Israelis Dealing With Their History

[Wayseer]

But I have further issues ... I just don't see how the system is perfect. It seems to me to be the opposite. It contradicts both mercy and justice, because some truly good people are condemned (I'm sorry, but condemning anyone - especially Gandhi and others like him - simply is not merciful), while some truly bad people are saved (which is not just!). I just don't get the logic behind this. If this is God's system, it strikes me as far from perfect. I can see how justice and mercy could be balanced - if some kind of punishment was given to those who were truly bad, but then those people were pardoned eventually. Yet this system gives punishment on the basis of beliefs, rather than moral behavior, and the punishment is eternal, with no merciful pardon!! How the heck is that both merciful and just??

 

McKenna - you are not alone - you are asking the question that is on most people's lips. So let me try to give you my take - because, like you, I have been pondering this question for some time.

 

The book of Job deals with why bad things happen to good people while book of Ecclesiastes deals with why good things happen to bad people. Neither provide any satisfying conclusion yet they demonstrate that our question is probably ageless.

 

The other half of the problem concerns our own assumptions - that life should be fair and that God should demonstrate that fairness by overt action thereby endorsing His 'perfect' creation. The corollary is that God's creation is not perfect - yet. In other words, our underlying assumption that God's creation is perfect and it is we humans who have fouled things up which is why we therefore have to beat ourselves to a pulp demonstrating our remorse in an abject state as eternal victims is all built on a false premise. Our assumption would prove correct if we had no free will - that we can exercise some semblence of choice indicates that there is no static state of 'perfection' - it would therefore follow that we have got the wrong message.

 

So, what is the message?

 

That we live in a state of change and choice indicates that something more is needed in our understanding of how God works. Having accepted that free will endows us with choice it would seem that God is asking for some contribution from His creation to the Creator - a feedback loop. We do this, God can do that which opens up further possibilities. This is Process Theology at work. We take part in creation when God is present in those choices we make. Now, thinking about this process it seems to answer a lot of questions - like why do bad things happen to good people - we make the wrong choices. It's not God, or some fictitious devil, that decides our fate - it's us - it's a matter of cause and effect. We make the right choices good things will follow - we become self-creating. OK, that's a rather simplified version but I trust you get the point I trying to make.

 

The important point is that our decisions do matter - they matter for the sake of creation. We are no longer thinking a programed universe running on a train line but rather a living in the midst of a creative effort that uploads to God the very essence of his Creation - which then creates further opportunities for further self-creating effort.

 

There is no 'reward/punishment' built into this system - nor any 'evil' or 'eternal damnation' because process is not built on dogmatic beliefs - it is built on action. Jesus said, 'Now go and do likewise'.

 

I have probably explained this rather badly and all too quickly - but then I'm still working through it myself.

[davidk]

Wayseer

'It' all does not exist 'simply by chance'...";

"Right and wrong are not meaningless nor are we souless...";

"The world might seem a nilhist romp through a chaotic universe - but that's what we have done as humans.." - Wayseer

I could not agree with you more. By seeing these things you generate the right questions we need the answers to. Answers we can understand and communicate to others.

 

In explanation; my 'statements' you reference are (hopefully) introduced with 'IF'. By using the 'IF' word (a poke at humor here), I mean to say: IF 'this' were true; THEN, we could reason, 'that' would also be true. For example: "IF God does not exist in the way the Bible teaches, THEN morals really do not exist as morals." or:

"IF all that exists is by chance, THEN morality has no meaning." And so forth. If I failed to imply the 'IF' in some of those statements, I humbly apologize for my confusing the issue.

I had no intention to brag about whatever formal education I may have had. It was only historical for the purpose of explaining my personal search for truth.

 

McKenna:

All of your points need to be addressed. They cover a lot of territory. I'll mention a couple of things and maybe I can hit a some of them.

We can add all kinds of particular factors into a question, all the while, we're actually searching for the 'universal' answers that will cover all. If we can know the basic universal truths about God's soveriengty and free will, all of the particulars will be covered. This is what philosophy (world view) does. It searches to identify the universals. And the fewer the better. Man's free will and God's soveriegnty often conflict.

God judges as He wills. If you have heard of Jesus Christ, you must decide, and you will be held accountable. But do we not think God has a handle on everyone's situation? He reveals Himself, by way of His creation, no excuses; He is Just and Merciful in His determination. He gives us all the opportunity. He loves and protects the innocent.

While not perfect, our actions are purposeful motions founded on what we believe we know to be true. If God is Love, you cannot truly love without Him.

 

God will not make you love Him.

 

Autumn and McKenna:

Ah, sorry. I had no intention of sounding nasty.

At the risk of being rude, I'd like to explain one more time to help all of the 'loopholers':

 

"If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns?"

