy'' war the way some popes did centuries ago.
Last night Bill Oreilly was bashing a group of 30 anti-war Muslim protesters and in a quick blurb Bill Oreilly says ''well I guess there are extremists everywhere..we have nutty baptist groups in America).
What was that about?
I think I know.
I think Bill's only problem with baptist/protestant/real christians is that they tend to want to actually READ the book which fox news and other phony christians are trying to preach out of.
We do NOT have to defend israel in order to prove our christianity.
We do NOT have to stay out of politics in order to fulfill the great commission.
We can multi-task.
We can focus on the great commission while, at the same time, pointing out ''wolves in sheep's clothing''
I was refered to by another poster as a ''hyper-religious black woman''
I do more preaching than most other posters.
I'm not negligent in my ''great commission'' duties but...on the other hand I can engage in politics and point out wolves in sheeps clothings.
Jesus did both.
He preached love and also said ''beware of false teachers''.
We can do both as well.
This conversation disecting the Bible is "interesting" BUT rather off topic don't you think? Of course, war is unChristian --- that's a given. I muse that support of these
wars is a reflection of "herdmindedness" i.e. people tend to agree with positions that
they would NOT hold in private OR if their faith was a central part of their life. Our men
in uniform are being used and most Americans fear to say it.
There are many Christians that hold the interesting ands attractive point of view of the Preterist Society. I don"t belong BUT have read some of their books. I believe that
you would enjoy looking at this. Google it.
Ron Paul's idea on the Israeli blockade of Gaza is "right on" AND illustrates how difficult a position the USA is in because of our history. My thought is that the name Israel is
NOT correct for Jews as it is the name for believers AND they don't accept the Messiah
sent from GOD therefore they are not entitled to use it! I belong to JEWS for Jesus.
Like or Dislike: 2 3
since media evangelicals and news men have been USING the bible to promote war it would seem that dissecting the Bible in order to point out their mis-representation is relevant and on-topic.
You said ''war is un-christian ...that's a given.''
I agree with you. But phony media psuedo-christians don't agree and are preaching something different. Haven't you heard? Have you been catching anything on pro-war Fox or pro-war christian tv?
They're preaching that it is our christian duty to support and even fight in the mid-east wars.
btw I googled ''preterists''.
Like or Dislike: 3 0
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
George Washington on xenophily. WOW! He had a time masheen.
(George Washington, not a free trader, not an anal loving Libertarian. George Washington the righteous dude.)
Like or Dislike: 2 1
HAH! What a liar. Washington was an isolationist.
The newly formed USA had far more interests in taking the side of either Britain or France, then we do today on taking the side of Israel. If we took the side of Britain we could have annexed Louisiana Territory which was much bigger then Louisiana today. If we took the side of France we could have annexed Canada. If we take the side of Israel today, we get Jack and Shet.
I embrace the label Isolationist. I am a proud Isolationist, you guys are just cowards and won't admit you're isolationists because at heart you are truly globalist. All free traders are globalists, you just can't commit. *makes chicken sounds*
Like or Dislike: 5 2
Dr. Paul is wrong. The Israeli nation has every right to defend itself against muslim nations that overtly vow their destruction. They have allowed humanitarian aid, but let's be honest, these ships trying to break the embargo have nothing to do with humanitarian aid but all to do with a political statement. What Israel wants is to stop is missiles and other weapons which will inevitably be used against them as they have previously so many times from Gaza and the West Bank. Just as JFK prevented the Soviets for establishing nuclear warheads in Cuba, so too Israel has every right to to act before a threat is actualized. If Quebec was sending missiles into Maine and vowing the destruction of Maine do you think for a moment that we wouldn't be within our natural rights to prevent ships emanating from foreign hostile nations from delivering "goods" to Quebec? Get real. As an atheist, a non-jew, and a libertarian who has been a STRONG supporter of Dr. Paul, I FEAR the Christian Ron Paul may be revealing some anti-Semitism. The initiation of force is not with the diminutive Israel, who is only defending itself, but rather with those muslim nations surrounding it who vow Israeli destruction and daily deny their very right to exist.
