Isaac -vs- Ishmael Feud Continues

Obama Favors Ishmael

“And so the family feud goes on. Nothing much has changed since Abraham booted Ishmael out of his camp and anointed Isaac, his son by Sarah, the birthright. The death and destruction we see today, in 2008, can be traced directly back to that incident, thousands of years ago.

It is foolish to even consider brokering a peace between those two half-brothers. It is the height of arrogance to believe one can bring peace between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

As a gentle reminder we refer you to the scripture from The Bible: Genesis 17:18,19 “And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him”.

From the Koran:
Koran = 19:54 “Also mention in the Book [the story of] Ishmael: He was [strictly] true to what he promised, and he was a messenger [and] a prophet”.
And, again, from The Bible:
Genesis 16:12 “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him."

As we watch the continuation of this on-going struggle play out before our very eyes on the TV screens today, we must remember that this is only a continuation the feud between these two peoples who have fought for thousands of years.

No matter how this discussion(?) ends, the struggle will not end here. It will go on. No matter what the US does, or what the United Nations does, or what the European Union does, nothing will change. Only God can end this combat, which is fueled by jealous rage. The Jews and the Muslims have two different philosophies of life and religion. One leads to freedom and life and the other leads to bondage and death.” (Read the entire article HERE.)

Last week President Obama broke one of the cardinal rules of life. He stepped between two relatives fighting. Common sense dictates that one never does that!

As a police officer, back in my misspent youth, I dreaded a domestic violence call worse than any other type of disturbance. The police officer is required to insert himself into the fray, and get between the two warring parties. Not only is it dangerous, the officer will be perceived as “taking sides” no matter what the outcome.

Obama is, today, perceived as “taking sides” especially in Israel, and America is the loser as a result.

To put it frankly, and yes, bluntly, Obama’s “one upsmanship” just plain sucks!”

Rushing to get ahead of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, before Netanyahu could deliver his speech to a joint assembly of the US Congress was, well, infantile. It underscores just how incapable our President is when dealing with foreign powers. Especially, if that foreign power happens to be involved in a tussle with Muslims -- as is Israel. Obama and his lackeys can dispute it and deny it as much as they like, there is simply no way they will ever be able to whitewash Mr., Obama’s empathy for Muslims. I mean -- his middle name is that of a Muslim – Hussein.

Mr. Netanyahu is no pushover and Obama’s attempt to “roll” him will likely blow-up in Obama’s face. Rest assured, there will be a price to pay for Obama, and the democrats, at the polls. If nothing else good comes of this fiasco, then the majority of Americans, whose empathy DOES lie with Israel, will be pleased.

Obama’s emboldening of the so-called Palestinians will only lead to more bloodshed in Israel. The deaths can only be laid at the doorstep of the Obama Administration.

To think we will have Obama as President for six more years should cause every freedom loving American to shudder. Especially now that we learn Pakistan has invited China to build a new naval base along Pakistan’s southwestern seacoast – AND -- we learn that Vladimir Putin has decided to become President of Russia –AGAIN. Can you imagine how easily Putin can, and will, manipulate Obama?

With the US and China headed for an inevitable war do we really want someone who makes such “dumb” mistakes as Obama made last week with Israel? Surely, you don’t even have to think about it. God help us all if you do!

Posted by J. D. Longstreet at May 22, 2011 7:59 PM
Comments
Comment #323469

The President states more explicitly what US policy has been implicitly for decades and that is bad? Perhaps it is time for a little blunt discussion of the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Up to this point, dancing around the issue has not been very fruitful. As for who is “rolling” who, perhaps you might just consider that Obama was tired of the US getting “rolled” by Netanyahu and Israeli hard liners.

We should be concerned because Putin may return to the presidency of Russia next year? Why? He has been the de facto power in Russia for years. What would change?

Pakistan is purchasing military equipment from China including a request that China construct a new Pakistani naval base to complement a commercial deep sea port that China has already constructed for Pakistan. Is that so surprising? Pakistan is seeking alternatives for military hardware and infrastructure in anticipation of US sanctions and restrictions in response to the bin Laden issue. Pakistan is duplicitous. What is new?

Posted by: Rich at May 23, 2011 4:50 AM
Comment #323470

Did you not pay attention to the Watchblog editor when he asked that you follow protocol in posting? It is getting tiresome.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 23, 2011 6:17 AM
Comment #323471

Seriously, fella, just format it properly the first time.

But really, you say that this is like a domestic quarrel, that both sides are part of the problem, that it’s going to look like we take a side, and so…

We take a side, and just do whatever that one side wants? The key to not getting played, is to just go lockstep with one side, a side that’s abused our trust again and again?

I think you just wanted an opportunity to unload on Obama.

And really, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Why is our President supposed to defer to a foreign head of state? Why is passively allowing the same situation to continue not “getting played?”

As for the US and China heading for a war? If you’re trying to sell your foreign policy ideas to us on the basis of your superior understanding, that’s not a good way to start. China is in business nowadays. It doesn’t spend half so much on its military operations as it does on ours!

But to pose the current Israeli leadership as successful is silly. They’ve started two skirmishes with the Palestinians, neither of which achieved its goal. Their intrusion with settlements into the West Bank is an unsustainable, unjustifiable breach of international law. You and they are thinking ninety days ahead, or perhaps thinking God will keep your butts out of the fire, and save you from your foolishness. I’m sorry, but just read your bible. When Israel gets foolish, it suffers the consequences just the same.

If there’s too much hubris here, it’s on the part of those on the right in both countries, who think continued aggression and provocation will help protect Israel. Only lasting peace can do that, only a compromise. Israel is not going to get its biblical lands all back to itself without doing something that will make its reputation little better than mud. This is not the way to preserve Israel’s right to exist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2011 8:14 AM
Comment #323472

He is clearly not reading the comments threads for his posts. I am disabling his account which should prompt him to email me and I will explain.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at May 23, 2011 8:48 AM
Comment #323473


Obama is perceived as taking sides by those that have made it perfectly clear that they have taken sides.

Contrary to conservative popular belief, not all Israelis are in agreement with Netanyahu.

Posted by: jlw at May 23, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #323474

Mr. Longstreet, I am in complete agreement with your assessment of the Israeli/Muslim situation, except for a China/US war. China will eventually go to war with the West, but it is a few years away.

Once again we have Stephen Daugherty entering the fray with his ignorant words:

“I think you just wanted an opportunity to unload on Obama.”

Stephen, r-e-a-d t-h-i-s v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y….

When people complain about Obama’s actions, it is not unloading on Obama, and it’s not being racist. Obama is an ignorant ass and is in way over his head and has no idea what he is doing… Is this plain enough for you? One could tell by the look on his arrogant face, that he did not appreciate Netanyahu explaining Jewish history to him. I loved it…

Absolutely everyone except for the far left socialist liberals realized Obama made a fool out of himself and it will undoubtedly cost him at the polls. This is why his people are out there trying to spin this one to cover his stupidity. This comment by Rich is right out of the Obama “cover your ass” playbook and is being repeated by all liberal MSM:

“The President states more explicitly what US policy has been implicitly for decades and that is bad?”

“Perhaps it is time for a little blunt discussion of the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Up to this point, dancing around the issue has not been very fruitful.”

What happen to the famous negotiating skills of the socialist left? Even if what Rich is saying was true (and I disagree that it is), it is juvenile and ignorant for Obama to speak so blunt. Obama has certainly showed his loyalties lean towards the Muslims. As I have said before; he hates Great Britain because his father and he are anti-colonialists, and he is anti-Jewish because he and his father were Muslim. That is very simple…

“And really, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Why is our President supposed to defer to a foreign head of state?”

And he is speaking to the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation. What business is it of Obama’s what Israel and the Palestinians do or don’t do? Is Israel supposed to roll over because Obama wants to stick the feather of a peace accord in his re-election cap? Mr. Longstreet is correct; this blood feud has been going on for thousands of years and will not be settled until God settles it.

“I’m sorry, but just read your bible. When Israel gets foolish, it suffers the consequences just the same.”

Sorry Stephen, but here you go again. You are telling Mr. Longstreet to read his Bible, of which I am sure he reads because he presents a solid proof that he knows what the Bible says about the Israeli/Arab conflict; but you on the other hand do not believe the Bible, so why would you ask someone to read a book which you don’t believe.

I was more than willing to explain what is going on in the Middle-East as per the Bible; but Mr. Daugherty, you answered for everyone on WB by saying no. So I didn’t pursue it because you were more than happy to spread your vast knowledge of the Bible, of which you don’t believe. Now, you continue to try to explain what the Scriptures say when it comes to Israel. Must I say, you have no idea what you are talking about…

Yes Stephen, there was a time when the wrath of God was upon Israel, but there are numerous verses in the Bible that tell of the re-gathering of the nation of Israel in the last days. I do not need to give you the verses, because I am sure you will know where they are, due to your vast Biblical knowledge. But I am also sure you know that there are NO verses that talk of God’s judgment upon Israel, after that they have re-gathered as nation. However, as you probably already know, there are many verses that speak of God’s judgment upon the nations who have forsaken Israel, after that Israel has re-gathered as a nation.

Further proof that Stephen has no idea what he is talking about:

“Only lasting peace can do that, only a compromise. Israel is not going to get its biblical lands all back to itself without doing something that will make its reputation little better than mud. This is not the way to preserve Israel’s right to exist.”

Evidently Mr. Daugherty did not read Mr. Longstreet’s comments about the Israeli/Muslim situation. This was the sticking point of UN Res 242; it required muslim nations to recognise Israel. There can be no compromise unless Muslims are willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Can Mr. Daugherty offer proof that the Muslim nations are willing to do that, or is Mr. Daugherty just wasting writing space and breathable air? If Mr. Daugherty knew as much as he thinks he does about the Bible; he would know that the land promised by God to Israel is many times larger than the land they now occupy. It is the height of hypocrisy and elitism to believe it will take the efforts of Obama (a modern day messiah) to preserve Israel’s right to exist. Oh Stephen, if you think the world is in turmoil now, just wait a little while. There is coming a day when you will remember all the things I and TH have told you.

You love to post on WB the definition of what you think a Christian should be, and you even use verses from the Bible to back up what you say, but when you hear verses you don’t agree with, all of a sudden the Bible is just another book off the bookshelf…

My offer still stands; I will be more than willing to show what part Iran, Syria, Egypt, Israel, and the US play in Biblical prophecy. But I will not unless you ask…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 23, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #323475

Conservativethinker-
Look, if his policy is 1967 borders with tradeoffs for the sake of peace, which it is, then it’s not much Different than the last few Presidents.

Your problem is that he’s not kissing Netanyahu’s tuchis.

Your other problem is that this is Obama doing this, and not a Republican. So you will repeat a whole lot of crap about him being “arrogant”, making “a fool out of himsef”, being “in over his head”, and then move to the incredibly simplistic and prejudicial assumption that Obama’s attitudes would be entirely determined by a father who was barely in his life to begin with.

As for speaking to the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation?

Let me set you straight on this, because you seem to be adopting Longstreet’s excessively clean-slatish read on history.

That nation only exists because we back them. If it weren’t for the fact we backed Israel, it would have been run into the sea ages ago. Our weapons and our financial aid help keep them a going concern in the Middle East.

But in the course of history, they’ve gotten into a bit of a situation. They’re pitted against the Arab powers surrounding them, and in the process of winning the 1967 conflict, put millions of Palestinian into situation that has, over the years, become a humanitarian, political, and international law headache for both of our countries.

Netanyahu is pushing his luck, on every front, forcing us to take it on the chin when he pulls some stunt, humiliating us by taking actions that undermine our negotiations as we make them.

Netanyahu is forgetting that Israel is a Client State of the US, and not the other way around.

We’re taking flack over what they do, and you would have our country just sit there and take the humiliation of such contempt. I support Israel, but I don’t support leaders who treat their nation’s best friend with such contempt, and use the space of protection we give them to make their situation worse and more heated by invading and coopting the other side’s territory. You might talk about security in terms of intentions, but does escalating the situation really create long term security, or does it just pander to a group of religious cranks, both there and in America, who are taking the blasphemous approach of trying to force God’s prophetic hand?

And yes, the bible does tell of multiple times where the Israeli people are subjugated, even evicted from their lands.

As for your prophecies? I don’t want them. They’re one step away from fortunetelling. You look in the bible, and most of the prophecies weren’t about telling the future, they were about confronting people with what was happening and what they were doing, and warning them about what God was going to do if they did not listen. Only through torturous reinterpretation did it come out to this “Late Great Planet Earth” vision of how the world would end.

I don’t buy this notion that these are necessarily the last days, or that your folks have particular wisdom on the subject. And I sure as hell don’t think we should shape our foreign policy according to that.