 

It amazes me we're have trouble understanding the meaning of the word 'REFUSES". Responses seem to deny it's ever been said!

The 'panic' you are relying on, makes absolutely no difference in the outcome. The 'panic' of a drowning man is not in any way a refusal to being saved. The panic of a drowning person is his TRYING TO GET SAVED, NOT THE REVERSE! God, being omniscient, etc, etc, easily overcomes the 'panic' to save him. However, God will not save him against his will.

[October's Autumn]

Is free will even a biblical concept?

[MOW]

Hi Everyone

 

I've been away because this is a busy time for me.

Actually davidk , I don't think you really addressed one of McKenna's main points , particularly as it relates to Ghandi. According to the type of theology you are espousing Ghandi, would have to go to hell because he is a Hindu, but the British soldiers who murder his people by the thousands get to go to heaven because they are "Christians".

 

No amount of conservative apologetics will convince a black man like myself that all my ancestors from the beginning of time ,up until the slave trade are all in hell until they were sold into slavery and then somebody white gave them a"Bible"

 

" When the missionaries came they had the Bible and we had the land.

When they left we had the Bible ,they had the land "

African proverb

 

 

MOW

[davidk]

McKenna: Thank you for your thoughts. All is well. I didn't acknowledge that earlier. You're kind. May God's face shine upon you.

 

Autumn: On: Free Will; Yes. From the very beginning of mankind God has given us the opportunity to decide.

 

MOW: Hi

I spoke to Mckenna by saying all of her points needed to be addressed, but perhaps, addressed in the spirit of helping find more universal truths from which to cover our 'infinite' number of particulars (questions).

 

How do you transition from what I said, to this nonsense? "No amount of conservative apologetics will convince a black man like myself that all my ancestors from the beginning of time ,up until the slave trade are all in hell until they were sold into slavery and then somebody white gave them a'Bible'."

 

 

Biblical Proverb: "Do you see a man who is hasty in words? There is more hope for a fool than him."

[McKenna]

McKenna - you are not alone - you are asking the question that is on most people's lips. So let me try to give you my take - because, like you, I have been pondering this question for some time.

 

I found many of your points interesting, and I'd love to discuss it further! I created a thread where that subject can be discussed (rather than as a tangent here).

 

McKenna:

All of your points need to be addressed. They cover a lot of territory. I'll mention a couple of things and maybe I can hit a some of them.

We can add all kinds of particular factors into a question, all the while, we're actually searching for the 'universal' answers that will cover all. If we can know the basic universal truths about God's soveriengty and free will, all of the particulars will be covered. This is what philosophy (world view) does. It searches to identify the universals. And the fewer the better. Man's free will and God's soveriegnty often conflict.

God judges as He wills. If you have heard of Jesus Christ, you must decide, and you will be held accountable. But do we not think God has a handle on everyone's situation? He reveals Himself, by way of His creation, no excuses; He is Just and Merciful in His determination. He gives us all the opportunity. He loves and protects the innocent.

While not perfect, our actions are purposeful motions founded on what we believe we know to be true. If God is Love, you cannot truly love without Him.

 

God will not make you love Him.

 

I still don't see how this is a logical or "perfect" system. Also I don't get how the concept of free will fits into the concept of certain forms of prayer, such as petitionary and intercessory; or into the concept that "God has a plan for each of us" and when something bad happens "it's all part of God's plan." But those are other topics entirely.

 

I also still don't see it as fair that anyone who has heard the name Jesus Christ is expected to believe. Like I said earlier, people raised in different cultures and/or with different religions are obviously going to have different reactions. Now, if you said that everyone is presented with an absolutely equal chance to believe in Christ, and that they fully understand what they're choosing or refusing - meaning that even after people die, God continues to reveal this Truth to them, because it's certainly not equal in this life - then I can see how there would be no excuses. This is similar to Mormon theology, at least as I've heard it explained before. (Once, on a forum, a Mormon explained that she believed that the only way to go to Hell - or "Outer Darkness" or something in their theology - would be to look Jesus Christ in the eye and deny Him.) I also got a similar concept from an Evangelical when I asked him this question - he seemed a bit uncomfortable and started talking about a "struggle for each person's soul" that goes on before and after death. However, I don't think this is orthodox Christian teaching, and I don't know if it has any biblical basis, so I'm not sure this is what you're talking about; it could just be what these people came up with as an answer to the question I'm asking.

 

At any rate, like I said, I really don't think we're going to change each other's minds, as we've clearly both spent a lot of time/thought/energy getting to our positions on this issue as they are today. If you want to have a fuller discussion of this, maybe you could make another thread? I feel bad for continually taking part in dragging threads off topic...