Like or Dislike: 11 8
Rick: I agree that Dr. Paul is wrong on this. Israel is at war with the Hamas led government in the Gaza strip in case he didn't know. Hamas has stated their intention to destroy Israel many times. Dr. Paul supported our attack on the Taliban when we were attaked by Al-Queda yet he doesn't think Israel should blockade a government that wants to destroy them? And contrary to his statement, humanitarian aid is being allowed into the Gaza strip. It just has to be inspected first by Israel. Rick, you're right. Dr. Paul needs to get with the program on this issue!
Rick You got all twisted bro,
"just as JFK prevented the Soviets for establishing nuclear warheads in Cuba"
As a matter of fact the nuclear warhead were already established and were facing the US from Cuba. Read the god dang history
Did JFK stood firm by dialogue and diplomacy or he launched an attack on the Russian ships in the International water just like Flotilla?
"The Israeli nation has every right to defend itself against muslim nations"
Almost every time the war started it, It started with ISRAEL. As matter of fact the State of Israel was created by war.
Whenever the Israelis wanted more land they simply started a brand new fresh war and blame the Palestinian/PLO/Hamas/muslim etc etc..for it and feel good about winning a war against Rock throwers? Give me a Break.
I can't go where you stupidity goes as an example below;
"I FEAR the Christian Ron Paul may be revealing some anti-Semitism"
Who ever put America 1st, 2nd and 3rd that is my President. Ron Paul is Constitutionalists and I like him for loving this great country's land law.
Unlike Obama and specially Hilary Clinton and even Sarah Palin who work for the state of Israel under the American flag is just beyond shame. Back in the old day, US used to use countries like Afghanistan against Russia but now days the table turned and we are being used for the Stinky State of Israel for war after war .
We can do a lot with three billion dollars we give you the Israelis. We can do much better with money lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran war.
By saving money we can fix our education system, roads and create more work for our nation new high school, college, university graduates.
If you love Israel go there and live there happily ever after.
Like or Dislike: 6 6
You need to get your facts straight my friend.
1) the State of Israel was established by a mandate which provided territory for both an Arab/Palestinian State and a Jewish state side by side. The leadership of what was to become Israel accepted that and were then attacked by the surrounding Arab Nations.
2) Similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis of which was refereed to, there have been better than 3,000 missile attacks against Israel from within Gaza with at least a quarter of that number coming prior to the blockade's establishment.
3) Under international law territory captured as part of a defensive action may be kept by the occupying country as reparations from a war. Most people believe that the "occupied territories" were captured during 1967, however the places were lost at the begining of the 1973 war and were then recaptured, hence part of the reason why Israel has not annexed the lands as there is a potential issue with International law.
On the topic of the blockade and the flotilla the bottom line is this, If missles and terrorists were flowing into this country and attacking this country from Mexico and the Mexican constitution called for the wiping out of America I highly doubt you would feel there is no need for a blockade. You may or may not agree but if the ships had allowed themselves to be boarded and inspected and the people did not do anything in reaction to the boarding this would have been a non-event.
Like or Dislike: 7 3
"The leadership of what was to become Israel accepted that" Oh how nice of the stolen one - oops I mean the chosen one to except a stolen one.
You crack me up when you crank up for the Stinky State Of (S.S.Israel).
"3) Under international law territory captured as part of a defensive action may be kept by the occupying country as reparation from a war."
Wow. So If I carry out a home invasion here in a city in Texas, I can hold their garage and use their living room as reparations for fighting me back. Good lord.
If it work internationally, I wonder why wouldn’t it work in the city? Can someone give it a try? I dare you……. Any chosen one?
I say if America aint in your list to be the 1st 2nd and 3rd,
Houston we have problem.
Like or Dislike: 3 6
BOYCOTT ISRAEL! ! !
End Apartheid! Free the Palestinians!
Hotly debated. What do you think? 10 14
I wouldn't mind boycotting Israel but then they want more and more American Tax payers money. I would rather buy their goods if they have any. I would certainly won't buy into more wars against muslims countries that is for sure.