I believe what God wants us to do is shape our foreign policy according to his Gospel, to be peacemakers even when it just gets us a slap in the face. We were told to be prepared for the last days, not to usher them in ourselves.

If it is not to be, if God intends otherwise, then the hand of God will surely shape things differently, and all will happen as it is supposed to happen, regardless of what we want. But if God has left us the option, then we should, as stewards of this world, not be caught in petty, crappy, dumb fights when he walks in the door, because surely he’s going to judge those who were so eager to exercise their bloodlusts and angers that they stole his banner to feed their worldly, human desires.

I don’t use verses from the bible, except to quote them for the sake of clarity, because think doing that leads to lawyerly parsing of the word, which just leads us down the path of the Pharisees, who loved their interpretation more than the actual meanings.

I’m not going to ask for more parsings and logical constructs of castles in the air to justify what are essentially worldly attitudes and desires.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #323476

So now SD has a new area of expertise. International law. Stephen please explain how international law comes into play from your perspective. Be ready to get slammed. You don’t know diddly about international law.

CT
I think a few of us made a mistake about SD and the Bible. He is reading from the King Stephen version. That interpretation is a far cry from the normally acceptable KJV.

It appears he is now an expert on international law. At least he cited international law and Israel. I wonder what he has in mind. Of course I don’t expect him to apply International law to the Palastine people who daily lob rockets into Israel and destroy people, places and things. If he is going to cite International law then he should give what law he is referencing. Otherwise just more southpaw straw.

Posted by: tom humes at May 23, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #323479

tom humes-
International law comes into play because the occupied territories were actually parts of Jordan, Syria and Egypt when the 1967 war happened.

Why do you think they’re called the occupied territories?

So, international law comes into play because this is a dispute between Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

As far as International law goes, I’m not claiming to be an expert, but when things are this simple and clear cut, you don’t have to be a weatherman to tell it’s raining.

I think a few of us made a mistake about SD and the Bible. He is reading from the King Stephen version. That interpretation is a far cry from the normally acceptable KJV.

No, when I do my readings, I’m reading from an NRSV translation. Now you say only the KJV is acceptable, and that is one point of view certainly (you would claim the only one, but there you go), but the reader should understand that there are something around a dozen standard translations out there, and many more besides.

Of course I don’t expect him to apply International law to the Palastine people who daily lob rockets into Israel and destroy people, places and things.

Oh, that stings, how could you… nah, that didn’t hurt. See, because you’re simply feeding back to me your own BS propaganda, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually believe.

What I’d say is that Hamas, Fatah, and the other guys need to observe international law, too. Israel, in turn, needs to stop disregarding international laws and norms using what the Palestinians do as pretext for it.

As for what law applies? I couldn’t quote you chapter and verse, but it’s a well known norm of international law that attacking a sovereign nation is a no-no. But so is inflicting punitive damage on the population of a territory for the actions of a few.

Something begs the question here: are you an expert in international law yourself, such that you’d be qualified to tell us differently. Or are you like Longstreet and CT, defending Israel’s actions on the basis of scripture, one which over four fifths of the world either doesn’t adhere to or does not share the same view on?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #323480

“But so is inflicting punitive damage on the population of a territory for the actions of a few.”

Explain that. Arabs live and are active alongside the Jewish population. What is happening to the Arabs? Be specific. None of the wave the wand and it will be factual stuff.

Posted by: tom humes at May 23, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #323488

Israel won those lands in a war they didn’t start but they did finish. Now if we go around telling other Nations to give back lands that were taken through actions of war, shouldn’t we be inclined to do the same? How about we give back the lands we stole from the Indians, or we give back what we took from Mexico. I’ll bet you would appreciate that, Stephen, giving Texas back to Mexico? As stated on the Blue side, peace will only be obtained if Israel’s enemies destroy them or vice versa, or Christ returns.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #323489


Kap, there is no great super power around to support Mexico’s point of view.

“peace will only be obtained if Israel’s enemies destroy them or vice versa, or Christ returns.”

So, why are we intervening?

To prevent Israel from destroying it’s enemies?

To prevent it’s enemies from destroying Israel?

To prevent the return of Christ?

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2011 2:19 AM
Comment #323491

tom humes-
The Fourth Geneva convention states:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

And something like that is arguably occuring, by these facts alone.

I’m not waving wands here. Israel has done some rather questionable things in its own defense, and that has helped to inflame the people they’re trying to pacify, and turn the international community against them.

What folks on the right aren’t seeming to perceive is this: the whole point of terrorism is to provoke reactions that make the target look bad. If the Right-Wingers in Israel jump at every provocation, and use it as a reason for drastic measures against the Palestinians, then they only turn the heat up on the pressure cooker they’re in, and they serve the Palestinian Terrorists’ purpose, even as they radicalize the Palestinians further.

KAP-
Doesn’t quite work that way, and I’ll tell you why: It’s unfair, but in the case of the Indians, we never really recognized them as the owners of the land. We staked out the land with indifference to their claims, buying big parts of the midwest and south from the French, rather than from the Indians. And we went all the way, killing and displacing most of the Indians in our past. It would have been illegal under today’s international law, but the norms of the 18th and 19th century were considerably different from those of our time.

As for what we got from Mexico? Well, my state in particular won its independence, and we got other lands, officially, in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War. So, there’s no comparison to the Occupied Territories, most of which, Israel does not consider its own.

As for your conditions for peace? I think they are a bit arbitrary. I think God knows a way to bring both sides to peace before his return, and if we appeal to him for enough wisdom and understanding, we’d find it. To those who believe that peace is not possible, that only God can bring peace, let us recall that when Jesus told his followers to be peacemakers, he was telling them in much the same places that folks are squabbling over now, with the whole of Palestine a conquered, occupied territory of Rome.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 7:42 AM
Comment #323495

So Stephen you could use the same adage for Israel, the Palistinians weren’t recognized as owners of the land and Israel stacked out their claims with indifference to the Palistinians claims. If peace hasn’t been achieved in 4000 years what makes you think that peace will be achieved today or tommorrow? As far as God bringing peace he does have a way by his return. JLW, has our intervention worked? NO. There will be no way we or anyone else will prevent Christ from returning. The only thing IMO that our intervention has prevented is Israel using a Nuke.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2011 10:35 AM
Comment #323496

SD

“Israel has done some rather questionable things in its own defense, and that has helped to inflame the people they’re trying to pacify, and turn the international community against them.”

I asked you to be specific and not just a blanket statement. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything, but without any evidence to support the accusation, it is null and void.

You still have not addressed the issue of the daily bombing by the Palestinians of Israel and the death toll. It appears that the 1967 borders are more important to you than killing of innocent people by terrorists.

Posted by: tom humes at May 24, 2011 11:15 AM
Comment #323497

KAP-
Things are a lot more complicated than those on the Right would claim, with such comparisons.

As for peace not being achieved? Look, if you’re going to start out with a defeatist position on the matter every time, Then nothing will work. If the best we can manage is a long term state of tensions, fine. But this attitude that we can just afford to continue this farce is nonsensical. Sooner or later something has to give, and in this case, Things will stack mostly against Israel

I think it’s fairly blasphemous to presume to know the course of future events well enough to use the Bible as a guide for foreign policy. God knows, and his plan is more complex than we could possibly understand.

We are not enough like God to carry out his plans for him, and not screw it up. So let’s stick to carrying out policy according to the kind of sense and understanding we’re good enough to understand.

tom humes-
I linked to evidence of the specific controversy. If you want to play bombastic word games to cover for a terrible position, be my guest. But demolishing the homes of those who commit suicide bombers would be like somebody here having their house confiscated because a family member killed somebody. And that, in occupied lands, is against international law.


You still have not addressed the issue of the daily bombing by the Palestinians of Israel and the death toll. It appears that the 1967 borders are more important to you than killing of innocent people by terrorists.

Have you even begun to address the daily construction of settlement in territory that Israel doesn’t even claim as its own? Surely that violates international law.

Your argument is a fallacy. If your policies are ineffective (Israel’s been doing this for decades now) then the plight of the Israeli people does not constitute a legitimate argument for their usage. In fact, they constitute a legitimate argument for trying something else that is clouded by your use of appeals to fear, pity, and other emotions.

And if you really want to talk about somebody getting played, maybe you should ask your friend Bibi what he said last year.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #323500

Stephen, How do you negotiate with a people that is hell bent on your eradication? It is not a defeatist attitude it’s fact. I do not know what the future holds, but I do know what the bible says about it and it is not fantacy as you said in an earlier post. If you listened to Netanyahu’s speech today he said point blank that he would NOT go back to the 67 borders but will have to negotiate borders and Palistine would have to come to the negotiating table with Israel and NOT be brokered by anyone else and the key word that you linked to is BASED on the 67 borders but the 9 mile wide area that was Israel’s land was indefencible and that Jerusalem is the undisputed Capital of Israel and WILL NOT be split apart like Berlin was. He also said He would NOT negotiate with a terrorist group like Hamas or hesbola.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2011 1:24 PM
Comment #323501


Kap, does everyone in America agree with Obama?

Who is on the defensive, Obama or Netanyahu?

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #323502

jlw, NO and IMO Obama because he is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy, he tries to be a community organizer and it don’t work.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2011 2:23 PM
Comment #323504


Kap, I thought about the same of Obama until he bitch slapped Netanyahu, forcing him to defend his right wing positions.

Israel’s existance is totally dependent on the U.S. Our nation has no desire or intentions whatsoever of abandoning our commitment to Israel. But, because of that dependence, Israel has no authority to dictate to us. For far to long, we have allowed this to happen. It is time for us to exert our authority in the region and bring about a solution to this 60+ year old side show.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #323505


Contrary to popular belief, this is not a continuation of the Isaac/Ishmael saga.

When the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, it caused a rift which resulted in a new religion, Christianity.

When the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet, a rift occurred which resulted in the creation of a new religion, Islam.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #323506

jlw

And how does that get done with people who are only interested in killing. Lets see what you would draw up for both parties to sign. You can’t do it and nobody else can. There will be a day when it happens but only at the peril of Israel. Then the big battle when blood will run in the valleys and Israel will survive.

Posted by: tom humes at May 24, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #323507

And we have no right to dictate to Israel either jlw, and I also think Obama was the one who got bitch slapped when Netanyahu told him basically to take his 67 border and shove it and he said exactly the same thing today. We have no authority in the region. We can offer our 2 cents but that is about it. Netanyahu said the negotiations are between Israel and the Palistinian government he wants no interferance from the U.S. or anyone else and will NOT negotiate with Hamas or Hesbola. Israel’s existance is NOT dependent upon us they can take care of themselves quite well. It’s time we got a little more serious about Iran instead of trying to control Israel and her borders they are the big threat in the region especially if they get a nuke and Netanyahu also hit on that point.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment #323509

“Contrary to popular belief, this is not a continuation of the Isaac/Ishmael saga.

When the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, it caused a rift which resulted in a new religion, Christianity.

When the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet, a rift occurred which resulted in the creation of a new religion, Islam.”


Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2011 03:35 PM

This is an absolute idiotic statement by jlw. Do you just jump in the conversation and spout nonsense to make yourself look like you know something? What is it with you and SD and the rest of the libs; do you know anything about history?

Longstreet is exactly correct; the conflict between Israel and the Arabs goes all the way back to Ishmael and Isaac, with Jacob and Esau, and with Ammon and Moab. It conflict has nothing to do with Christianity or the founding of Islam. The Jews were not living in Palestine at the time of the birth of Islam and therefore had nothing to say about Mohammad, for or against. And Christianity has nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and Islam.

Honestly, I perceive anti-Semitism in the remarks of both jlw and SD.

As far as who is on the defensive; it is Obama. He is the one trying to re-explain what he actually meant. And he is doing it before Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League. First, this is what Obama said on Thursday:

“Obama said in his speech on Thursday that the United States supports creation of a Palestinian state based on the border lines that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel forces occupied east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.”

Secondly, this is what Obama did not say, in front of the cameras on Friday when he met with Netanyahu:

“The president never mentioned the 1967 borders as the two men talked with reporters. The leaders spoke after a lengthy meeting in the Oval Office, amid tense times.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/20/earlyshow/main20064606.shtml?tag=stack

Regarding the speech before the Anti-Defamation League on Friday, the 21st; I read the whole speech of Obama and it was interesting that Obama spoke of the friendship between Israel and the US, and of our support of Israel; but when it came to his remarks about Israel returning to the 1967 borders, this is what he said:

“I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat. (Applause.) Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. (Applause.) And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state. (Applause.) And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. (Applause.)

Now, that is what I said. And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people — (applause) — and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. (Applause.)

If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. (Applause.) The world is moving too fast. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

Now, I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. (Applause.) And as a friend of Israel, I’m committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized. And I will call not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, on the Arab States, and the international community to join us in this effort, because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone. (Applause.)