 

How do you transition from what I said, to this nonsense? "No amount of conservative apologetics will convince a black man like myself that all my ancestors from the beginning of time ,up until the slave trade are all in hell until they were sold into slavery and then somebody white gave them a'Bible'."

Biblical Proverb: "Do you see a man who is hasty in words? There is more hope for a fool than him."

 

That was a little insensitive...

 

He was on topic from what I could gather. He's saying that nobody's going to convince him that his African ancestors are all in Hell because they'd never heard the name of Christ, or that none of them were saved until they were stolen as slaves and handed Bibles.

 

I pretty much just repeated what he said, but I don't know how you were interpreting it before, because it seems on topic to me...

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

While off topic, I'd like to take a stab at the drowning person scenario, more like the retaliation of the rescuer...

 

Here is the issue, we claim that the victim refuses to grasp the hand, but and here is the constant problem if the rescuer doesn't extend his hand into the victims hand fast and hard enough to make a good solid grip all can be lost with only a breath or two of life remaining. Imagine here I am to rescue you and I pull my hand away just before you the victim can catch a grip...

 

That is my two senses worth for two cents...

 

Was the hand refused then it was an act of suicide, maybe guilt for being in a bad position in the first place. If I drown you will have a better chance of survival? I don't like any of these as no one has to drown when the mud puddle is only waist deep, in that scene it is just a muddy mess... (Yes that is an off topic approach to a vision that I had, "looking up and asking, why me?")

 

As for Israel refusing to acknowledge Jesus? Isn't that a hoot? I've addressed this several times, we all have to have good in our hearts... That would be a GOOD GOD... This could bring up a whole nother discussion about the, dare I say? g-d of Israel...

[October's Autumn]

No amount of conservative apologetics will convince a black man like myself that all my ancestors from the beginning of time ,up until the slave trade are all in hell until they were sold into slavery and then somebody white gave them a"Bible"

 

Exactly. The concept is completely ridiculous!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Exactly. The concept is completely ridiculous!

 

 

I hope you see that I also agree giving 'the Bible', is the same as giving to another the g-d of Israel...

 

Where can we find the Devil or Satan the worker of Evil the divider and killer of things created?

 

What makes a good person bad? (Answer: A Lie)

 

What is the Truth?

 

Where can you find the Heart of GOD?

[October's Autumn]

God is not the bible and the bible is not God. The bible (for the most part) does contain a history of various people's beliefs about God.

[Wayseer]

What makes a good person bad? (Answer: A Lie)

 

Well, in that case I guess judgement has been passed on all of us. Thank you.

 

Of course, you have not seen fit to identify just what you might call a 'lie'.

 

Broard and sweeping generalisations rarely benefit any discussion. Perhaps you would like to clarify just what it is that you are talking about.

[davidk]

McKenna:

Truth, salvation, love, etc.: is not a sytem; it is not determinism. It is God's personal invitation to you and a personal choice by you to believe what Jesus Christ told us about Himself. You cannot answer for someone else regardless of your compassion. There was only one person who can offer that. Either you believe Jesus is the Christ or you don't.

 

You have a gentle (I almost typed gentile) heart, so let us revisit the posts on the 20th, when;

"God judges as He wills. If you have heard of Jesus Christ, you must decide, and you will be held accountable. Do we not think God has a handle on everyone's situation? He reveals Himself, by way of His creation, no excuses; He is Just and Merciful in His determination. He gives us all the opportunity. He loves and protects the innocent. This is it; you are personally accountable. God will rightfully judge you. (Romans 1:16-20)

 

And regarding MOW's post;

"Actually davidk ,... According to the type of theology you are espousing Ghandi, would have to go to hell because he is a Hindu, but the British soldiers who murder his people by the thousands get to go to heaven because they are "Christians".

No amount of conservative apologetics will convince a black man like myself that all my ancestors from the beginning of time ,up until the slave trade are all in hell until they were sold into slavery and then somebody white gave them a"Bible".

My theology does not touch what MOW accuses it of; and I should think MOW worthy of some criticism for his comments being racially inflamatory. God did not seperate Man by race, Man did; and MOW needs to understands this.

His post was unabshedly an excuse to make a political statement against someone he supposes cares if he is black or not.

 

TGWB and Wayseer:

The Truth tells us the devil is the Father of lies.

Do you know any 'GOOD' people, you know, the ones whose even their thoughts are entirely pure? I don't! (Rom 7:15-25)

How can all this imperfection expect to get us past the 'gates of heaven' to God? (Rom 8:1)

 

Here go my other two bits. Whatever is not the truth, is a lie. Whatever is not the way, is lost. Whatever is not the light, is darkness. You may not answer me, but you'll have to chew on it.

By the way, Wayseer, admitting true guilt is not beating yourself to a pulp. (#76) If your guilty you are not the victim, you are the perpetrator! Perfection has no need to change.