But anyway, the bar-code on their goods are 729. Your welcome to buy nor not to buy that is your decision.
Like or Dislike: 1 4
If you have a computer and use any sort of technology odds are you are already buying Israeli goods. just a thought.
Like or Dislike: 6 2
You got your stereotypes mixed up duderonomy. It's Asians and electronics; Jews and bankers. The Asians have those slitted eyes so they can see the small components better, like squinting, cause they are a pain in the ass to see, and maybe it prevents the solder smoke from getting into their eyes too.
Like or Dislike: 1 6
Oh yeah? and the internet that I am using was invented by Al Gore. SUUUUURE.
Yes every christian army is certain that god wants their side to win BUT it is very important to remind people that not every Christian is in the army.
The media is trying to convince believers that to be a christian we have to support war.
So the country gets divided and christians are shamed into supporting the war or denying their faith.
But the TRUTH is that the Bible does NOT give a time and place for the end and it does NOT tell ''people of the way'' or ''christians'' to go to war.
Bashing the Bible doesn't help the anti-war cause.
Military leaders and propoganda arteests in need of recruits re-invent the meaning of different passages in the Bible. The best defense to refute their phony claims comes from the very book they try to twist.
Yes military leaders of the past gathered christian armies BECAUSE the soldiers were illiterate and DIDN'T read the book.The book does NOT say we should go to war.
tv evangelists mis-interpret and mis-read the Bible constantly. They must believe that their audience is intellectually inferior.
Then Fox quotes the Bible and tells us we are judeochristians.
What in the world is that?
There's no such thing as a judeochristian.
There are christians and there are jewish people.
What's this new religion that they are inventing?
So the only alternative is abandon christianity or join the judeochristian war mongers.
It's a divisive trick.
The Bible does NOT say that we are judeochristians or pope-led christians and that we should go to war.
It says the opposit.
Like or Dislike: 9 4
You exemplify my point very well-- thank you. Several people on this one page are righteously certain that the Bible unambiguously supports their view. The problem is, these different views are incompatible.
You state purely subjective interpretations as if they were (a) objective, and (b) the main-stream Christian view. "But the TRUTH is that the Bible does NOT give a time and place for the end". It certainly does specify a time range. If you gave a damned about what it really says, you would look up "armageddon", "apocalypse", etc., in a concordance (and not ignore those occurrences that you don't like).
Oh, I definitely know that you can find many other quotes in the Bible that support your position. The fact that I can point you to verses that say (including with full contextual appreciation) that the apocalypse will occur in the 1st century, and that you can find verses indicating the opposite, leads to the obvious conclusion that the book is AMBIGUOUS on this topic. [Further research proves similar ambiguity on most other important topics.]
You can continue to argue theology among yourselves. I'll be skipping any posts containing the word "bible". You obviously want to believe that your personal interpretation of the Bible should be used to decide policy for all Americans, and evidence and logic and reality will be bent to conform to your theological assumptions. I'll continue discussion with people who want to discuss application of libertarianism or Ron Paul.
Excuse me Blaine but did you just refer to a ''concordance''?
How does that dispute my claim about the ''Bible''
I'm saying the Bible does NOT give a time and place for armageddon and you are saying ''yes it does the CONCORDANCE says so?''
I don't care what the ''concordanance'' says
I don't care what the pope says
I don't care what the FOX judeochristian team says
I'm still a Christian
I don't believe in war.
I addressed posts to fellow Christians who are listening to Fox and popes and whatever else...
You don't read or believe the Bible so it stands to reason my posts would not interest you.
I guess you only believe words from a Bible if the words are in printed form under a cover saying "Holy Bible". The thing about writing is, if the words are copied verbatim, with sufficient context, then it doesn't matter if they are read from the original manuscript, a printed copy, a concordance page, or a computer screen. Language is a powerful thing. Sure, people will disagree about whether quotations in any given concordance (or any other instance of quotation) are sufficient... and in that case, just use an index and look up in your favorite complete copy of the work in question.