But even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything, if the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/54266/President-Obamas-speech-to-Antidefamation-League

Obama changed his tune; this is not what he said on Thursday, but after getting in big trouble with Israel and the Jewish vote in the US, he all of a sudden changed his statement to a mutually agreed swap of land, based on the security of Israel. The UN Resolution 242 always said there would be an exchange of land and 242 never said the borders would be based upon the pre 1976 borders. UN 242 did say that Muslim nations would recognize Israel’s Sovereignty and right to exist. The Muslims and the Palestinians in particular has never been willing to do that. Obama seemed to forget this part of 242 and was lectured by Netanyahu on the history of Israel and what the resolution said. So there can be no doubt, Obama is the one who is backed against the ropes. Netanyahu is not out there trying to explain what he said.

This is typical of the past 2 ½ years of Obama. He runs his mouth and everyone except SD understands how ignorant he is; but SD is still out there trying to protect him…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 24, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #323510

What strikes me is this sentiment that basically goes that every Palestinian wants Israel destroyed, and to the exclusion of just about any other desire they might have, and it seems for absolutely no reason.

Has anybody considered just how unlikely that is?

People said the same sort of things about the Soviets. Was the solution all out Nuclear or even conventional war? No. The solution, in the end, was a negotiated peace followed with the political collapse of those who could no longer simply impose their political agenda on their people.

It’s classic dehumanizing rhetoric. It’s basically just a justification to be cruel without the limits of norms, since you’re being cruel to the inhumanly cruel and evil.

But that introduces another problem: You can never back down from a bad decision.

Netanyahu is the leader of a Client State playing chicken with their sponsor. He is denying not only a basic US policy on the peace process, but going back on what he originally said, which is exactly what Obama said at this speech the Republicans are bashing him for.

Let’s be blunt here: we’re looking at no real difference in policy, unless Netanyahu is going back on his word. What we are looking at, though, is the Republicans getting the back of a foreign head of state who thumbed his nose at our country’s attempts to broker peace, rather than of their own head of state. Country first, right? Well, we should have asked you people which one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #323511

Conservativethinker-
By your logic, we could justify a never-ending war between France and Italy based on the Gallic wars of nearly the same time. Or, why isn’t Israel attacking Rome? After all, they’re the ones who kicked them out of Palestine in the first place. It would make as much sense.

Oooooooops. I’m not supposed to know any history, am I?

You know, from about 79 AD to about Muhammad’s time, Most of that territory was under Byzantine Control. Then it was under Muslim Control until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the early part of the last century. During that time there were long periods during which Jews and Arabs lived peaceably. Hell, even Christians. Who do you think controlled the Church of the Holy Sepulchre then, and to this day? The Orthodox Church.

The reality is, the current conflict is of relatively recent vintage, and it comes from the fact that European and Mediterranean Jews looking for a homeland, for very understandable reasons, got colonial powers to displace Arabs from what had been their homelands for centuries. The claims are fairly old, but the conflict is of recent vintage and cause.

Same thing about the conflicts that fueled the Balkans war. They’re of similar vintage. But only recently did we see them flare up. Why? Well, the dissolution of the old Ottoman Empire plays a big role.

See, this is the problem with relating things back to ancient biblical conflicts, as if the problems Ishmael had with Isaac had a thing to do withour problems today. I mean, have you considered the racist nature of that claim, the notion that this conflict is somehow inherent in their blood, rather than simply a matter of modern choice?

Honestly, I perceive anti-Semitism in the remarks of both jlw and SD.

Yeah, just like you perceive people calling you a racist over not agreeing with Obama. I believe the Jews have a right to their homeland. They shouldn’t be punished for the meddling of the colonial powers decades ago.

They should have a chance to live in peace, and not have to suffer further for the foolishness of blustery politicians who, acting like political parasites, feed off the understandable fears of their population to keep in power.

Sooner or later, though, fear is a slave driver, and a prison warden. Israel cannot be free or safe until it finds peace with its neighbors. It goes the other way, too. It’s neighbors will not find peace until they help broker it. Neither side can win the way the most belligerent among them want to without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world. There is no winner in this conflict, only in its end.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 5:23 PM
Comment #323512

No one said the every Palistinian wants to erradicate Israel Stephen. There are factions within the Palistinian people that would like to see Israel wipped off the map as in most Islamic countries in the region. It’s time we let Israel handle the problems with their borders, we can advise but that is the extent. They are quite capable of negotiating for themselves without our 2 cents in the matter, they know what they want to negotiate with.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #323513

I said this:

Most of that territory was under Byzantine Control

Make that Roman and Byzantine Control.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 5:29 PM
Comment #323514
he all of a sudden changed his statement to a mutually agreed swap of land

I thought the phrase “mutually agreed swaps” appeared in Obama’s original speech? Or is this your poor attempt at revisionism?

The Jews were not living in Palestine at the time of the birth of Islam and therefore had nothing to say about Mohammad, for or against.
Where do you get this from? Jews have continuously lived in the territory today controlled by Israel since long before the Birth of Christ.
And Christianity has nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and Islam.
Are you sure? Posted by: Warped Reality at May 24, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #323515

This is what Obama said in his middle east speech regarding the 1967 borders:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
He never changed his statement on the matter.

In reality, his remarks are not significantly different than those made by GW Bush in 2005 when he said that any “changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to.” The 1949 Armistice lines are the same as the 1967 borders. Implicitly, Bush starts with the assumption that the 1967 borders are the basis of a two state solution.


Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #323517

SD said:

“What strikes me is this sentiment that basically goes that every Palestinian wants Israel destroyed, and to the exclusion of just about any other desire they might have, and it seems for absolutely no reason.
Has anybody considered just how unlikely that is?”

Instead of accusing others of falsely reporting the hatred Palestinians and Muslims in general have for the Jews, perhaps Mr. Daugherty could provide proof that Palestinians support and recognize the State of Israel?

“Netanyahu is the leader of a Client State playing chicken with their sponsor. He is denying not only a basic US policy on the peace process, but going back on what he originally said, which is exactly what Obama said at this speech the Republicans are bashing him for.
Let’s be blunt here: we’re looking at no real difference in policy, unless Netanyahu is going back on his word. What we are looking at, though, is the Republicans getting the back of a foreign head of state who thumbed his nose at our country’s attempts to broker peace, rather than of their own head of state. Country first, right? Well, we should have asked you people which one.”

The only one speaking at your liberal link is Clinton. Perhaps you could explain what it is that Netanyahu said? Are you tone deaf Daugherty? How many times do we have to tell you, the peace is DEPENDENT UPON PALESTINIAN RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL”S RIGHT TO EXIST? They have not done that, have they? What Obama said was different than any US policy since 1948 and 1967 in that Obama wanted Israel to cave to the towel heads, without them living up to the basis of UN Res. 242.

How many times have you disrespected President Bush, based on the fact that you disagreed with his policies? And now you think we should support Obama, when he is dead wrong.

Thank you for the history lesson SD; I think you waste everyone’s time writing kilobytes of words that can be looked up on Wikipedia, in order for you to impress us with your vast intelligence.

SD goes on with his interpretation of the Bible, of which he does not believe. Why do you continue to quote Scripture, when you don’t believe it?

“See, this is the problem with relating things back to ancient biblical conflicts, as if the problems Ishmael had with Isaac had a thing to do withour problems today. I mean, have you considered the racist nature of that claim, the notion that this conflict is somehow inherent in their blood, rather than simply a matter of modern choice?”

The problems Ishmael had with Isaac have everything to do with the problems we have today. Both were sons of Abraham and God established a covenant with Abraham that included many things, but what we are concerned about is the promise of the land of Palestine to Abraham and his decedents, and in this case to Isaac and his sons, and to Jacob and his sons, and so forth. The descendants of Ishmael claim the same promises, because Ishmael was also the son of Abraham.

“Muslims also claim rights to that land in accordance with the Quran.[8] Contrary to the Jewish claim that this land was promised only to the descendants of Abraham’s younger son Isaac, they argue that the Land of Canaan was promised to all descendants of Abraham, including his elder son Ishmael, from whom Arabs claim descent.[8] Additionally, Muslims also revere many sites holy for Biblical Israelites, such as The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount, and in the past 1,400 years have constructed Islamic landmarks on these ancient Israelite sites, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Muslims also believe that Muhammad passed through Jerusalem on his first journey to heaven. Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, claims that all of the land of Palestine (the current Israel and Palestinian territories) is an Islamic waqf that must be governed by Muslims.[9]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_Conflict

Stephen, I just got this info from Wikipedia, because I know you love the site. But if you Google “The Root Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, your comments won’t make you look so stupid.

Warped Reality:

“Where do you get this from? Jews have continuously lived in the territory today controlled by Israel since long before the Birth of Christ.”

Tell me, what is it with you liberals. Do you just look for something to argue about? There may have been Jews in Palestine or there may not have been; in fact there were Jews scattered all over the world after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, under Titus. Now do you want to argue about that too? I said, “The Jews were not living in Palestine at the time of the birth of Islam and therefore had nothing to say about Mohammad, for or against.” Excuse me, I should have said there was no state of Israel at the time of the birth of Islam, but it doesn’t change the fact, there were so few, they had nothing to say about Mohammad, for or against. I wish I was perfect like you liberals and never made a mistake. By the way, you and SD could stand to use spell-check every once in a while…

That Jews suffered persecution at the hand of the Crusaders is nothing new. The Jews suffered persecution in Europe at the hands of the Vatican too. But I fail to see how their suffering persecution at the hands of Crusaders would involve Christianity in the Arab-Israeli dispute.

“This is what Obama said in his middle east speech regarding the 1967 borders:
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
He never changed his statement on the matter.
In reality, his remarks are not significantly different than those made by GW Bush in 2005 when he said that any “changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to.” The 1949 Armistice lines are the same as the 1967 borders. Implicitly, Bush starts with the assumption that the 1967 borders are the basis of a two state solution.”

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2011 06:29 PM

What we are seeing is a real case of stupid, coming from the left… I will say one more time, UN Resolution 242, allowed Israel to agree with a mutual swap of land, based upon the contingency that Palestinians accept Israel’s sovereignty and right to exist. OBAMA DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN HIS SPEECH, but every president prior to him did. So Rich, Obama’s speech was not the same as Bush’s.

One last thought:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke to members of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington DC on Monday, steering clear of mentioning President Barack Obama’s name and “1967″.

This weekend, the President said that in order to create a unified Palestinian state, Israel had to return to its pre-1967 borders, when a war with its Arab neighbors saw Israel take over the West Bank and other areas beyond the original United Nations demarcation that created the state of Israel. Obama said compromise would have to be made on both sides in order to accomplish this end in the future.

But the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, never mentioned the word Obama or 1967 once in his remarks at the AIPAC 2011 Policy Conference. Instead, he reserved the entirety of his speech as AIPAC’s guest to praise Israel and the current US-Israel relationship.

Reid also reiterated a common Washington talking point about peace talks with Palestine, saying that Israel should not give Palestine any leeway in peace agreements until anti-Israel Hamas is removed from the discussion table, despite their dominant political sway in the fractured Palestine territories.

“I stand with Israel, the Congress stands with Israel and America stands with Israel because the values that have cast our histories are one and the same. And our futures will be intertwined even more than our history has been. You know these values: Democracy, opportunity, justice. Strength, security and self-defense. Innovation. Peace. These values fasten the unbreakable bond between the United States and the State of Israel,” Reid said.

“A fair beginning to good-faith talks also means the Palestinians cannot simply stop by the negotiating table on their way to the United Nations, where they seek recognition that is at once purely symbolic and dangerously counterproductive. And a fair beginning to good-faith talks means that Israel cannot be asked to agree to confines that would compromise its own security.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/23/at-aipac-speech-sen-reid-leaves-out-obama-and-1967/

Reid may not have mentioned Obama, but he was clearly telling the AIPAC exactly where he and the United States stood. Now, the way I figure it, you can discredit Reid and continue the Anti-Semitic support of Obama, or you can do what Reid did and recognize Obama made a stupid statement. By the way, before you try to change what Reid was saying, you might notice that Reid said, “Israel should not give Palestine any leeway in peace agreements until anti-Israel Hamas is removed from the discussion table”, which is the basis for Res. 242.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 24, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #323518

Conservativethinker-
The formal recognition of Israel is a different, though not necessarily independent matter in the long run, to the fact that most Palestinians want more from their lives than the opportunity to destroy Israel. Sorry that doesn’t square with a provocative insistence that all they do morning, noon, and night is plot the downfall of Israel.

I don’t expect miracles, but least of all do I expect the miracle that people put in a pressure cooker of suffering will spontaneously decide to support their tormentors over those who help them stand up to their tormentors.