----------------

This is truely amazing. A very simple 'drowning man' scenario is presented. Taking great pains to avoid addressing the truth, everyone changes the scenario to grind some other ax.

[Wayseer]

What I actually said was -

 

... our underlying assumption that God's creation is perfect and it is we humans who have fouled things up which is why we therefore have to beat ourselves to a pulp demonstrating our remorse in an abject state as eternal victims is all built on a false premise.

 

You will note I said nothing about admitting anything. If you are going to paraphrase me have the courtesy to do it accurately. Guilt is not something I can put on myself - it is something imposed from outside - as in the case of 'being found guilty' by a court. You have accepted, apparently, the literal meaning of the creation myth - that the so-called 'fall' is 'truth'. But, as I indicated, and which you seem to choose to ignore, I am suggesting that this concept is not truth but an assumption. How can I be a perpetrator of a crime which I did not commit?

 

I also note you studiously avoid defining what a 'lie' might entail - except by asking another question.

 

However, I think I have read enough of your posts to now form the idea that you are a fundamentalist - and a fundamentalist is someone who has already decided what the truth is so there is no use in any further discussion.

[McKenna]

McKenna:

Truth, salvation, love, etc.: is not a sytem; it is not determinism. It is God's personal invitation to you and a personal choice by you to believe what Jesus Christ told us about Himself. You cannot answer for someone else regardless of your compassion. There was only one person who can offer that. Either you believe Jesus is the Christ or you don't.

 

You have a gentle (I almost typed gentile) heart, so let us revisit the posts on the 20th, when;

"God judges as He wills. If you have heard of Jesus Christ, you must decide, and you will be held accountable. Do we not think God has a handle on everyone's situation? He reveals Himself, by way of His creation, no excuses; He is Just and Merciful in His determination. He gives us all the opportunity. He loves and protects the innocent. This is it; you are personally accountable. God will rightfully judge you. (Romans 1:16-20)

 

Very well. I still see it as determinism, and I don't think I'll ever be able to rationally accept this. But I appreciate that you stated that God will rightfully judge everyone. I can agree with the sentiment, if not the doctrines.

 

This is truely amazing. A very simple 'drowning man' scenario is presented. Taking great pains to avoid addressing the truth, everyone changes the scenario to grind some other ax.

 

All I did was point out that the rescuer was omnipotent and omniscient...not trying to change the scenario, but rather make it more applicable to what you were actually describing...and I tried to address 'the truth' as you believe it to be, presenting my arguments against it. I'm not saying this in self-defense, but rather because I object to broad statements that make you seem like a victim. I'm not saying you haven't been treated unfairly at times on this forum - I just have a problem with this particular accusation.

[davidk]

Dear McKenna,

God judging rightly is more than mere sentiment, it is doctrine.

 

I appreciate whatever help I can get. The addition of God's omniscience, etc, made no difference to the question. There are no other factors than the ones stated in the scenario. "If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns?" The answer is: No, it is not retaliation. It can't be. And none of that makes you a victim. Whether you were the rescuer or the drowning man.

 

It is my understanding that Determinism eliminates free will because; there are no alternative choices to be made, a process wherein all things are determined. Do you see it differently?

(Did you open another post in the "system" thingy?)

 

Wayseer:

You missed my actual meaning and inserted something unknown. My point was that you're assumptions are faulty, therefore any conclusions based on them would be subect to being just as faulty. I wasn't paraphrasing I was correcting.

 

You seem to be coloring my statements with a brush I'm not using.

 

"How can I be a perpetrator of a crime which I did not commit?"

I object, there is no foundation for this question.

 

"...I said nothing about admitting anything..."

I object. You have yet to be accused of anything."

 

"...you studiously avoid defining what a 'lie' might entail - except by asking another question."

I object. I responded earlier, saying plainly, perhaps if I wrote louder "Whatever is not the truth, is a lie." And, by the way, that is not a question!

 

Human error aside, the Court only 'finds' your guilt, exposes it. It does not run around pasting guilty signs on random innocent people. Guilt is something you earn.

 

"However, I think I have read enough of your posts to now form the idea that you are a fundamentalist - and a fundamentalist is someone who has already decided what the truth is so there is no use in any further discussion.." We were just beginning to have fun, too.

[Wayseer]

We were just beginning to have fun, too.

 

No - you are having fun baiting people. You must be desperately lonely - and I can understand why. Bye.

[davidk]

No - you are having fun baiting people. You must be desperately lonely - and I can understand why. Bye.

This is "Debate and Dialogue" isn't it? We're supposed to be wringing out the fallacies, mine as well as yours.

 

You had made some statements which I challenged. Evidently your position is weaker than I thought; weaker than you thought. But if you can't support your position, don't cut and run hurling insults. I've had to apologize several times for my comments/responses that were off the mark.