So, since you think the meaning of Biblical text can not survive copying, substitute my suggestion to use a concordance to instead use an index... unless indexes are not up to your rigorous integrity standards. May want to look up "end of times", but of course it will depend on the quality and coarseness of the index... a difficulty usually addressed and satisfied by a competent concordance .
Like or Dislike: 2 2
Blaine I do use indexes.
I read all 66 bible books more than once.
I cross reference books.
I'm a bit of a Bible nerd.
Anyhow, there are no dates given for the end days.
I have also read the Bible through twice, and many of the NT books many more times. I have good reading comprehension though.
(Following said to Apostles when He was sending them out) "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
MAT 24:34, LUK 21:32, MARK 13:30
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here.
...I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
The end of all things is near...
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-- and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay...."
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
"But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town."
Like or Dislike: 2 0
Blaine all of those passages are excellent examples of ''endings''. But all things end.
Ever read Eclesiastics?
''to everything there is a season...etc..''(they wrote a song about it)
OT times ended.
Each of those passages are written in different contexts.
Each applies to the ending of something but not necessarily the world as we know it(another song...the end of the world as we know it..and I feel fine)
Revelation is the only book which really puts emphasis on the absolute end of this current world. It's vague. Open to interpretation. No dates given.
One more question Blaine,
when you wrote ''I have good comprehension though'' ...um..you weren't implying that I don't ....were you?
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Yes, Revelation is extremely vague and ambiguous. Another example proving my point.
Just to take the following references that I gave, you:
MAT 24:34, LUK 21:32, MARK 13:30, MARK 9:1
... you are just avoiding the obvious truth or being willfully ignorant if you think those passages do not present Jesus speaking about his return to rule the Earth. He says it! Apply your biblical nerdliness to actually read the context around each of those four citations. Do you consider it honest to twist around something plainly said by your savior in order to support your own faulty presumption?
My interpretation is the mainstream interpretation of those references. Historical and current theologians, historians, and biblical scholars aren't so dishonest as to deny the obvious. They resort to the more honorable excuse that Jesus was exaggerating in order to save more souls, or that Jesus/God changed His mind afterwards. Either of those alternatives supports my contention that prophecies of the Bible are not to be replied upon.
Provide some real evidence for your position, as I have done. For example, instead of holding up "understanding the context" to defend your position, how about pointing to an instance where the context does support your positions, because I assert that attention to the context proves you wrong. For brevity and specificity, I point readers to the first 4 references above.
Yes, Revelation is about the end times and is vague. But the references that I have listed here are clearly about the end time and are definite, not vague. It is ridiculous to say that a quotation from the Bible isn't relevant because it doesn't happen to be in a book that is dedicated to the subject. The real point of difference is that the references I have given within your Holy book do not support your position.
One more question Blaine,
when you wrote ”I have good comprehension though” …um..you
weren’t implying that I don’t ….were you?
Certainly I was. I have never seen a more clear example of worse reading comprehension than to say that MAT 24:34, LUK 21:32, MARK 13:30, MARK 9:1 are not talking about Jesus's return at "the end of the world as we know it".
I said there are no dates.
I said there is no mention of the exact time or dates.
Where in any of those passages does it mention date?
You are just being deceptive now, and I won't spend more time with somebody who doesn't care about truth or knowledge. I'm embarrassed for my Christian friends.
A self-proclaimed Bible expert should surely be familiar with the passages in question. Only a small proportion of text in the Bible is Jesus's own words, and every other Bible expert that I've spoken with is familiar with them. If you tout your experience about multiple reads of books of the Bible, then you should definitely have intimate familiarity with the four Gospels. When Jesus is speaking about how and when he is going to return to Judge humanity, even non-proclaimed-expert Christians who read the New Testament have an interest in that. Completely new information to Yvonne, who thinks that John's dreams in Revelations are more authoritative than Jesus's own statements.
Your latest cavil is another in your impressive string of ignorance and intentional misunderstandings. Even you are not ignorant enough to think that Jesus should name absolute years before an absolute calendar was in use... or that he would need to.
