What if Abbas succeeds and UN recognizes Palestine within pre1967 borders?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

And, in any case, does there is a solution not involving war?
Status quo isn't being an option, since it is tilted towards Israel.

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

dude, stop playing with yourself.  I have cited polls stating the MAJORITY of Muslims in Muslim nations want Sharia Law.  A "majority" is NOT "one indiscreet mass", but it is more than enough to set the region ablaze in war.

You've also used sentences like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. It's not exactly a Herculean feat of semantic engineering to add a 'much of' or 'most of' to that sentence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, does anybody know what, if anything, the projected timeline for the GA vote is supposed to look like? Will the actual vote take place next week?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A new BBC survey shows that ALL countries polled by them support Palestine to become a country:



http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2011_palestine/bbc2011_palestine.pdf

Is there any country in the world other than Israel where more people would vote 'Should vote against' than 'Should vote for'?

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

...you're aware of how blatantly racist and criminal that would be, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

...you're aware of how blatantly racist and criminal that would be, right?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html

Well, of course. That's asinine too. That doesn't make what you're suggesting any better.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

...you're aware of how blatantly racist and criminal that would be, right?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html

Well, of course. That's asinine too. That doesn't make what you're suggesting any better.

but  the land does belong to the Jews

Why?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Actually, that land belongs to Israel and therefore they can settle it if they want. In fact they have right to all of Lebanan ,all of Jordan, Egypt east of the Nile, the northern 1/2 of Saudi Arabia, all of Syria, and part of Iraq. The world needs to preassure Jordan to let the Palestinians in not Israel to give more land for a false peace.

It belongs to the Jews because of what G-d promised Abraham to his line through Issac.

Sadly, God's promises to Abraham through Isaac don't hold much water in international law, especially considering the 1,570,000,000-odd people who believe that God promised it to Abraham through Ishmael instead.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let it be known that jmfcst supports oppression of Christians and anti-Christian violence.

Fun fact: There are actually around half a million (native) Christians in the area in question, practically all of whom are Arab-speaking and considered Palestinians. A well-known example of a Palestinian Christian is Edward Said. While obviously they're not looked upon very fondly by conservative Muslim Palestinians, Israel as it happens doesn't discriminate between Palestinians based on whether they're Muslim or Christian. So just bear in mind that everything that happens to 'Palestinians' treated as a group is happening to about as many Christians as there are people in, for example, Kansas City or Tucson.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

if a Christian stole the car of a Jew, I would still want the car returned to the Jew, regardless if a Christian stole it.

...how much land, exactly, do you think Israel would be justified in seizing, beyond the (considerably larger than what the turn-of-the-century-and-after Zionists were actually even asking for) territories that it already has?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Read while watching bad films from the 1980s, no doubt.

I would think most of my quotes come from movies of the 70's, no?

It is true your taste in films is far better than your taste in reading material.

There's nothing wrong with jmfcst's taste in reading material, it's just his excessively narrow interpretation that's problematic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's nothing wrong with jmfcst's taste in reading material, it's just his excessively narrow interpretation that's problematic.

if Jesus said the "abomination of desolation" will be set up in Jerusalem and hereld the end of the age and the Second Coming, then that is exactly what is going to occur.

why does that even need an interpretation?  Are you confused exactly what the "abomination of desolation" will be?  So am I, but just because we don't current know what it is going to be, doesn't mean it aint gonna happen just as he said it would.

so, that is just it - I haven't "interpreted" anything, I've just been letting the word speak for itself

Literal interpretation is still a form of interpretation. The Bible also says that the Roman and Babylonian Empires will be involved.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Literal interpretation is still a form of interpretation...

Jesus:  Yo, Nathan, buddy, please pass me the salt.

Nathan:  Here you go, my Lord, here's pepper.

Jesus:  Nathan, remember how I promised to throw you in the lake of fire last?

Nathan:  Yes, my Lord, you did.