Of course, those people, the leader of that popular anti-Israeli movement can easily be scum, too, but while they’re suffering at Israel’s hands, do you think they’re all that receptive? No, I’m not suggesting such things not knowing the difficulty of dealing with things at that level, but rather, I’m recognizing that difficulty, where you fail to recognize just how lacking in common sense your approach is, when you get past the nationalistic bluster.

As for this anti-semitism BS, you ought to be proud of yourself, resorting to such cheap arguments. None of the liberals on this page have expressed any kind of prejudice against Jews or Israelis. I do not think that what Israelis have done is inherent in them, or the national character. It is a decision, made under understandable duress, that we too have made poorly.

This is demagoguery on the GOP’s part. This is opportunism built on top of deliberate misinterpretation.

This is what he actually said:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.[emphasis mine]

You folks are saying he’s throwing Israel under the bus. How so? By telling it the truth, that as strong-man governments fall, they’ll no longer be able to count on one man to hold down a population outraged at the treatment of fellow Arabs and Muslims? By restating the policy that Netanyahu agreed to in a previous meeting with them about 1967 borders and land-swaps? By insisting that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, and saying that the path of terror and rejection won’t work for them?

No, your objections aren’t to what he said, but what you imagine he truly means. But I can’t help you there. I can’t help folks who imagine a professed Christian is a secret Muslim, that a man who records say was born in America was actually born in Kenya. I can’t help those who project a lifetime’s determinant influence from a father on a son who only briefly had contact with him, and can’t even get the spiritual attitudes of the man in his adult life wrong.

All you can do at this point is drip venom on Obama’s good name, on each and everything he does, regardless of what the fact say, so that at some point, you can make him unpopular enough to be defeated by the mediocre candidates your party insists on providing America.

Maybe once, your Pawlenty’s and your Romney’s could have had the chance, but then they sold their souls to the extremes of your party, knowing that unless they appeased the far right, they couldn’t get past the primaries. But then what’s the point of all their years of supposed moderation, if they can’t stand up to their own party and actually act like the moderates they were supposed to have been.

Obama doesn’t have to pretend to be a moderate. He’s got a track record that screams it. You can even hear it, if you’re not constantly listening to those who themselves scream constantly that he’s a radical traitor foreigner.

Obama’s speech essentially called for nothing much different on the Peace process.

But he is right about one thing: Israel’s benefit from long being able to broker deals with strongmen who bypass their populations, populations often very angry with Israel’s actions. If you think you can sustain Israel long-term with popularly elected governments surrounding Israel that hate it, you’re more optimistic than I am.

For my part, I believe that peace between the two groups is the only way to avoid greater and worse wars in the years ahead. Your people let Israel get away with too much, and as a result, they’re now pushing their luck to the limits with Settlements and other garbage.

Israel is building itself a prison of fear, and the walls that once kept Arabs and Palestinians out, my end up closing them in.

The unchecked seeking of one’s advantage rarely works well in the real world. The people we tick off are rarely powerless to make our lives difficult.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2011 11:35 PM
Comment #323519

SD, you cannot stand not having the last word on any subject. Your idea of peace in the middle east is a myth. You will never see it in your lifetime. I love the way you go on and on, but constantly try to change the subject. What, no comeback on your claim that the Arab-Israeli conflict did not start
with Ishmael and Isaac? Or perhaps you are conceding. You can blah, blah, blah, all you want about what Obama said, but you know he stuck his foot in his mouth, and that he was not saying the same thing as previous presidents. What, not comeback on Reids statement. As per you comment that obama is a moderate, hog wash. Obama has been in office 2 1/2 years, nd what has he actually done other than shove obamacare down our throats? And don’t come back with your normal saved the economy and jobs crap. I have absolutly no respect for the arrogant, well you get the point. He is useless as tits on a boar hog. You want us to fall to our knees and thank him, for what? I can’t stand to look at his arrogant nose stuck up in the air; I can’t stand to hear his voice. He certainly doesn’t have the good will of America in his sights. He spent a year campaigning before he was elected, 2 1/2 years campaigning since, and now has started campaigning for the next election. What will he do if re-elected, campaign for another four years? You are so bent ondefending his every action, not one person on WB can take anything you say seriously.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 1:05 AM
Comment #323526

Conservativethinker-
I believe attributing this conflict to Isaac and Ishmael is just the worst kind of dereliction of personal responsibility. I’m not making my choices based on what Cuchulain or Fin Mac Cool, King Arthur or even King Richard the Lionheart are doing. I’ve got my own brain and my own ability to think for myself, and I bear responsibility for my actions.

As for conceding, when I concede, you will know it, I will say it explicitly.

On the subject of Reid’s statement, I don’t think the substance of what he said was much different. You can check, because I quoted the President explicitly on what he felt about the concessions that Hamas and the Palestinians would have to make. You know, sometimes I don’t answer arguments because I don’t think they’re worth answering.

As for my not wanting somebody else to get in the last word? Well, is getting too much for you? I’m of a mind that what people like me need in the face of people like you, is the willingness to stick to our guns, to our point of view, until your people are the ones who get tired and abandon the argument. All too often, I’ve seen your party win simply because you’re willing to be obnoxious and pushy about your points until others just simply give up, and let you have your way so they can have peace.

I want to force you to justify everything. I want you to either demonstrate that there is a practical, real world basis for your views, or demonstrate the contempt for evidence and the need for verification and validation inherent in those ideas.

Like, why should we be using estoric religious prophecy to determine how we carry out our foreign policy? I think you should have to answer for the reasonableness of that particular attitude, and its consequences.

And yes, I will come back with the fact that the back of one of the worst recessions in modern history was broken only several months into his first term. I will point out that we’re growing again, and a certain confidence is back in our economy. I will gladly concede that it’s not enough, these policies, but unlike you, I won’t simply use this as a nest from which to snipe at Obama, while pushing for Congress to do nothing about jobs.

I’ll say we have to go further. Now you folks talk about family’s tightening their belt in hard times, but they are willing to take on additional debts in terms of mortgages, car loans, and student loans, and others, in order to improve their lives, and raise their family’s status. Now before you present another unrealistic view of my opinions, let me say that what companies issuing credit should do is make sure that people have the wherewithal to pay it back. Point is, though, even responsible citizens nowadays invest in the long term future of their families through taking out debts.

Speaking of doing nothing about jobs, what can your party boast, other than the fact that once again, it unapologetically serves corporate interests, while telling future medicare recipients and tornado victims to take a hike? Your party helps the already comfortable become even more comfortable, while afflicted the already afflicted with heavier burdens and less help.

I believe in a system where those who have little power are empowered to stand up for their interests, and those who have much power are constrained to act for the good, rather than the ill of society. In my opinion, it’s not a matter of class warfare, but of a people being able to see responsive and responsible leadership out of both those in government, and in the private sector, and being able to punish those who fail at their duties to voters, to investors, and to society.

I don’t want a society where we effectly have an aristocracy that can hidebound the nation’s interests to their own, even as they take it in disastrous direction. I don’t mind people making money, or even making lots of it. But I will insist that if they’re making money, they’ll be doing it by being useful in some way to the rest of us, rather than acting as leeches and parasites on the the interests of everybody else, and deranging the system so that events like the 2008 crash can occur. If Wall Street and corporate America are going to make money, fine, but they better make it in ways that help the average American, rather than hurt. There is no reason our people should sacrifice their interests for the sake of the ungrateful, irresponsible few.

As for you thinking he’s arrogant? Not much I can do about that. But as for people taking what I say seriously? Many already do. And why? because I’m not thinking constantly of the next way to insult my opponent. I’ve always depended on substance as the foundation of my arguments, not contempt for my opponent.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 7:33 AM
Comment #323529

Yes Stephen, there are those who take you seriously; they are the ones who live and breathe by every word from dailykos. But there is no conservative who is going to be swayed by your rhetoric.

You are so readable; I knew you would somehow justify and change the meaning of what Reid said. Spin it all you want, but Reid did not say the same thing as Obama and the reason he spoke on the subject was to smooth things over after Obama’s bumbling comment. Reid also stated it was the right of Israel to negotiate their own borders and not a third party, which cut Obama completely out of the deal. I just watched part of Obama’s comments to the press in England and he is still trying to explain what he meant last Thursday. Now he calls for Hamas to recognize Israel’s sovereignty and right to exist. He is also calling for Israel to be able to protect them, and as long as Hamas is in control, there can never be peace. He is now calling for negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel to establish the borders. This is a complete turnaround from what Obama said last Thursday, when he called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders. He just flat out stated it was Israel’s responsibility to return to the 1967 borders and it was their responsibility to obey the messiah.

“Conservativethinker-
I believe attributing this conflict to Isaac and Ishmael is just the worst kind of dereliction of personal responsibility. I’m not making my choices based on what Cuchulain or Fin Mac Cool, King Arthur or even King Richard the Lionheart are doing. I’ve got my own brain and my own ability to think for myself, and I bear responsibility for my actions.”

Stephen, even if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word; it is still taken as an accurate historical record. And even from a historical record, one can see the problems between the Arabs and Israel go back to the lives of Ishmael and Isaac. I have no idea what you are talking about with these other people you mentioned. I never said the Crusades had anything to do with the Arab/Israeli dispute. You guys on the left brought that up. What I am going to do is give you a link to an article written by a Muslim, who explains why Muslims rightfully own the land, you argument is with Islam and not me. But honestly Stephen, I don’t believe you have enough intelligence to understand what he wrote:

“Arabs - The Seed of Abraham (peace be upon him)
By
Issa Ahmad Khalid
(A new convert from Italy)
ARABS-THE SEED OF ABRAHAM(as)
In this discourse, I would like to discuss, Insha’Allah(God Willing), the Arabs and their rights as the legitimate seed of Prophet Abraham(as). I will use the very scripture of the Jews and Christians, namely the Bible, as well as historical sources, to bring to light the grave injustice perpetrated against the Bani-Ishmael, or the Children of Ishmael, throughout history by both Christians and Jews. It is not my intention to disrespect either faith, namely Christianity and Judaism, but rather to show how both parties have deliberately distorted history and Biblical scripture in order to hide the legitimacy of Prophet Ishmael(as) as the first born son of Prophet Abraham(as), as well as his rights as the first born son which is supported by the very Bible of the Christians and the Jews, all for the purpose of their own pro-Zionist ideals. Let us all use reasoning and common sense and pursue this matter with an open mind free of hate and prejudice, Insha’Allah(God Willing).
In the story of Prophet Abraham(as), as told in the Old Testament of the Bible, it is said that Allah(swt) spoke to him and said;”

http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/arabs_seed_of_abraham.htm

I might also add, the only part Christianity played in the dispute was to support Israel’s right to the land; which earned Christians the name of Zionist supporters, but this was after the fact.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 9:46 AM
Comment #323530

SD asked: “…why should we be using estoric religious prophecy to determine how we carry out our foreign policy?”

Good question. It seems to be the basis for the conservative right’s knee jerk support of Israel on any and all issues.

In my opinion, using US foreign policy as a proxy for assuring fullfillment of a fundamentalist religious vision of Armageddon makes a mockery of our founding principals. The basic human rights of Israelis and Palestinians are secondary to their role in a vast religious play. They are nothing but pawns. The state of Israel must prevail not because it is just but because it is a necessary condition for a fundamentalist version of religious prophecy.

Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2011 10:02 AM
Comment #323532

Rich, I have learned to ignore most of SD’s ignorant statements.

But what I would like to see, is proof that the US is basing Israeli foreign policy on a “fundamentalist version of religious prophecy”. I’m sure you have proof of this statement; or, you are just making ignorant SD statements…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 10:10 AM
Comment #323533

“This is a complete turnaround from what Obama said last Thursday, when he called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders. He just flat out stated it was Israel’s responsibility to return to the 1967 borders and it was their responsibility to obey the messiah.”

CT,

Your statement is completely false. Either you know that already and are being intentionally misleading or you are ignorant of what he actually said. If the later, it would be inexcusable ignorance since his statement has been repeated in full many times on this blog. Obama said that the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps should be the basis of a two state solution. “Mutually agreed” means negotiated by the two parties. It was not a demand for unilateral action by Israel to return to the 1967 borders.


Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #323534

Further proof that SD and Rich have no concept of what is going on:

“The president’s speech last week, which was described by the White House in advance as a speech intended to reach out to the Muslim world, will probably go down as one of the least well-understood major presidential speeches in modern memory. Confusion concerning the president’s words and intent cut across the lines of Jews, Christians and Muslims, Democrats and Republicans, neocons and paleocons, friends and foes of Israel, and friends and foes of the president.

For many serious commentators, the confusion lies on what the president meant by his statement that “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Was this a shift of policy, no shift or a critical increase in U.S. presidential pressure on Israel in future peace negotiations?