 

None of us, as far as I know, are professional writers, we're going to misspeak or misunderstand on a regular basis. Tone of voice is generally subjective. We're all doing the best we can. Nobody actually knows you, that should be somewhat liberating, because you know the comments can't be personal, even though you try. And they don't know where you park your car!

 

I am disappointed. I thought there was more in you than that.

 

 

Topical:

If Arab-Muslim countries and their terrorist minions would stop their 'bombing' of Israel; if they would stop demanding Israel's annihilation, if they would stop declaring war against Israel; if they would help in sharing their land and stop demanding all of Israels, the war would come to an end overnight!

Israel has made concession after concession, treaties have been signed. But the Arab-muslims remain unsatisfied. They vow to remain unsatisfied until Zionists are all "dead" and no Jewish land remains.

How does one negotiate with such an uncivilized and evil mindset? The terrorist mindset has only one objective: killing you, and it doesn't matter what you did, it is because your not Muslim (or maybe not the right kind of Muslim). It does not matter how long it takes or how many lies it takes, as long as you are destroyed. Islam's stated goal is literally world domination, an Islamic theocracy. I have worked with more than a few Muslims, they do not deny this goal.

[McKenna]

Dear McKenna,

God judging rightly is more than mere sentiment, it is doctrine.

 

Whatever floats your boat. It's just semantics to me.

 

I appreciate whatever help I can get. The addition of God's omniscience, etc, made no difference to the question. There are no other factors than the ones stated in the scenario. "If a drowning man is offered the hand of a rescuer, and the drowning man refuses to take it and drowns, is it retaliation on the part of the rescuer that the man drowns?" The answer is: No, it is not retaliation. It can't be. And none of that makes you a victim. Whether you were the rescuer or the drowning man.

 

To me, it does change the scenario. Which is why I stated what I did. I don't know if it is "retaliation," since that implies that the drowning man has done something which would merit retaliation - but I suppose that is assumed in the question. IMO if someone is drowning, who has done something to the rescuer that is worthy of retaliation, and the rescuer is all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent, then yes, it is retaliation if he does not save the man, since he is capable of doing so. If he is omniscient he has the ability to see the man's fear, if he is all-loving he desires to alleviate that fear (no matter what the drowning man has done to him), and if he is omnipotent he is capable of doing so. Therefore if he chooses not to help the man, yes he is retaliating. (I would not say this if the rescuer knew that something good awaited the man eventually - no matter what the present situation. That is why I say I don't have a moral problem with the idea of a God who punishes for a limited amount of time, although I'm not sure that's the God I believe in. But if the rescuer knows that the man will not only drown, but will 'drown' for eternity, and this rescuer has the knowledge, motivation, and ability to save the man from this eternity of 'drowning,' then yes, I blame the rescuer.)

 

You can't just say 'there are no other factors' so that conveniently your metaphor makes sense (because of course it does if it is merely a drowning man who refuses the helping hand of a rescuer - duh). But then I don't know what it's a metaphor for, because it's certainly not about God. Your God, as I understand Him, is all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent, yet sends people to Hell for eternity for non-belief. If that is what the metaphor is describing, then yes there are other factors. Sheesh.

 

It is my understanding that Determinism eliminates free will because; there are no alternative choices to be made, a process wherein all things are determined. Do you see it differently?

(Did you open another post in the "system" thingy?)

 

Fair enough. Then I suppose it is not Determinism with a capital D. But I still feel it is predetermined to a degree that is unacceptable. Like I have already said several times, people's upbringing/culture/religious beliefs will have an effect on whether or not they'll accept Christ. That's just a fact. So if what is required of people to obtain Salvation is an acceptance of Christ, then the body that is given to them - and the culture and everything that goes with it - will affect where they will spend eternity. (Perhaps not all people will be affected by this, but I think most will.) This, to me, implies a certain level of predetermination. (I'm not speaking of the doctrine of predestination - I know that's not what you believe.) To me that is unequal and thus unjust, not to mention unloving.

 

What system thingy?

 

Topical:

If Arab-Muslim countries and their terrorist minions would stop their 'bombing' of Israel; if they would stop demanding Israel's annihilation, if they would stop declaring war against Israel; if they would help in sharing their land and stop demanding all of Israels, the war would come to an end overnight!

Israel has made concession after concession, treaties have been signed. But the Arab-muslims remain unsatisfied. They vow to remain unsatisfied until Zionists are all "dead" and no Jewish land remains.

How does one negotiate with such an uncivilized and evil mindset? The terrorist mindset has only one objective: killing you, and it doesn't matter what you did, it is because your not Muslim (or maybe not the right kind of Muslim). It does not matter how long it takes or how many lies it takes, as long as you are destroyed.