Jesus:  You misinterpreted, for the First shall be Last, and the Last shall be First!

...you really don't understand the point of what I was saying at all, do you?

Biblical prophecy is so frequently and flagrantly metaphorical that attempting to interpret it politically actively distracts one from salvation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...you really don't understand the point of what I was saying at all, do you?

Biblical prophecy is so frequently and flagrantly metaphorical that attempting to interpret it politically actively distracts one from salvation.

1) that's a very stupid and unfounded statement, not backed by anything in scripture

Why, no. Scripture DOESN'T say anything explicit about how its own prophecies are to be interpreted. Thanks for noticing. But consider that most of the prophecies that Christ fulfilled He fulfilled through things like synecdoche (Rachel weeping in Rama) or puns (nazirite/Nazarene). Always remember that the Bible was, contrary to popular belief among Christians and non-Christians alike, actually put together by very smart people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'actively' modifies 'distracts', not 'politically'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The thing is, the current State of Israel was founded by mostly secular people on romantic nationalist, not religious, ideals, and many of the most devout Jews opposed and oppose it precisely on religious grounds (because the Messiah hasn't come yet in their view/hasn't come again in our view). This is a matter of historical and sociological record. The actual Israel is the collective tribe of the Jewish people, most of whom still live in places other than the modern, secular nation-state of the same name, from whom I am descended and towards whom bear no ill will whatsoever. Indeed, I bear the State of Israel no ill will either. Thinking that it should stop aggressively expanding doesn't constitute ill will towards it. So unless you're also of partial Jewish descent and have relatives who were unceremoniously pogrom'd, shut up about Israel, please.

Typical bias from the left towards the Palestinian Muslims. In the end my view will be vindicated. Why should Israel concede land when the Palestinian Muslims should be admitted as citizens with full rights in Jordan? Offer the Christians full Israeli citizen rights in the process.

The most amusing part is the idea that Christians would want to be assimilated into an Israeli state.

Even more amusing is the idea that Israeli state would want to assimilate Christians. Christians are worse than Muslims: at least, Muslims are monotheist.

This guy is talking about the state that considers conversion to Christianity to be grounds for denying citizenship rights to those otherwise eligible.

How many times do I have to point out that the vast majority of Christians in the area are considered and identify as PALESTINIANS?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why, no. Scripture DOESN'T say anything explicit about how its own prophecies are to be interpreted. Thanks for noticing. But consider that most of the prophecies that Christ fulfilled He fulfilled through things like synecdoche (Rachel weeping in Rama) or puns (nazirite/Nazarene). Always remember that the Bible was, contrary to popular belief among Christians and non-Christians alike, actually put together by very smart people.

Sure the bible sometimes uses allegories, but other times it speaks directly, example:

Luke 21:20 ““When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”

There is NO ALLEGORY in the above sentence, therefore no interpretation is needed other than taking it for face value.  Duh!

This did in fact happen. It happened, by my count, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'actively' modifies 'distracts', not 'politically'.[/quote]

You’re boring me.[/quote]

I'm beginning to understand why your state has a governor who acts like Altena from Noir with less tact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why, exactly, does that make a hill of beans?!  Are they contending that Israel can’t be partially reconstructed before the whole thing is brought back together by God?  If they want to make a scriptural argument against its reformation, then I am willing to listen, though it’s a pretty safe bet they themselves are full of beans, because there is NOTHING in scripture that stands against a partial gathering before God completely regathers the Jews in the promised land

[/quote]

Stop pretending you know anything about Judaism or Jewish history. Now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sure the bible sometimes uses allegories, but other times it speaks directly, example:

Luke 21:20 ““When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”

There is NO ALLEGORY in the above sentence, therefore no interpretation is needed other than taking it for face value.  Duh!