A few days before the speech, the president’s press secretary said reference to the 1967 borders would not be in the speech. A day before the speech, the Israeli prime minster was privately informed by the administration that it would be in the speech. He privately informed Secretary of State Clinton — before the presidential speech — of his profound opposition to that statement — and publicly condemned it after the speech and as he was getting on his plane to fly to Washington. The remarks stayed in the speech, but were placed just a few paragraphs from the end of a speech that was mostly about the “Arab Spring” and President Obama’s current view of it.

At the White House photo op after the two-hour meeting between the prime minister and the president, Netanyahu severely chastised the President for his reference to 1967 borders. Many supporters of Israel both in the U.S. and abroad (including the Canadian government) echoed Netanyahu’s grave concern about the 1967 borders statement. Even George Mitchell, the president’s Mideast peace envoy (and not considered pro-Israel) said that the 1967 border emphasis by the president was wrong.

However, seeing — or claiming to see — vindication of their efforts, former foreign policy aides to President Bush (and conservative commentators who supported Bush’s “freedom initiative” in the Middle East) rushed out to congratulate Obama for switching from his “realist” policy of befriending Muslim dictatorial regimes such as Iran’s to what they claimed was Obama’s endorsement of the Bush Middle East policy.

Yet other supporters of Israel were indifferent to the 1967 borders statement but gravely concerned about the central part of the speech concerning Muslim “outreach.”

Distinguished scholar Barry Rubin’s statement is most noteworthy: “President Barack Obama’s speech on Middle East policy did more damage to U.S.-Israel relations than anything said by any previous president during the almost forty-year alliance between the two countries. Yet, ironically, the speech wasn’t intended to be on Israel at all; Obama apparently thought he was being friendly toward Israel; and the point that created the biggest controversy (1967 borders) was something that the president didn’t even say.

“The crisis, then, was caused by three factors: The ignorance of the Obama Administration over the issues involved; Obama’s chronic lack of friendliness toward Israel; and his refusal to recognize the threat from revolutionary Islamism.”


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/mideast_communications_chaos

Rich:

If I am wrong, the so is Senator Reid, George Mitchell, the president’s Mideast peace envoy, Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Rep. Steve Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 10:28 AM
Comment #323536

Rich, since you claim that Obama said the same thing as previous presidents, all the way back to Johnson; and is based upon the UN Res. 242, which previous presidents comments were based, then perhaps you can quote to me from Obama’s Thursday speech where he stated the negociated borders are not based upon pre 1967 lines, and where he stated the negotiations are based upon Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to exist? These are the two main points of previous presidents and they are not part of Obama’s Thursday speech, but in every speech given since Thursday, Obama conviently includes these points. But only after he got in trouble. I am of a firm conclusion by your’s and SD’s statements that you are Anti-Semitic. I can only base my conclusions on your comments and your defense of the Arabs.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 10:40 AM
Comment #323538

CT

If they are not Anti-Semitic, then they are anti-Israel. What’s the difference? Just jumping the gun when they say they are neutral or actually admit they are not Pro-Israel. Thanks for the above words. I believe you are correct that they and others on WB are Anti-Semitic. That is a very dangerous position to be in. But they are not little kids anymore and must answer to God someday. In the mean time they will have to go thru the pre-hell torment of their choices. You and I know that one cannot be a Christian and Anti-Semitic at the same time.

The argument about the 1967 borders is so bogus. Why do people keep bringing it up? I believe they do because they do not want peace in the middle east. And the demand of the pre-1967 borders is there tactic to delay or deny any peace there. There hope is that in time Iran will take out Israel. When Iran does fire that missle there is going to be a great suprise for Iran. It won’t make it to the Israel border.

SD
You still have not given those bad things the Israel nation does to Arabs-Muslims. A million live in Israel and have the same rights as the citizens of Israel in general. They even hold seats in the government of Israel. Where do you find just one Jew holding a position in any of the middle east nations outside of Israel? Again I ask what does the nation of Israel do to the Palestinians, terrorists, Arabs, Muslims, et al that is against, what you like to refer to as, international law, which you are quite ignorant about, or against the common decency of mankind. And forget about disputed territory, your way of bringing in the pre-1967 borders. There is no disputed territory.

Posted by: tom humes at May 25, 2011 12:27 PM
Comment #323541

Conservativethinker-
Your style of argumentations is symptomatic of what ails the Republican Party.

Yes Stephen, there are those who take you seriously; they are the ones who live and breathe by every word from dailykos. But there is no conservative who is going to be swayed by your rhetoric.

Correction: No conservative like yourself. Also: not everybody who matters is a conservative. There are plenty of people who don’t have a political allegiance. Who are they going to like better when they read them, somebody who bases his arguments on the facts of the case, or somebody whose argument seems to be always based on why nobody should listen to that person’s opponent?

I have the respect for my audience to believe they can handle the truth, that I can talk to them like adults, and give them the premises on which I base my arguments.

I quoted the President’s first speech directly. He specifically said that there would be no peace program without a recognition of Israel’s right to exist. You’ll have to explain to our readers why it is that you don’t recognize Obama’s recognition. You can’t simply pretend it’s not there. Well, you can, but I can keep on pointing it and reveal your argument to be the desperate dodge it is.

He just flat out stated it was Israel’s responsibility to return to the 1967 borders and it was their responsibility to obey the messiah.

Mutually agreed swaps and 1967 borders is what Netanyahu agreed to last year, and it’s the basis for any peace program. The alternative is that Israel annexes current Palestinian territory. Explain to me, please, how you get any realistic peace plan out of that.

Stephen, even if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word; it is still taken as an accurate historical record. And even from a historical record, one can see the problems between the Arabs and Israel go back to the lives of Ishmael and Isaac.

You can make the same excuses for tensions between Europe and Israel by appealing to Roman times. It’s a copout, and one that neglects how the current state of Israel was formed in the first place.

As for Issa Ahmad Khalid?

A dispute about who was the favored son is not grounds for believing that emnity between them was ancient and everpresent. It’s a common religious tactic to claim to have the more fundamental claim on things. But Jews lived for centuries within the territories of various Islamic Empires. Your assertion runs contrary to that fact, given that Jews were treated better by Muslims than Christians.

You’re taking the excuses of a few Muslims today, and making them your excuses for believing that there is no solution. It’d be funny if it weren’t so said, that the extremists on both sides use their rationalizations to justify their respective behavior.

Me, I think you’re responsible for your own behavior, and you’ll answer to God for your behavior, not that of Ishmael or Isaac.

As for the next one? Well, what a big surprise that Tony Blankley would have an unfavorable impression of Obama’s speech. Essentially, you’re appealing to people who have similar political bents to yourself to claim that your opinion is generally held. You’re just rehashing your argument in different forms, the blind of your party leading the blind, and perpetuating misconceptions which probably were more the object of the clarification than the speeches themselves.

I am of a firm conclusion by your’s and SD’s statements that you are Anti-Semitic. I can only base my conclusions on your comments and your defense of the Arabs.

The irony is, you’re telling us we’re anti-semites for not indulging in your knee-jerk prejudice against Arab Palestinians (who by definition are Semites themselves!)

You’re rather desperate to trash us in any way you can. Are your arguments so unmerited that you have to depend on such fallacies of logic in your quest to succeed?

Your insults and derogatory comments are a sign of your lack of faith in the ability of your arguments to stand on their own. So, I see them, and know I’m hitting the right points.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #323542

tom humes-
Quick, simple question: what nation governs the occupied territories?

Also, your argument essentially boils down to this: if the Liberals don’t agree with your particular pro-Israel argument, they must be Anti-Israel.

Can anybody else see the hole in this logic?

Pretty simple: you think yours is the only argument that can be legitimately termed pro-Israel, I disagree. Now, I’m not going to make the mistake of arguing that you’re not Pro-Israel. I’m simply going to tell you that the policy you support is basically ineffective. You cannot back Israel when it makes provocative or excessive moves, and then expect the Palestinians and those who back them to not object to things.

And no, just because we’re not vilifying and anathematizing the Arabs, doesn’t mean we’re backing them on every play. That’s another false distinction. What people like me want is an end to all the idiocy, on both sides.

That’s what Obama said. Unfortunately, too many Republicans are in the business of telling each other and the world what they believe Democrats said, and often getting it purposefully wrong in the process. We don’t need interpretors, I think we made ourselves clear as to what we actually believe. We don’t need out true beliefs getting lost in your translation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #323545

Yes Stephen, and your style of fact bearing are symptomatic of what ails liberals.

You quoted Obama as saying, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
But previous to that, you quoted Obama as saying, “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

So explain to me why Obama tells Israel to move to the 1967 borders, while at the same time saying the Jews have the right to protect themselves, and at the same time saying it is impossible to have peace as long as Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist. Obama is right about one thing; it is not his place to try to determine what Israel should do. He claimes in the speech that his administration has been working for over two years to resolve the issue; that is BS, and his goal is to try to stick a feather in his cap. He could care less about Israel. He can’t even take care of the US border problems and yet is arrogant enough to try to tell Israel what to do. If Obama wants to do something to encourage peace in the Middle East, why don’t he meet with the Hamas leaders and condemn them and tell them to get their butts out of the process. Of course this would mean he would have to condemn a Muslim group and we know he won’t do that, don’t we? Perhaps if he just promised them more American tax dollars…

“You can make the same excuses for tensions between Europe and Israel by appealing to Roman times. It’s a copout, and one that neglects how the current state of Israel was formed in the first place.”

This statement doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps I missed the part in Bible prophecy about Romans, Europeans, and Israel; refresh my memory Stephen, Book and Verse please…

Re/ the Arab / Israeli dispute; well I guess you Stephen are about the only one who for some unknown reason does not believe the dispute is thousands of years old. I don’t guess it would do any good to quote other Arab leaders comments; you would just slam them as being a radical fringe group too.


“Your insults and derogatory comments are a sign of your lack of faith in the ability of your arguments to stand on their own. So, I see them, and know I’m hitting the right points.”

Oh, how soon we forget the attacks on Bush, Palin, Ryan, or any other conservative. If the basis of your argument is that insults spawn lack of faith in the ability to back up arguments; then I assume the same holds true with your attacks on those on the right. Or doesn’t that count???

Re/Israeli settlements; I say go for it, settle all they want, and I support Israel completely…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 3:42 PM
Comment #323550
By the way, you and SD could stand to use spell-check every once in a while…

Thank you for the tip; I’ve gotten lazy recently when it comes to proofreading my work. I’ll try to put a bit more effort into what I write.

Too be perfectly honest, I forgot why I brought up Christian mistreatment of the Jews during the Crusades. Mea Culpa.

So explain to me why Obama tells Israel to move to the 1967 borders
Nowhere in Obama’s remarks is there any request for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the 1948-1967 green line. Obama simply stated that any reasonable two-state solution would be formed from those borders with mutually agreed land swaps to guarantee Israeli security as well as reflect the demographic changes of the past half century.
why don’t he meet with the Hamas leaders
Terrible Idea! Hamas needs to be marginalized as much as possible until they moderate and recognize Israel’s right to exist. If Obama met with Hamas leaders, it would only legitimize their terrorism, regardless of what Obama said afterward.
condemn them and tell them to get their butts out of the process. Of course this would mean he would have to condemn a Muslim group and we know he won’t do that, don’t we?
Have you been paying attention?
Re/Israeli settlements; I say go for it, settle all they want
That’s perhaps the most anti-Israeli comment I’ve ever read by a commenter on this blog.

What I find really disturbing is that all this commentary by so-called supporters of Israel has only served to distract us from the real existential threat to Israel.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 25, 2011 4:28 PM
Comment #323551

SD

Your rhetorical remarks are rancid and reek rotten. You R there.

You have to reach for some words to make yourself seem important and knowledgeable. You are stuck on yourself. You have to go the well when the well is dry. How pathetic. You are not knowledgeable, or wise in the Israeli/Jewish argument. May you find peace in the God of knowledge and wisdom. That is the Lord Jesus Christ. Find him.

Posted by: tom humes at May 25, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #323552

“Re/Israeli settlements; I say go for it, settle all they want
That’s perhaps the most anti-Israeli comment I’ve ever read by a commenter on this blog.”

Why??? Perhaps you can explain this?

I happen to come from the point of view that God gave Israel a lot more land than what they are sitting on right now.

Let me tell you something that is going to happen: Iran is going to lead almost all Muslim nations in an all out attack on Israel within the next few years. And you are not going to believe what God will do with these Arab nations.

You will say; you are living in a fantasy world to believe the events taking place are part of Biblical prophecy. But, we have leaders in powerful Muslim nations, who believe they can usher in the coming of the 12th Imam and the return of Mohammad to establish Islam as the religion of the world. The way I look at it, both Christians and Jews (through Old Testament) are correct or the Muslims (through the Koran) are correct. I put my money on the Bible.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #323553

conservativethinker-

So explain to me why Obama tells Israel to move to the 1967 borders, while at the same time saying the Jews have the right to protect themselves, and at the same time saying it is impossible to have peace as long as Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist.