 

Okay, this is worded better than what you were saying before. ("If the Muslims would stop lobbing missles and sending suicide bombers into Israel from these territories, the fighting would cease.") At least you're acknowledging them as countries - or perhaps a better word would be governments - in which case for the most part I can't disagree with you, as many of the governments are overtly hostile to Israel (and, in some cases, to each other). Those are Islamist theocracies and I consider them as dangerous as you. But that doesn't mean that we should speak of 'Muslims' generally as terrorists - which is why I reacted so strongly to the statement about 'the Muslims lobbing missiles.' They are not one gigantic, one-minded group of people.

 

I just read an interesting book entitled Reading Lolita in Tehran. Written by a secular woman who lived in Iran through the Revolution and the theocratic reign. She wrote with clear hatred for the government, but not for Islam, only their brand of it. She mentioned a couple of times the memory of her pious grandmother, and she had several religious friends. Islam itself is not evil. But it can be manipulated. As can Christianity.

 

Islam's stated goal is literally world domination, an Islamic theocracy.

 

Twist a few words from the Bible and you could say the same about Christianity. i.e. Philippians 2:9-11. Not to mention the concept of missionaries! And the fact that through various means, at times unethical, Christianity has become the dominant world religion. A good case could be made for Christianity's stated goal being 'world domination.' I don't believe that's accurate in the least, but someone with something against Christianity could certainly make that argument.

 

I have worked with more than a few Muslims, they do not deny this goal.

 

Funny, I've known several Muslims, and they were certainly not in favor of Muslim world domination or of Islamic theocracies. Some of them were even - gasp! - liberal!

[davidk]

Whatever floats your boat. It's just semantics to me.

You really have me confused here. You initially inferred the difference between 'doctrine' and 'sentiment' was definite. I agreed and declared that the statement, "God will judge rightly." was actually a doctrinal position, adding as opposed to mere sentiment. Then came the response, discourteously dismissing the whole thing as inconsequencial, by stating the differences can only be considered symantics to you. How can I possibly be expected to understand this arbitrary line of reasoning? Doctrine is an established principle of 'knowledge'. Sentiment is judgement permeated by 'feelings'. Knowledge is the cause, feelings is an effect.

 

 

I blame the rescuer.

In terms you imply, but not given, let me try to explain one last time.

Given presuppositions: God is omnipotent, but God will not make anyone love Him. He has the power to actually be able to offer the choice, but will not coerce, force, or violate His gift of free will. McKenna has free will.

 

Question: "If McKenna is drowning and God offers her His loving hand to rescue her, and she refuses to take it and drowns; is it retaliation on the part of God that McKenna drowns?"

 

Answer: McKenna is not His equal, and she has no power to be able to threaten God in any way. For there is no need for God to retaliate for anything, and no one may say McKenna's drowning was anything but her own rejection of Gods rescue. God did not send McKenna anywhere, she chose to not go with God.

 

Gotta run. Back soon.

[davidk]

Islam itself is not evil. But it can be manipulated. As can Christianity.

Twist a few words from the Bible and you could say the same about Christianity. i.e. Philippians 2:9-11. Not to mention the concept of missionaries! And the fact that through various means, at times unethical, Christianity has become the dominant world religion. A good case could be made for Christianity's stated goal being 'world domination.' I don't believe that's accurate in the least, but someone with something against Christianity could certainly make that argument.

Funny, I've known several Muslims, and they were certainly not in favor of Muslim world domination or of Islamic theocracies. Some of them were even - gasp! - liberal!

'Twist' is an excellent word to describe what would have to be done to the Bible for Jew or Christian to do what Arab-Muslims do daily. In particular to the Philippians verses you reference. I would have to add that Christianity can never be unethical; and agree there are unethical people who would twist it for their own gain, receiving the only reward they'll ever get.

 

One of the difficulties in the 'war' is that the Arab-Muslim religion really does not recognize nation boundaries as we do. When their religion dictates law and culture of a country, we both agree, trouble is afoot.

When Arab-Muslims enter any territory, whether incorporated or not, they immediately begin claiming it by declaring the population infidels and forcing them into compromises. Eventually calling for them to convert. Then to convert or die, or defend themselves until one is annihilated. They ultimately recognize no compromise. History is the proof.

 

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Ahmed Shukairy, who less than 10 years earlier denied the existence of Palestine, was its first chairman. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. That helped to precipitate the Arab attack on Israel in 1967. This organization was in several Arab countries, was not a country of its own, but helped dictate their foriegn policy.

 

Of the over 1.5 billion, Muslims claim, 20-30% are agreed to be the terrorist 'radicals'. While the remaining 75% claim peaceful intent, there has been no outcry from the majority decrying the radicals murderous behavior. That pushes the estimated radical number to 200-300,000,000 people. The size of the U.S. population.