Any honest Christian would be embarrassed to deny what Jesus very clearly says. He says "I tell you the truth" and "certainly" to impress upon thick skulls that he is speaking in certainties, not allegories or conditionalities. What he says clearly and absolutely delimits a range of years. The time range is from when he spoke until the last person of the same generation of his immediate audience dies. Honest people know without need for debate that every member of the generation of ~ 25 AD (and according to context, probably all older than 15 years old at that time) was dead by or around 100 AD.
I'll continue to discuss Libertarianism here (on which I believe you and I agree), and I'll discuss theology in a more appropriate venue with anybody who values the truth. For you, I leave Jesus to argue my case. My input isn't needed to show the desperation and evasiveness of your replies.
“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” [said to his companions around 25 AD]
And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” [said to his companions around 25 AD]
Like or Dislike: 0 1
One more finally thing Blaine.
I'm certain you are a Muslim, maybe an Iman and that your scholarly friends who understand the Bible do so from the perspective of disproving it...but...we can stll be friends.
We certainly agree that the war is wrong.
We seem to both support Dr. Paul and Libertarian views.
My basis for staying out of the mid-East is that I think propoganda leaders are contradicting the Bible and luring us into a war which the book does not support.
You believe the Bible contradicts itself and believers should abandon it and stay out of the mid-east.
Same goal...different paths.
We can still be friends.
blaine for some who feigns an aversion to an ''annoying amount of verbiage'' you are quite verbose.
Honestly what in the world are you saying?
My comprehension for your posts is , as you pointed out, certainly not good.
No dates are ever given about the return of Jesus.
That just is. It is what it is.
Dates either exist or they don't.
They don't in the case of Jesus' return as per the Bible.
So you know people who read things who think differently??
OK to ''taste death'' doesn't mean their bodies won't die.
It means they will go directly into the arms of chist and sleep untli his return.
The passages doesn't say '['they will be alive or live until the day'' it says they will not ''taste death''.
Also you stopped short of posting the rest of Mattherw 23:
''But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only''
And you are quoting passages of men speaking with urgency about?
Read the whole thing...
Each refers to different things.
Jesus spoke just prior to his own death, the end of the Old Testament, and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Paul speaks just prior to the end of many of their lives. Didn't you read about how they would be and in fact were handed over to be killed?
The Bible was written over thousands of years.
Parts of it are prophesy and parts are history.
Again there is never a date given about the return of Jesus.
But we are each mortal and will die so in that sense there is a sense of urgency implied throughout the NT.
The day is at hand...etc...
You know so many Christians?
Hasn't any ever expressed an urgent desire for you to ''get saved''..
It's not because the world is about to end.
It's because life is fragile and we are mortal.
That being said, popes and judeochristian propaganda newsmen are not going to convince me that I have to strap on weapons and fight overseas because ''the Bible says so''.
The Bible says no such thing.
It's that simple.
oh also blaine your wrote:
''Yvonne, who thinks that John’s dreams in Revelations are more authoritative than Jesus’s own statements.''
You realise John wrote down the things Jesus said?
I don't know where you are coming from?
Do you believe the Bible?
I'm guessing you don't.
And I'm guessing you are against the war.
So what's the problem that you have with my assertion that the Bible does not promote 2010 USA going to war to defend a piece of land for istraelis?'
Also, if you ever feel inclined you may want to do a word search of the KJV and look up ''kingdom of God'' vs. ''kingdom of heaven.''
It's kind of fun Bible trivia and very interesting I think. Apparently the ''kingdom of God'' refers to a present tense spiritual kingdom which arrived 2000 years ago and still exists today in the hearts of believers .
The ''kindom of heaven'' is more vague and I suppose hasn't arrived yet.
An annoying amount of verbiage here goes off on the tangent of arguing over whether the Bible supports the state of Israel or not. Is there link from Palin's web site to this page or something? Libertarianism != Theocracy. If foreign policy is decided by holy books or faith, that is theocracy, not libertarianism.