It should be obvious. He doesn’t buy into your notion of what will happen if Israel returns to the borders it won a war for survival with. The 1967 borders were successfully defended during the last two wars Israel fought with its neighbors. Why haven’t you mentioned that fact, I wonder?

Israel’s problems over the last few decades have not been with marching armies, but with terrorist groups who base their greivance on Israel’s long term occupation of their lands. At the very least, a peace process removes that greivance as a legitimate reason to violate Israel’s borders and kill its citizens.

He claimes in the speech that his administration has been working for over two years to resolve the issue; that is BS, and his goal is to try to stick a feather in his cap. He could care less about Israel. He can’t even take care of the US border problems and yet is arrogant enough to try to tell Israel what to do.

There you go again, talking about his motivations.

I know why Republicans do so. How do I disprove this. We could ask Obama, and whatever, but you folks have this annoying tendency to say “Oh, he’s just lying.”, and then insert your own opinion. Needless to say, you’re nearly always assuming some very negative and paranoid things about him.

If Obama can pull off progress, if he can bring the two parties to the tables and get some progres out of that, though, who are you to deny him credit? I guess competence and skill come second to having the right letter beside your name.

As for Border Security? Border towns are safer than cities in Ohio. It’s not that there’s no problem, it’s just been exaggerated by fearmongerers looking for a boost. Obama’s deported more people than Bush, and illegal immigration is down.

Of course, giving him credit would be a problem, wouldn’t it be? Can’t have feathers in his cap, can he, because that would get him re-elected.

Of course this would mean he would have to condemn a Muslim group and we know he won’t do that, don’t we? Perhaps if he just promised them more American tax dollars…

Obama said:

Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.

Now, who would insist on a path of terror?

Terrorists! Too bad the Bush Administration opened up the way to have Hamas get elected representatives of the government on the West Bank. Oh well, it’s not as bad as failing to phrase things the way you like in a speech.

“You can make the same excuses for tensions between Europe and Israel by appealing to Roman times. It’s a copout, and one that neglects how the current state of Israel was formed in the first place.”

This statement doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps I missed the part in Bible prophecy about Romans, Europeans, and Israel; refresh my memory Stephen, Book and Verse please…

I’m sorry, but you weren’t talking about biblical prophecy, talking about Ishmael and Isaac. That’s Genesis, which is meant to be a history of sorts, not prophecy. You also seem to ignore the fact that Israel’s borders, even within the bible, were fairly flexible. The country split after Solomon’s reign, with two of Israel’s tribes becoming Judah in the south, and then the other ten tribes becoming Israel in the North. Then the North got hit by the Assyrians, and the ten tribes got scattered to the winds, the lost tribes from that point forward.

Even that didn’t much look like the lands we see today on a map.

The history behind the disputes can often be hundreds, even thousands of years old, granted, but often it takes a change in the political situation and a decision on the part of some to use such old greivances again. You’re taking their excuses at face value, which I think is a mistake. Better to conform things to modern times and modern international situations, rather than allow people to make the conflict about ancient and unaccountable disputes.

Oh, how soon we forget the attacks on Bush, Palin, Ryan, or any other conservative.

I hold the things these people actually do and say against them. We didn’t have to much demagogue Ryan on Medicare, his policies were pretty much disliked on sight. Bush’s policies failed miserably. Most of my attacks on him, sir, were basically me complaining about the consequences of his policies, and pretty much describing them and their consequences as they were.

Palin and Gingrich were both satirized by imitation. In Gingrich and Palin’s cases, it was actually possible to make these people look stupid or egotistically out of touch simply by quoting the things they actually said!

You, on the other hand, have made several personal insults, more or less calling me stupid, calling me an anti-semite, a socialist, etc. These weren’t accusations made in the service of an argument, they were accusations made in the service of belittling, humiliating, and trying to damage my reputation, and with no real substantive critique involved.

So, step down off the high horse, your words were indefensible.

Re/Israeli settlements; I say go for it, settle all they want, and I support Israel completely…

You were quite angry about our border problems, yet you turn around here and say that it’s alright for Israeli’s to travel into lands that do not belong to Israel, and make their homes there.

That’s your complete support of Israel. Mine is not complete in that way. It leaves out supporting Israel doing things that are provocative, that add further insult to injury for those we’re trying to get to abandon violence. I do not support Israel violating international law with these Settlements. Contempt for the rights of other nations and lands does not help Israel’s case for supporting it’s right to exist, and its right to secure borders.

I would suggest Republicans drop support for settlements before they lecture us on how horrible illegal immigration is. (And no, don’t bring Pakistan into this. The SEALS didn’t move in when they shot Bin Laden.)

tom humes-
Well, if you simply don’t like my argument, that’s your opinion. It would be better if you could actually tell people what I got wrong and how, like I do, rather than simply state “He’s wrong” and restate it in so many different ways.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #323554

I don’t know. For me, I try not to obsess over details of biblical prophesy. I do not know the day or hour they will be fulfilled. It could be tonight, it could be a billion years from now. Iran may very well lead a military campaign, but I am reluctant to pin it on prophesy. Many nations have occupied the Holy Land since the Jews lost their political independence. Empires come and go; but the Jews will always remain, waiting until the moment planned by God. However, I am curious; what are your thought on the future of the Jewish People? A good chunk of my family is Jewish and they reject the divinity of Christ, what do believe their destiny is? Is it eternal salvation or something else?

Why??? Perhaps you can explain this?
Read the essay written by Jeffery Goldberg. Supporting unrestricted settlement of Judea/Samaria will only undermine Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state (barring Divine intervention). Eventually Palestinians living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean will outnumber the Israelis. They will drop the calls for statehood and begin campaigning for the right to vote, which will spell the end of Israel. Posted by: Warped Reality at May 25, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #323555

SD

“Border towns are safer than cities in Ohio.”

You are full of dung. That is the most stupidest statement I have ever heard you make. Go take your medicine.

“You were quite angry about our border problems, yet you turn around here and say that it’s alright for Israeli’s to travel into lands that do not belong to Israel, and make their homes there.”

You still have trouble with the difference of apples and oranges or maybe it is bananas and coconuts. But what ever you are trying to make of this is like pissing in your gas tank and complaining your car does not operate properly.

And the reference to maps above. Maps have changed throughout history, but maybe you didn’t know that.

Your statements above are like a broken record, or a John Kerry moment, or both.

Posted by: tom humes at May 25, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #323556

CT,

Calling me anti-semitic for simply pointing out the actual language of Obama’s speech is appalling.

You stated: “This is a complete turnaround from what Obama said last Thursday, when he called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders. He just flat out stated it was Israel’s responsibility to return to the 1967 borders and it was their responsibility to obey the messiah.”

Your statement is absolutely incorrect. The record is clear on that matter. Obama never said anything like that. You have every right to interpret the intent of Obama’s speech. But you don’t have the right to completly misstate the actual language.

Regarding the settlement issue. It has been a thorn in the side of the US since the formation of the 1949 Armistice Lines. In 1992, President GH Bush threatened to withhold 10 billion dollars of aid if the Israelis didn’t cease their settlement of the occupied territories. Each successive president has tried to restrain the Israelis from pursuing the settlement program. The irony of this debate is that Obama made no mention of the settlement issue in his speech.

Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #323557

tom humes

You are full of dung. That is the most stupidest statement I have ever heard you make. Go take your medicine.

Thank you for taking the time to patiently and inoffensively, with logical rigor and factual adeptness, explain to me my error.

You still have trouble with the difference of apples and oranges or maybe it is bananas and coconuts. But what ever you are trying to make of this is like pissing in your gas tank and complaining your car does not operate properly.

I’m sorry, I prefer to fart in the gas tank and make that complaint instead. Perhaps if change my diet, I could make it CNG, and make T. Boone Pickens proud. Roll that beautiful bean footage!

And no, it’s not like apples and oranges. The Occupied territories, with few exceptions, are not considered Israeli territory by the Israelis themselves. As such, Israeli citizens shouldn’t be venturing into those lands and settling anymore than folks from Mexico or Guatemala should be, and for the same reason: it’s an affront to the sovereignty of that nation over their lands and borders.

But lo and behold, there the Israelis are, constructing settlements on lands that don’t belong to them

And the reference to maps above. Maps have changed throughout history, but maybe you didn’t know that.

Your statements above are like a broken record, or a John Kerry moment, or both.

That Map more or less shows the borders of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom that Saul, David, and Solomon ruled over. Were they cheated of their due, because they ruled over something less than those borders that were described in Genesis?

You have to remember by all accounts the book of Genesis was written by Jews during the Babylonian captivity, so their account of what was their lands must be understood from that point of view, or not understood at all. These were not books written for a random audience, but for the Israelites as they looked for a sense of identity

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 6:35 PM
Comment #323558
That Map more or less shows the borders of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom that Saul, David, and Solomon ruled over. Were they cheated of their due, because they ruled over something less than those borders that were described in Genesis?

The Davidic and Hasmonean Kingdoms ruled over much more land than what is depicted in your wiki map of the divided kingdoms. I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say.

You have to remember by all accounts the book of Genesis was written by Jews during the Babylonian captivity.
This contradicts the most popular hypothesis. Except for the Priestly source, the Torah was written mostly during the divided kingdom era, but is probably derived from works written before then. For example, Genesis (especially the list of who begat whom) relies heavily on the Book of Generations, which is now lost. Posted by: Warped Reality at May 25, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #323559

WR-
My mistake. I stand corrected.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #323560

SD said:

“I know why Republicans do so. How do I disprove this. We could ask Obama, and whatever, but you folks have this annoying tendency to say “Oh, he’s just lying.”

True, he doesn’t have a very good track record of telling the truth does he?

“If Obama can pull off progress, if he can bring the two parties to the tables and get some progres out of that, though, who are you to deny him credit? I guess competence and skill come second to having the right letter beside your name.”

You will never see a peace treaty SD. If Obama is figuring to get a feather in his cap over this, he’s going to be disappointed.

“As for Border Security? Border towns are safer than cities in Ohio.”

This is just about the most ignorant statement I have ever read.
SD’s answer to my comment, “This statement doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps I missed the part in Bible prophecy about Romans, Europeans, and Israel; refresh my memory Stephen, Book and Verse please…”:
“I’m sorry, but you weren’t talking about biblical prophecy, talking about Ishmael and Isaac. That’s Genesis, which is meant to be a history of sorts, not prophecy. You also seem to ignore the fact that Israel’s borders, even within the bible, were fairly flexible. The country split after Solomon’s reign, with two of Israel’s tribes becoming Judah in the south, and then the other ten tribes becoming Israel in the North. Then the North got hit by the Assyrians, and the ten tribes got scattered to the winds, the lost tribes from that point forward.”

Stephen, you really are ignorant about the Bible aren’t you? I don’t even know where to begin on your ignorance. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Let’s go to the Book of Genesis and see what God told Abraham:

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gen 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Gen 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees (modern day Kuwait area), found in previous verses Gen 11:28. And he traveled from Ur to Haran (the northern part of Syria) and from there Abraham traveled through Canaan to Egypt and back to Bethel in Canaan. God further promised to give Abraham all the land where his feet had trod; from the Euphrates River in Ur, thru Haran unto the River of Egypt (a small river in the Sinai that flows into the Med Sea:

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

God explained even further the promise of the land to Abraham and his decedents:


Gen 13:14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
Gen 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
Gen 13:17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

Stephen, this covenant with Abraham was passed on to Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s sons. This is called prophecy. You come on here posting maps that you looked up on Wikipedia and pretend to know something about the land promised to Israel. We can go to the New Testament and read of Abraham obeying God through faith:

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Tell me something Stephen, do the Jews occupy the land that God promised them. I don’t want to strain your brain, so I will answer, no they don’t and they never have and do you know why Stephen? Because it was prophesied that God would give them the land; that means in the future and that Stephen is called prophecy.

At Joseph’s death he said:

Gen 50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Or how about the reiteration of the promise at the time of Moses when he led the Israelites out of Egypt:

Exo 6:8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

When did God promise the land to Abraham? Why it was in the Book of Genesis, you know, when God prophesied what he would do for Abraham and his descendents…

Exo 33:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

Well Stephen, have I give you enough verses to prove God prophesied of what He would do for Israel, or do you still doubt? Or perhaps you still doubt; so let’s go to Jeremiah, the prophet, and see what God told him:

Jer 33:19 And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Jer 33:23 Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

If this is over your head, it means the day and night would cease before God broke his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The promise of the land, which the Jews do not occupy yet, but they will.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #323562

By the way Stephen, you also said:

“You have to remember by all accounts the book of Genesis was written by Jews during the Babylonian captivity, so their account of what was their lands must be understood from that point of view, or not understood at all. These were not books written for a random audience, but for the Israelites as they looked for a sense of identity”

Again, may I say, you have no idea what you are talking about. How does it feel to be wrong all the time about the Bible? That’s what happens when you don’t believe the Book and yet try to comment on it.

The Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible, including Genesis) was written by Moses.

Proof:

There are about two dozen verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and one dozen in the Christian Scriptures which state or strongly imply that Moses was the author. Consider the following passages from the New Living Translation (NLT):
• Passages in the Pentateuch itself:
o Exodus 17:14 “Then the Lord instructed Moses, ‘Write this down as a permanent record…’”
o Exodus 24:4 “Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord’s instructions.”
o Exodus 34:27 “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.’”
o Leviticus 1:1 “The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, ‘Give the following instructions to the Israelites…’”
o Leviticus 6:8 “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions…’”
o Deuteronomy 31:9 “So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests.”
o Deuteronomy 31:24-26 “When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book…”
• Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures:
o Joshua 1:7-8 “…Obey all the laws Moses gave you.”
o Joshua 8:31-34 “He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord’s servant had written in the Book of the Law…”
o Joshua 22:5 “…obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you.”
o 2 Chronicles 34:14 “…Hilkiah the high priest…found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses.”
• Passages in the Gospels which show that Jesus and John the Baptizer believed Moses to be the author:
o Matthew 19:7-8 “…why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?”, they asked. Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted divorce…’”
o Matthew 22:24 “Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children…’”
o Mark 7:10 “For instance, Moses gave you this law from God…”
o Mark 12:24 “…haven’t you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush…”
o Luke 24:44 “…I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true.”
o John 1:17 “For the law was given through Moses…”
o John 5:46 “But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
o John 7:23 “…do it, so as not to break the law of Moses…”
• Passages elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures:
o Acts 26:22 “…I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen…”
o Romans 10:5 “For Moses wrote…”

Of course we can always go to Stephen’s favorite source (not counting the dailykos):

“Moses (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה‎, Modern Moshe Tiberian Mōšéh ISO 259-3 Moše; Greek: Mωϋσῆς Mōüsēs; Arabic: موسىٰ Mūsa) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed. Also called Moshe Rabbenu in Hebrew (מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, Lit. “Moses our Teacher/Rabbi”), he is the most important prophet in Judaism,[1][2] and is also considered an important prophet in Christianity and Islam, as well as a number of other faiths. Prominent archaeologists and Egyptologists dispute the existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story, citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.[3][4][5]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

Oh crap Stephen, did I just read in Wikipedia, that Moses was considered to be a Prophet by the Jews? I guess the Jews beliefs of their own religion supersedes a wanna be Bible Scholar like yourself.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 9:53 PM
Comment #323563

Warped Reality said:

“I don’t know. For me, I try not to obsess over details of biblical prophesy. I do not know the day or hour they will be fulfilled. It could be tonight, it could be a billion years from now. Iran may very well lead a military campaign, but I am reluctant to pin it on prophesy. Many nations have occupied the Holy Land since the Jews lost their political independence. Empires come and go; but the Jews will always remain, waiting until the moment planned by God. However, I am curious; what are your thought on the future of the Jewish People? A good chunk of my family is Jewish and they reject the divinity of Christ, what do believe their destiny is? Is it eternal salvation or something else?”

No one knows the day or hour WR, but the Bible says that Christians are not to be in darkness concerning his coming. Iran is Persia in the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Bible has to say, I would suggest you read Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. The second half of Jeremiah chapter 1 also talks about the same prophecy.

The Jews will have to go through a 7 year period known as the Tribulation. The purpose of the Tribulation is to punish nations who have cursed Israel (Genesis 12:3) and to restore Israel to her rightful position as God’s chosen people. Many Jews will die during the Tribulation, but Jesus promised that those who survived the 7 years would be redeemed and exaulted.

The key verse to what will happen to Israel is found in:

Zec 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
Zec 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zec 12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

At this time Israel will know that Jesus Christ was the one they looked for, but had rejected. Many will die, but Israel will be restored to God.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 25, 2011 10:09 PM
Comment #323565

conservativethinker-
Do you think I just go and make things up?

True, he doesn’t have a very good track record of telling the truth does he?

You know, that’s something I might claim of a politician after I’ve produced evidence to back that point, not as some sort of statement you’d have to take at face value. If you want people singing who aren’t in the choir, you need to hand out the sheet music. People need to know how you came to a conclusion.

You will never see a peace treaty SD. If Obama is figuring to get a feather in his cap over this, he’s going to be disappointed.

I understand the difficulty. Unlike you, I have not used theology as an excuse to be a defeatist on the matter. People said Obama couldn’t do a number of things. Even so, he got a Healthcare reform bill through, he got the START Treaty ratified. He beat the Republicans on the Budget deal. He helped take an economy that was floundering its way towards a depression, where people were writing epitaphs for capitalism, and helped turn things around. How many American Presidents can you name who have saved a domestic industry?

Those who underestimate Barack Obama do so at their peril.

See, this is the thing that, under all the campaign promises and speeches about hope that I sensed, that led me to support him: I sensed a certain agility of the mind, an ability not just to parrot back rhetoric, but to consider what he was talking about, think about it, and come up with novel, but still eloquent ways to talk about it.

This is a man who doesn’t just pick a line of messaging and talk it to death, like Bush, this is a guy who gets things done. DADT will soon be a thing of the past. So will DOMA. Even the Religious Right’s giving up on that one. A Healthcare Bill was passed, taking the result of 1993’s successful campaign against it, and reversing it.

He’s not perfect, nor is he a messiah. Allegations of such arrogance, though, are the floundering rhetoric of folks who don’t have an equivalent figure on their side.

Republicans have a basic problem: they have scads of people who can repeat back rhetoric and talking points, but not only do they lack somebody who can really rethink that stuff, and take the party in a new direction, your people lack something else: patience with those who don’t toe the party line.

Your party has taken the market place of ideas within its ranks, and turned into a centralized, planned, command economy. You have your party engines pushing propaganda, like Pravda once did, you have your Political Correctness, like Mao did, beliefs that are safe and unsafe to voice aloud out there in the world. You have your Reagan Revolution and your Gingrich Revolution, and woe be to any Republican who says or does something counterrevolutionary!

And like all such closed up organizations, the GOP lacks the ability to adapt to circumstances quickly or well. Yes, Obama and the Democrats make mistakes, fail to please constituents, etc, but they at least have some responsivity in regards to what the public wants. They won’t hold hostage tornado relief by forcing an offset.

Look, I’m familiar with the whole account of the lands Abraham bought, and whatever else. I’m not ignorant of that claimed basis for things.

As for all this prophetic business?

People are good at imagining themselves the instruments of God. But when Jesus says we don’t know the hour or the day, do you really think he’s going to make exceptions, when he himself doesn’t know? If Jesus himself does not know, how are prophets, disciples and followers, obviously lesser than him, somehow privy?

Only God the father knows, and so far every person who has predicted the world’s end has failed to get it right.

I say it is better to learn the real lessons of the prophets, rather than indulge in the esoteric hunt for signs of the last days, which have so far proven no man wiser than Jesus, when he spoke of his own ignorance of the end times. It is better to observe Jesus’ commandments in the short term, and then, when the hour comes, be ready simply because we obeyed God in the first place.

I mean that was the point of a number of his parables, including the one about the brides and the bridegroom. He didn’t give out the schedule for the bridge groom, he simply said that those who awake when he came around would be with him, and the rest would be outside in the darkness where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I’d say quit trying to run your foreign policy as if you have knowledge equal to God the Father, superior to that of Jesus himself. Run it like the fallible human being you are, who can get things like, say, diplomacy concerning the Palestinians, or say, the day and hour of the end of the world wrong. Be the steward who was taking care of things when the master gets back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2011 11:56 PM
Comment #323566

You just can’t give it up, can you Stephen? It doesn’t matter how asinine your comments become, you just keep posting them. You come on here trying to impress us with your vast knowledge of the Bible, and when you are shown how ignorant your statements are, you just move on to something else. Let’s stick to the point; you said the Book of Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity, and you also said the Book of Genesis was about history and didn’t contain any prophecy. And your response is:

“Look, I’m familiar with the whole account of the lands Abraham bought, and whatever else. I’m not ignorant of that claimed basis for things.

As for all this prophetic business?”

Nobody said anything about Abraham buying land. Are you moving to another topic now? And your statement, “as for all this prophetic business”, as if you haven’t made any claims at all; or perhaps since you have rambled on and on about your views of prophecy, all of a sudden you act like it means nothing to you. If that’s the case, why have you commented so much on the subject? I see you didn’t have any trouble confessing to WR that you were wrong when he caught you false statement. But I guess it’s hard to admit to a conservative that you don’t know what you are talking about. You’re a real trip Stephen. Why can’t you just admit you’re in over your head and have no idea what you are talking about? Because that is what it sounds like to me. What’s the matter, too much pride?

“People are good at imagining themselves the instruments of God. But when Jesus says we don’t know the hour or the day, do you really think he’s going to make exceptions, when he himself doesn’t know? If Jesus himself does not know, how are prophets, disciples and followers, obviously lesser than him, somehow privy?”

It just gets your goat that someone else might know more than you on a subject. If you will read the post I sent to WR, you will see that I told him no man knew the hour or day. You just say the same things over and over. I guess you are just trying to be relevant in the conversation. The subject of the post was “Isaac -vs- Ishmael Feud Continues”, and to the best of my knowledge these two men are talked about in the Bible. So it only stands to reason that the Bible would be used in the discussion. But all you have going for you Stephen is a little historical knowledge of what is written in the Bible; but you have no deep spiritual knowledge of what it is saying. The Bible speaks of people like you when it says:

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To you the Bible is foolishness, isn’t it?

What you don’t understand is that the Bible explains in prophecy coming events, and you can deny them, ridicule them, or hate them; it won’t change the outcome. Your problem and the problem with most liberals like yourself is that if you can’t prove it with science, you can’t believe it. Which is surprising to me, because the left has bought in GW hook, line, and sinker.

Concerning Obama’s successes: we have been at 9% unemployment for 25 months, gas prices have gone up 35% in a year, the housing market is bust, the only thing keeping GM in business is tax dollars buying VOLTS for the government, food prices are going through the roof, Health Ins is continuing to rise at double digit rates, we are involved in 3 wars, Obama is borrowing money from China to give to Europe and the Towel Heads, and Stephen says everything is just peachy…


I have noticed something else SD, you seem to quote the same verses over and over again, concerning what Jesus said. The next time you quote what Jesus said, take time to see if you said the same thing before.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 26, 2011 1:16 AM
Comment #323568

Conservativethinker-
Abraham not only bought his wife Sarah’s grave (and his own), he insisted on paying the Hittites for it. Why?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2011 8:55 AM
Comment #323569

Because it was their land Stephen, and for the same reason you buy a grave site.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2011 10:47 AM
Comment #323570

SD

You have become tidbit totsy.

Reaching radically for real relevancy has rewards.

Asking stupid questions can produce wise answers.

Seeking scripture successfully on subject, is a solace.

“Understanding is a wellspring of life to him who has it. But the correction of fools is folly.”

Prov. 16:22

Posted by: tom humes at May 26, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #323571

Conservativethinker-
Warped Reality didn’t bother calling me a moron, or ridiculing how ignorant or whatever I was. He simply presented countervailing facts that I wasn’t aware of. There was nothing to argue, and unlike some, I don’t argue where there’s nothing to argue.

I made a bad assumption a while back and Rob, a commenter of old, caught me up on that. I had to concede that what he said was true, and his being a conservative wasn’t an issue.

You say I’m ignorant, stupid, etc. But what person with halfway decent self esteem accepts that kind of argument? Your arguments rely on subjective opinions that you hold, opinions like what the bible means. Without them, you have little to support your argument. You feel fine insisting that they’re true, but you fail to realize that if your counterpart in a debate hasn’t accepted those grounds as given, then using those grounds alone as support for your argument does little good. I don’t believe in the Rapture or the Late, Great Planet Earth scenarios, so until you prove those to me, it’s useless to try and browbeat me into accepting anything that depends mainly on them.

It just gets your goat that someone else might know more than you on a subject.

No, When Warped Reality corrected me, I conceded immediately. Once I examined his evidence, there was no point to further argument. It’s actually the main thing I’ll concede to.

I did read your post to WR, but you effectively wrote yourself a way out of that argument by saying that Jesus wouldn’t leave his followers in the dark, which along with your other beliefs, seem to indicate that you do actually think you’re being told that you’re in the last days.