This did in fact happen. It happened, by my count, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one years ago.

never said it hadn't occurred before...I was simply making the point that Jesus and the rest of the bible don't always speak in allegories and therefore you can at times take it for face value....remember, it was you accusing me of not knowing how to read the scripture.

Yeah, I think what's going on with that verse is Jesus, speaking ~AD 30, discussing something that happens in AD 70. There's no need to bring AD 2011 into it as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judaism?  maybe not since so little of it resembles the OT.  But if you want to have a discussion about OT Judaism and/or OT Jewish history, then I'm game, but you might want to start a thread on the religion board.
[/quote][/quote]

You're the one who's trying to discuss the OT. I'm trying to discuss modern Judaism, how it relates to modern Christianity and modern Islam, and how these religions relate to the political tensions in the land that was at point in time the homeland of OT Jewry. The people in charge of the current entity called 'State of Israel' are in fact modern Jews, not OT Jews. Sorry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, I think what's going on with that verse is Jesus, speaking ~AD 30, discussing something that happens in AD 70. There's no need to bring AD 2011 into it as well.

well, hate to shake you up, but Jesus continues in the Olivet Discourse and discusses the events surrounding his return to earth in full view of every nation....so I think you fell off the turnip truck someone around 70AD.

So, are you familiar with preterism at all, or just enough to be able to get your view of what its claims are entirely wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you know, people like you show up from time to time on this forum...I'm sure someone can point you to a thread about this subject, since it has only been discussed and discarded about a dozen times on this forum in the past
[/quote]

...'people like me'? By which we mean people who don't subscribe to the idea that a religion/ethnic group and the circumstances surrounding its presence in a particular region of the world have not changed in the past two thousand years?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, are you familiar with preterism at all, or just enough to be able to get your view of what its claims are entirely wrong?

I think preterism has some deep, yet basic, internal contradictions that it needs to work out on its own before I waste any more time on it.

I think the same about futurism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe that and I never said I did. If you could take your head out of your ass for long enough to actually read what I am writing from anything remotely approaching a lucid point of view you would see that what I am saying is that, while the modern nation of Israel is both genealogically and religiously descended from the ancient one, differences in culture and creed between two or three thousand years ago and to-day mean that treating modern Jews as if they were just Biblical Jews preserved like a fly in amber is willfully ignorant at best.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

what I am saying is that, while the modern nation of Israel is both genealogically and religiously descended from the ancient one, differences in culture and creed between two or three thousand years ago and to-day mean that treating modern Jews as if they were just Biblical Jews preserved like a fly in amber is willfully ignorant at best.

so....their change in culture and creed has somehow revoked their calling by God...as if God’s gifts and his call are revocable, instead of being irrevocable?!

who knew....learn something new everyday.

Well, no. It was the coming of Jesus that made the calling by God no longer unique to a specific ethnic group.

The changes in culture and creed don't have much of anything to do with God, but they have everything to do with the fact that, truthfully, the kind of thinking that you're espousing is not exactly helpful to the Jewish people except on a simplistic geopolitical level. Far better to be 'an ethnic group' than 'a pawn in the eschatology of a religion with two hundred times as many adherents'. Jews have their own ways of looking at these things, even the subset of very religious Jews who support the State of Israel in its present form (which there are, just as there are very religious Jews who don't). Even Jews who agree with you on this issue (of whom, again, there are plenty) wouldn't appreciate being told that it relates to the Olivet Discourse. How do I know, you may ask? Because an entire branch of my extended family is Jewish, religious, and disgusted by the actions taken out in the name of the State of Israel by well-meaning fanatical Gentiles, that's why.

All of this, of course, still has nothing to do with the fact that said State of Israel is taking a minority population and forcing it into refugee camps.

Side note: I'm not trying to get you to agree with me at this point, I'm just trying to explain what my point of view actually is, since your conception of it is a little off (I admit you're better at explaining your views concisely than I am). If I stop replying soon it's not because I've given up on this conversation, it's just because I need sleep.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

so....their change in culture and creed has somehow revoked their calling by God...as if God’s gifts and his call are revocable, instead of being irrevocable?!

who knew....learn something new everyday.