Libertarianism aside, how much objectivity does one need to see that Christians can and do justify any position whatsoever with the Bible (rhetorical question)? Unlike the Islamic holy books, there is no consensus on what practical advise one should take from the Bible. Entirely unsettled questions: redemption by faith vs. redemption by works/fruits; intersession of priests required; which laws of Moses's time did Jesus's sacrifice eliminate. Millions of people have died because of their certainty about both sides of these and many other argument, and each question is just as unsettled as it was in 100 CE. Every Christian army is certain that God wants their side to win. If you are going to choose a book to inform your political perspectives, could you at least choose one that did not predict (explicitly at least 4 times) that Armageddon would occur in the first century?
That is a good point about Helen Thomas. She is being used by the media for propoganda purposes.
It's a form of public humiliation like public stockades. People running the media use her to make the rest of us feel intimidated or foolish or ashamed for speaking out against our military presence overseas and the US/Israel alliance.
They distort her facial features with ridiculous close-ups and laugh and call her ugly while they repeatedly play her comment about Israel.
And it's her former co-workers from every media outlet who are doing this.
That means the entire media is owned and operated by persons who are willing to make a public mockery of anyone who opposes Israel.
Who runs and operates the anti-christian media/propoganda machine in the USA?
HEAVY WEAPONS FOUND IN THE CARGO OF THE M/S. MAVI MARMARA FLOTILLA VESSEL.
This video shows that during the unloading of the Marmara boat in the port
of Ashdod, behind the bags of flour were boxes of heavy weapons and
ammunition: mortars, artillery shells, bazookas, without counting a trunk
where more than one million euros was found intended for Hamas. This video
should be widely distributed as evidence of why the IDF Naval commandos were
dispatched to intercept the six vessels including the M/S Mavi Marmara. One
wonders what is aboard the Irish vessel, the M/S. Rachel Corrie, that Israel
will intercept sometime today when it approaches the Naval blockade line off
the coast of Gaza. Clearly the Turkish AKP Islamist government is complicit
in permitting this military cargo to be loaded on the 'peaceful' Free Gaza
Flotilla. Please distribute this video widely. If you had any doubt about
what was on the flotilla, here is the video. The French explains that the
arms on display w ere hidden behind sacks of grain.
Jews should get the hell out of Palestine: Helen Thomas (I Support)
I support Ron Paul we (USA) should not support Gaza blockade
Helen Thomas is by no means the first one to suggest that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine.” Even Mahatma Gandhi in Nov. 1938 rejected the claims of Zionist for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"
Mahatma Gandhi thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. He rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract."
Helen Thomas observation “Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” are very much in tune to the words of Mahatma Gandhi spoken about 7 decades ago.
What ever professionally and socially is happening to Helen Thomas; Zionist are used to of doing that to every one who dare to speak truth about Israel in their colony United States of America(Israel). There is a long list of victims of Zionism like Helen Thomas.
Not to long in Jan. 2008 Arun Gandhi was forced to resign from M K Gandhi Institute for Non- violence by the Zionist Leadership for making honest comments about Israel. M K Gandhi Institute for non-violence was founded in America 17 years ago by Arun Gandhi himself to spread the ideals of Father of the Indian nation; Mahatma Gandhi who happens to be his grandfather. The way Arun Gandhi was treated by Zionist lobby; is gross injustice and assault on Freedom of Free Speech Right in America who call it self the champion of Democracy and human Rights.
Arun Gandhi by no means to suggest that, “Israel is a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs.” The fact is every Zionist leader past and present honestly believed that only a continuing state of conflict –without which they are afraid that western sympathy and aid would evaporate quickly—could assure the survival of their Jewish homeland Israel.
“Every Israeli leader since 1948 with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin, during his last term- has remained true to that conviction and made no genuine move to seek an honorable peace with Palestinians. For Israeli leaders in the 60’s and 70’s, Palestinians simply don’t exist, period! Leaders in the 70’s & 80’s blamed Palestinian terrorists for lack of peace, and reserved the worst racial epithets for the Palestinian people: “cockroaches” “beast on two legs,” “scum that ought to be exterminated,” etc.; in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, Israel chose to demonize Arafat as the sole obstacle to peace; and until recently, now it is blaming the election of Hamas for its inability to make peace.”