[McKenna]

You really have me confused here. You initially inferred the difference between 'doctrine' and 'sentiment' was definite. I agreed and declared that the statement, "God will judge rightly." was actually a doctrinal position, adding as opposed to mere sentiment. Then came the response, discourteously dismissing the whole thing as inconsequencial, by stating the differences can only be considered symantics to you. How can I possibly be expected to understand this arbitrary line of reasoning? Doctrine is an established principle of 'knowledge'. Sentiment is judgement permeated by 'feelings'. Knowledge is the cause, feelings is an effect.

 

I meant I could agree with the sentiment behind the doctrine, but not the doctrine itself. I was kind of trying to close the subject since I felt we'd already established we disagreed on the doctrine. Sorry if my response was discourteous, but I felt like you were nitpicking words when I was done discussing the subject. I apologize for misunderstanding and responding rudely - I understand why you pointed out what you did.

 

In terms you imply, but not given, let me try to explain one last time.

Given presuppositions: God is omnipotent, but God will not make anyone love Him. He has the power to actually be able to offer the choice, but will not coerce, force, or violate His gift of free will. McKenna has free will.

 

Question: "If McKenna is drowning and God offers her His loving hand to rescue her, and she refuses to take it and drowns; is it retaliation on the part of God that McKenna drowns?"

 

Answer: McKenna is not His equal, and she has no power to be able to threaten God in any way. For there is no need for God to retaliate for anything, and no one may say McKenna's drowning was anything but her own rejection of Gods rescue. God did not send McKenna anywhere, she chose to not go with God.

 

Gotta run. Back soon.

 

I understand your explanation. I just don't agree with it.

 

I can't fit the concept of an all-loving God with the concept of eternal Hell. I just can't. It's illogical to me. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me any more than I'm going to convince you.

 

'Twist' is an excellent word to describe what would have to be done to the Bible for Jew or Christian to do what Arab-Muslims do daily. In particular to the Philippians verses you reference. I would have to add that Christianity can never be unethical; and agree there are unethical people who would twist it for their own gain, receiving the only reward they'll ever get.

 

You wouldn't have to twist some of the verses of Leviticus very hard to come up with some pretty horrible commandments. In fact, you don't have to twist them at all. Point being that the Bible is not perfect, it is full of stories of people slaughtering in God's name (and often with God's blessing), of commandments to give the death penalty to anyone who doesn't do such-and-such and thing, and of stories of God Himself wiping out populations (the flood story in particular). I don't see how the Quran is any worse.

 

That being said, I would agree that at this point in history, there is a much higher tendency in the Muslim faith than any other major religion for radicalism. But that is I think a consequence of cultural and political problems in the region, and people twisting the Quran or focusing only on certain verses, more than the religion itself.

 

One of the difficulties in the 'war' is that the Arab-Muslim religion really does not recognize nation boundaries as we do. When their religion dictates law and culture of a country, we both agree, trouble is afoot.

 

I wouldn't know about the nation boundaries thing.

 

I definitely agree that there are issues with a religion dictating the law and culture of a country. But that has happened with every single major world religion - i.e. the Catholic Church's control of Europe for centuries! And often when a religion gains such power, it seems to me, it does a lot of damage to the religion itself, because many of the rules become rules for the sake of the people in power - not for God. That is what I believe is happening in the Middle East right now, at least in the countries with overbearing, fundamentalist leaders.

 

When Arab-Muslims enter any territory, whether incorporated or not, they immediately begin claiming it by declaring the population infidels and forcing them into compromises. Eventually calling for them to convert. Then to convert or die, or defend themselves until one is annihilated. They ultimately recognize no compromise. History is the proof.

 

Except for the times when Jews were able to leave peacefully under Muslims. I remember my comparative religion teacher mentioning that, historically, Jews and Muslims have often gotten along, better than either have with Christians. Of course, that's not the case today - maybe that's what you're talking about, but when you mentioned history I assumed otherwise.

 

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Ahmed Shukairy, who less than 10 years earlier denied the existence of Palestine, was its first chairman. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. That helped to precipitate the Arab attack on Israel in 1967. This organization was in several Arab countries, was not a country of its own, but helped dictate their foriegn policy.

 

Okay...this seemed kind of randomly thrown in...what am I supposed to be responding to here?

 

Also, could you provide evidence? Not because I don't believe you, but so that I can learn more.

 

Of the over 1.5 billion, Muslims claim, 20-30% are agreed to be the terrorist 'radicals'. While the remaining 75% claim peaceful intent, there has been no outcry from the majority decrying the radicals murderous behavior. That pushes the estimated radical number to 200-300,000,000 people. The size of the U.S. population.