Well, no. It was the coming of Jesus that made the calling by God no longer unique to a specific ethnic group.

I never said anything about God not being able to call a nonJew.  What I asked you was whether or not you believe God's gifts and calling of blood Israel is revocable....because, if revocable, then there is no reason to treat Israel different than any other nation.

I believe that God's gifts and calling of blood Israel was permanent but that since the coming of Jesus we have to take other groups' claims into account as well. This includes Jews who are non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist as well as non-Jews who have roots in the land in question. I think that it's important that Israel exist and be, if not exclusively Jewish, at least noticeably so, because of how important it is to many Jews and because, yes, having Jews be there and be safe there is fulfilling a promise that they've been screwed out of in the past; I also think that it's important that Israel not continue to aggressively expand, because we aren't in Old Testament times any more and while it's not always going to be easy one of the hallmarks of the Kingdom of Christ is recognizing the thoughts and feelings of people who it might not be easy to do that with. In this case, I support a two-state solution with both states having linguistic and cultural protections (not necessary religious per se, but they tend to map reasonably well on to each other at least as far as the Jewish/Arab divide goes).

Again, I'm not expecting you to agree with me or even consider my position theologically or morally sound, I just want you to understand what it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The changes in culture and creed don't have much of anything to do with God, but they have everything to do with the fact that, truthfully, the kind of thinking that you're espousing is not exactly helpful to the Jewish people except on a simplistic geopolitical level. Far better to be 'an ethnic group' than 'a pawn in the eschatology of a religion with two hundred times as many adherents'. Jews have their own ways of looking at these things, even the subset of very religious Jews who support the State of Israel in its present form (which there are, just as there are very religious Jews who don't). Even Jews who agree with you on this issue (of whom, again, there are plenty) wouldn't appreciate being told that it relates to the Olivet Discourse. How do I know, you may ask? Because an entire branch of my extended family is Jewish, religious, and disgusted by the actions taken out in the name of the State of Israel by well-meaning fanatical Gentiles, that's why.

All of this, of course, still has nothing to do with the fact that said State of Israel is taking a minority population and forcing it into refugee camps.

Side note: I'm not trying to get you to agree with me at this point, I'm just trying to explain what my point of view actually is, since your conception of it is a little off (I admit you're better at explaining your views concisely than I am). If I stop replying soon it's not because I've given up on this conversation, it's just because I need sleep.

who cares what the Jews think about their role?!  They can walk away from their God given gifts, I wouldnt care.  I don't treat them based on their realization of who they are or what they are doing, or what they think about what I think of them....rather I treat them as God's anointed whose gifts and calling are irrevocable.  I wouldnt rise up against them anymore than David would rise up against Saul.  Once someone has been chosen, regardless if they are obedient, you don't touch that person in a manner which will attempt to take away the gifts given to him by God.

The issue is that that's condescending and frankly kind of unnecessary. I'm not talking about how to think of Jews on a rarefied theological level, I'm talking about how practically to treat them day-to-day. Answer: Like people, not rare and delicate snowflakes or museum pieces.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've read the Pentateuch several times and the entire NT once, the Gospels and Acts more than once. I'm less familiar with the rest of the OT but there are parts that I know a good bit about there as well.

I'm going to stop talking about this now (I'll still be posting in this thread, probably, but about other aspects of the topic) because I think we've hashed out pretty much everything we can. It's obvious that we have radically different positions both on our faith and on its relation to other faiths and to international law, and I think that's okay. We share the same Creed, after all. I hope we understand each other a little better and I don't bear you any ill will at all but I don't think we're going to get much more from continuing this discussion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I agree with you that it would be both dangerous for Americans in the Middle East and geopolitically disastrous for the United States, but it wouldn't exactly have much shock value at this point.