This Organized Zionist Leadership is besides promoting a Culture of Moral & Ethical Corruption every where in the world, is governing Israel with guns & bombs to glorify their illegal confiscation of Palestine Land. To hide all of this they want the entire world to live in the past that Jews were massacred by Hitler so they deserve every one’s sympathy!
Today when Israel is exposed to criticism for its atrocities on Palestinians and its illegal occupation of their country since 1967, its defenders prefers to emphasize on the memory of the Holocaust and any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. An Israeli Jew Sam Vaknin wrote “by shouting “anti-Semitism” every time some one attacks Israel or defends Palestinians, we are breeding cynics.”
Another Israeli writer and Peace activist Gideon Levy what he has to say about Terrorist state of Israel: “The time has come to send Israel for observation. Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior. Its acts have no rational explanation. It suffers from a loss of touch with reality. Temporary or permanent insanity. Paranoia. Schizophrenia. Memory loss. Loss of judgment.” (Gideon Levy)
Every person around the world must unite against Israel to defend the Freedom of Speech Rights of people like Helen Thomas, Arun Gandhi etc. and the Right of the Palestinians to their own country. If the world wants Peace than Israel must vacate the Palestinian Land it is forcibly occupying for last 43 years.
Like or Dislike: 3 5
Hey, I support Israel's right to security like anyone should. But at what point do they earn our friendship, support, and tax dollars instead of spitting in our faces in spite of the billions of dollars and support?
The US and it's citizens has this misguided perception that we can buy our way into heaven by offering unconditional support to Israel. It's not going to work that way folks. St. Peter isn't standing by a velvet rope in front of the pearly gates with a clipboard and we're not going to get into heaven by trying to walk in with the Jews while saying "We're with them". It's time to give up that dream and just as we do with our friends in real life, our support for Israel can't be unconditional. There's no reason to be... our friendship is not a stairway to heaven.
Like or Dislike: 7 1
The way to get into Heaven is to unconditionally support Jesus Christ, and to love the cultue of life rather than the culture of death. Although there are many very fine and honest people in Israel, the nation as a whole has beome one of the world's leading practitioners of the culutre of death. Unless they change, and soon, it will be time to rethink whether or not they do have a right to exist as an independent, racist, deceitful, theiving, and murderous state. All men
have a right to life, and that includes the brutally abused Palestinians, who are
treated with comtempt in what is fast bcoming a national Synagogue of Satan.
the political zeitgeist of the day is to cry out ''if youre a christian you will kill for the jews''
These political leaders and phony tv evangelists are trying to interpret a book that they never even read.
Shame on them all.
Here's another Revelation11 where ''the place where our lord was killed'' is also called egypt and sodom. Our Lord was killed in Israel people.
''And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified''
That doesn't paint a futuristic picture of Israel as the city of brotherly love...does it?
Like or Dislike: 1 3
What does this mean?
'' these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. ''
Since we all love Romans let's review a passage in Chapter 2
What does this mean?
'' For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
How about interpreting prophesy by going straight to Revelation.
''Iknow thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. ''
What is that a prophesy of?
Is it saying that everyone who calls himself a jew is my brother and I need to fight to the death so he can have a homeland?
That's not what it says.
It says some will call themselves Jews, and are not.
So how do I know whose who?
Here's a thought...I can preach Jesus. If they accept they're my brethren. If not then I'll keep praying but I will not send my children to the mid east to die for them.
To all my fellow believers who seem to think we need to wrestle with flesh and blood in support of Israel...
Can anyone explain the third chapter of Galatians....
Read this and then tell me why I need to go to war for Israel
''O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? ''
""6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.''
'' 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. ''
"" 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed''
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Please enter an answer in digits:
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yes, send me email updates and action alerts from RonPaul.com
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.