 

Again, could you provide evidence for those statistics?

 

Some people who are terrorists/extremists are forced into it by the government - at least, that was what the Iranian woman who wrote Reading Lolita in Tehran said, describing various cases where this occurred. Not to mention the fact that the government controls much of the socializing of the country's people - instilling in them the idea that "America is the Great Satan" and calling for "Death to America." I am not excusing terrorists' behavior. I am merely pointing out that there are a variety of reasons for their radicalism - and not all of those reasons are that they are evil or that Islam is evil.

 

I agree with you, however, that peaceful Muslims really need to speak out in protest of the atrocities being committed in the Middle East. I hope they do so soon.

[October's Autumn]

I agree with you, however, that peaceful Muslims really need to speak out in protest of the atrocities being committed in the Middle East. I hope they do so soon.

 

 

And Christians need to be held to the same standards. How many are speaking out (as Christians) against the atrocities committed by Bush in the Middle East?

[davidk]

If I seemed rude in response, I likewise apologize.

Doctrine holds a special place in my heart. If my doctrine is correct, my sentiments (emotions, feelings) will help confirm its truth.

---------

There are those who do not love God. By the time of their physical end, time would have run out for them to change their mind. The only justice for their soul would be permanant seperation from God. Otherwise, nothing in this life would be meaningful, including love.

---------

The reason for mentioning the Palestine Liberation movement was to tell of one of the several Arab-Muslim groups that know no nation boundary. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qieda are also among the groups having no particular citizenship. They wontonly roam amongst the Muslim states, and routinely attack whomever they wish with no resistence from any of the Arab-Muslim countries. Predominately because they are allied by their religion and not citizenship.

---------

God being perfectly good cannot allow any imperfection of that good to enter Heaven. Because He is an all-loving God, and since we are not perfect, nor can we be, He has given us His perfect solution to the problem. It all began being explained in the Old Testament. We needed to understand that in order for there to be life, something has to die.

 

Some of the laws and punishments in Leviticus, seem pretty hard-hearted. But if we can look at what God was trying to teach us about the things important to Him such as recognizing and loving Him for who He is, loving others as yourself, marraige, human life, and so on, His desire for our love and obedience makes a lot more sense. His laws were not so much made to protect us from others, but to protect others from us. These laws gave us the boundaries within which we experience freedom and love. Without them, physical and spritual anarchy would ruin it all by enslaving us in misery. With them, they civilized man, and revealed salvation.

--------

"...the Catholic Church's control of Europe for centuries!" As you well know, this rightly spawned the Reformation.

 

"Except for the times when Jews were able to leave peacefully under Muslims." When was this?

 

"...historically, Jews and Muslims have often gotten along,..." If I'm not mistaken, the Jews were in leadership.

--------

I believe the '1964' post came from an English document when the British were instrumental in documenting the areas political history. I'm afraid its one of those bits in memory and it make take a while to find the document. I believe, however, if you look up such things as the 'History of 20th century Palestine' you could very well find it just as quickly, either in a library or an internet site.

 

The Muslim population data came from a Muslim website I did not keep a particular record of. Although, again, this is data that should be well available in any library or web site regarding current Muslim population statistics and current affairs pertaining to radical Islam.

 

If you have any difficulty with either, let me know and I will try to find exactly where this info is for you.

--------

 

God will rightfully judge.

[McKenna]

Some of the laws and punishments in Leviticus, seem pretty hard-hearted. But if we can look at what God was trying to teach us about the things important to Him such as recognizing and loving Him for who He is, loving others as yourself, marraige, human life, and so on, His desire for our love and obedience makes a lot more sense. His laws were not so much made to protect us from others, but to protect others from us. These laws gave us the boundaries within which we experience freedom and love. Without them, physical and spritual anarchy would ruin it all by enslaving us in misery. With them, they civilized man, and revealed salvation.

 

Right...So what exactly was he trying to teach us in Deuteronomy 25:11-12? Would you cut off your wife's hand?

 

"Except for the times when Jews were able to leave peacefully under Muslims." When was this?

Wikipedia summarizes the relationship throughout the years. I'm not qualified to comment on how accurate this webpage is. Much of it details times when Jews were persecuted, but there are a few times when they seem to have lived peacefully together.

 

"...historically, Jews and Muslims have often gotten along,..." If I'm not mistaken, the Jews were in leadership.

 

That may be true. I don't know enough of the history to be able to say.

[DCJ]

Right...So what exactly was he trying to teach us in Deuteronomy 25:11-12? Would you cut off your wife's hand?

That was a command given to the Israelite nation.. Christians are not under the old covenant law. Islam doesn't have the benefit of a "New Testament." In fact, for Muslims, the Koran is the "New, New Testament."