But I take a stricter reading of the warning. He provides plenty of information about the challenges of the last days, the need to keep the faith in the face of its horrors and tests, but throughout the Gospels he tells them that the coming of the last days will not be expected, giving that as the main reason for being prepared spiritually.

Your theology turns that on its head, says the last days are imminent, and can be expected to happen in this and this kind of way on this schedule, owing to these scriptures.

So was Jesus lying?

I don’t think so.

I’m not putting the fulfillment of God’s renewal of humanity and the world on a schedule that he himself has the initiative not to keep. I’m not pinning my hopes of salvation on the fruits of human logic, and the inherently fallible reading of the bible. I will await God’s appointed hour for me, whatever that means, and not concern myself with things that are his to control.

As for Obama’s successes? The economy, by all rights, should be far worse. In a far shallower recession, Reagan saw unemployment rise to 10.8 percent, and stay above 10 percent for almost a year. Unemployment could have been 11% or worse, according to the CBO.

Obama still has to struggle with an economy where the crisis has created long-term slack in our productivity. That slack, though, would have been worse, and our fiscal problems with it, if he had done nothing.

The last two times we tried things your party’s way, you got Hoovers infamous failure to halt the depression, and Reagan’s failure for the better part of three years to even break even on the economy.

Your policies were tried, and failed.

As for Gas prices? Ask your friends on Wall Street why they are the way they are. And then ask whether your party has the wisdom or guts to actually confront the people driving up the price. The executives are testifying that the actual costs of oil production are far cheaper then the mark up of the barrels thats’ going on now.

If it was simply a lack of supply we were talking about, the cost they quoted would reflect that.

Ah, but to get them to stop, we’d have to regulate or legislate. Your people would block that.

Why complain? Your party shaped the policy that landed us in this position, and keeps us there. You’re in no hurry to make sure the problem gets solved, just that somebody else bears the blame.

Health Ins is continuing to rise at double digit rates, we are involved in 3 wars, Obama is borrowing money from China to give to Europe and the Towel Heads, and Stephen says everything is just peachy…

Your people filibustered, and in enlisted the support of conservative Democrats to filibuster anything that would control costs, particularly the Public Option. You started two wars, and made nice with the ruthless dictator whose actions precipitated the third. Your people unapologetically borrowed from the Chinese, claiming it was for the good of the economy. Now, on the flipside of a financial disaster, you’re claiming the opposite.

And “towel-heads?” Good grief, man. Call them Arabs, and stop wondering why people think tea partiers might be racist. And really, some people think we spend tens of billions on foreign aid. We actually spend about a fifth of a percent, though the public thinks it something closer to a 25%.

And no, I’m not saying things are peachy. I’m saying they’ve been improved by the Obama administration. I wish Congress wasn’t in the way of further improvements, but that’s your problem, and your responsibility.

KAP-
I hope you mean because it was the Hittites land. But remember, Abraham was being offered the grave for free.

tom humes-
Alliteration always allows a little alleviation of alarm.

Seriously, though, are you actually trying to convince me that I should think myself a really stupid person? Yeah, real plausible. Can we discuss, people, something else than how stupid you think I am, or the merits of me agreeing to a point which is that dumb? I know many Conservatives here hold me in contempt, but that’s they’re problem, and I’m not stupid enough to make it my problem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2011 12:40 PM
Comment #323572

To be exact Stephen it belonged to one Hitite, his name was Ephron, Genisis 23. Abraham was an honorable man a prince among the people of the region and quite wealthy and didn’t want to take the land for free. Also Stephen if you read and study Matthew 23 and 24, Christ is telling us what to expect prior to the end times and things are happening that make you want to think we are in those times but a time of his return is still up to God and NO one can predict it.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #323573

KAP-
I’d say the trouble is, those things are always happening, we just have the technology and the science necessary to know they’re happening.

The problem here is that essentially you get into a game of saying “That’s a sign! That’s a sign! That’s as sign!”, pointing to different things. And then nothing happens.

It doesn’t necessarily kill faith, I would think, but I do think it strains it in a way. My attitude is to believe that disasters have long been a part of mortal life, and will be that long before the end comes.

We’re raising our populations, so that odd disasters that once struck only isolated, small pockets of humanity, if at all, disasters that we’d never have heard about, get heard about, get witnessed, get piped into our brains by our ever melodramatic media. So, for quite some time, we’ve had a feeling that life’s been going to hell in a handbasket.

But even a cursory reading of the bible finds many disasters, many famines, many Earthquakes.

The proper response, whether it’s the end of the world or not, is humility. We are small, and the oceans are so big, the earth so large. Things that are small from the Earth’s perspective, are huge from ours, and what’s huge to the earth may be beyond our ability to cope with.

So what’s my attitude? Live responsibly, live morally, be a house prepared in advance for the master to return to. The no matter when he returns, whether tomorrow, or a hundred thousand years from now, you are prepared. Let God worry about the End of the world before he brings it, and deal with the End of the world when it comes the best you can, using his teachings to help you meet your fate with dignity and integrity.

But before then, deal with others as you would like others to deal with you, be good to your enemies, love your neighbor, and love God.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #323574

Stephen, In all actuality we have been living in the end times for the last almost 2000 years waiting for Christ’s return. All these happenings are why Christ is telling us to watch and wait and be prepared because we never know when one of those happenings will cause you to personnelly meet him and be your end of the world.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2011 3:27 PM
Comment #323579

Stephen said:

“You say I’m ignorant, stupid, etc.”

Sorry Stephen, you are wrong again; I said your comments were ignorant.

Who cares what Abraham bought; as usual, you are wrong. You are trying to imply that the land was not Abrahams and that he had purchased burial plots. God observation SD, Abraham didn’t own the land…yet. Actually, Abraham was nomadic and traveled. It wasn’t until after Israel had been led out \of Egyptian bondage that God actually let the Jews possess the land. So Stephen, you didn’t discover some big secret thing that I was unaware of…

“Your arguments rely on subjective opinions that you hold, opinions like what the bible means. Without them, you have little to support your argument. You feel fine insisting that they’re true, but you fail to realize that if your counterpart in a debate hasn’t accepted those grounds as given, then using those grounds alone as support for your argument does little good. I don’t believe in the Rapture or the Late, Great Planet Earth scenarios, so until you prove those to me, it’s useless to try and browbeat me into accepting anything that depends mainly on them.”

Yes Stephen and your arguments are based on trying to prove the Bible is wrong. I don’t care if you believe in the Rapture, the late great, the man in the moon, or little boy blue. You are the one who is going to have to stand before the Lord and say; “BUT LORD, I THOUGHT IT AS A BOOK OF FAIRYTALES”. Which of us will be worse off?

Stephen again says:

“I did read your post to WR, but you effectively wrote yourself a way out of that argument by saying that Jesus wouldn’t leave his followers in the dark, which along with your other beliefs, seem to indicate that you do actually think you’re being told that you’re in the last days.”

Sorry Stephen, I don’t have to leave myself a way out. I simply state what God told us in His Word:

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

My post was in answer to a specific question WR had asked of me, but I have no problem with you reading it. I only hope I was able to help WR and that he is not as closed minded as you. I do not believe God will speak to me directly, but you know what Stephen, he gave me a brain and he gave me his Word, and he told me as we can see the signs of bad weather coming, we will also be able to see the signs of His coming.

Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

And again SD says:

“But I take a stricter reading of the warning. He provides plenty of information about the challenges of the last days, the need to keep the faith in the face of its horrors and tests, but throughout the Gospels he tells them that the coming of the last days will not be expected, giving that as the main reason for being prepared spiritually.

Your theology turns that on its head, says the last days are imminent, and can be expected to happen in this and this kind of way on this schedule, owing to these scriptures.

So was Jesus lying?

I don’t think so.”

I’m astonished at your lack of theological understanding. Stephen, every time you open your mouth your statements sound more ignorant. Are you saying we are not to be watching for His return? Here are just a few verses from the New Testament which tell us to watch. I don’t know what more to say to you Stephen; the last days are eminent and the Bible is absolutely full of verses which make this claim.

Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Mat 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Mar 13:35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:


Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.


Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Stephen, you don’t believe the Bible, and yet you have a twisted way of explaining what it says.


The rest of your comments have been said by you many times and they are nothing more than pure liberal talking points which have come right from the oval office. You know as well as I do that this is Obama’s economy and it is busted. Until he understands the spending spree is over, nothing will get better.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 26, 2011 7:55 PM
Comment #323580

“So what’s my attitude? Live responsibly, live morally, be a house prepared in advance for the master to return to. The no matter when he returns, whether tomorrow, or a hundred thousand years from now, you are prepared. Let God worry about the End of the world before he brings it, and deal with the End of the world when it comes the best you can, using his teachings to help you meet your fate with dignity and integrity.
But before then, deal with others as you would like others to deal with you, be good to your enemies, love your neighbor, and love God.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2011 02:13 PM

Stephen, this verse is for you:

1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Stephen, you have a head knowledge of Christ, but not a heart knowledge. Therefore you are of all men most miserable. If I saw the things happening in the world today and didn’t know Christ as my Savior, I would be miserable too.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 26, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #323587

“Stephen, you have a head knowledge of Christ, but not a heart knowledge.”

Wow. Such arrogance. Only God knows the heart.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 26, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #323591

conservativethinker-
Who cares? Well Abraham cared how he was thought of. His position as the ancestor of descendents as countless as the sky did not excuse him in his mind from doing things the right way, and doing them aboveboard..

I do not view the bible as a set of fairytales. I think they are more meaningful, and more organically connected to the history of the Israelites, and its various periods and dynasties. I don’t see it as objective truth, but then again, at the time that it was written, they didn’t operate with the same insistence on factual rigor and completeness of knowledge and detail that we do now. And why would they? In the world of that age, most people were not literate, and the simple speed of travel and communication (which were basically the same) meant that information travelled rather slowly.

These aren’t lies. Many of the books reflect what must have been their best understanding of history that actually occured. Of course, they’ll understand it from their perspective, according to their legends and traditions, but then, that was the best you could ask of people at that time. I am at peace with stories and parts of the stories in the bible not being literally true, but if I go to heaven and find out that indeed the Red Sea was split, I wouldn’t balk at that being the truth either.

I believe in God, and in his ability to act supernaturally. But as a modern person, presented with the evidence of what science shows, I must accept that at the very least, God created a world that largely operates, and operates well from natural principles. However, having a world of such seamless integrity, especially one as complex and glorious, and inhumanly elaborate as the one we live in doesn’t serve to discourage me from believing in God. Quite the opposite. Any God capable of creating a world like ours is surely worth worshipping, because it simply amazing what has been wrought. And if it occured through natural processes, through evolution, through deep-time geological and cosmological means, it doesn’t make me think any less of God. For what might seem like accidents and randomness to us, may be seen by God in its proper perspective.

After all, aren’t we dealing with a deity whose mind and presence surely outstrips us? Who sees far beyond what we see, understands far beyond what we do? Why should our failure to understand how God could be involved in a system, intervene in it make God’s presence and ability to intervene out of the question?

As for what’s possible from such a God, who works in such a way? Well, I crunched it around for a little while, and then something occured to me. We’re creatures of this natural world, and our senses and perceptions are grounded in it. It is entirely possible, in my view, to have only natural laws prove true to what we’re capable of testing, yet have God, having designed the metaphysical as well as the physical aspect of the world, being able to work his supernatural influence in seamlessly.

As for why God would intervene time and again, if he was perfect, it occured to me that the main reasons for his intervention would be us, and our free will. We make choices, and then God chooses in response to us.

You have to realize that the challenge for me in my faith is that I didn’t want to have to deny truth to recognize truth. I knew too much about what made different scientific principles right and objectively provable to cast them aside.

By all rights, I never had to be a Christian. I wasn’t really pushed into that religion by my family, nor was I especially impressed or attracted to the often intolerant and anti-scientific Christianity I saw around me. It certainly wasn’t people like you that lead me towards Christianity.

I had to figure out a way that all this could be squared, that I could believe and not constantly find the world in contradiction. I couldn’t let myself be torn in two. So, that’s why I’ve taken the approach I’ve taken. Truth doesn’t contradict truth, and the Natural and the Supernatural are not at odds.

I don’t think you understand my point of view well. I’m not going to to be trying to claim to the Lord that the bible was a bunch of fairytales. I don’t hold it in that kind of contempt, nor the people who wrote it.

But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

When Jesus, rather than merely Paul, talks about being ready, not being in the dark, why do you think it has to be about the precise sequence of events of the end of the world? The center of Jesus’ teachings was not an abstract preparedness for a sequence of events. It was preparedness for a day and a time when your character would be put to the test. He told parables and spoke sermons primarily about how people behaved with each other, and how important it was to improve one’s character. He didn’t say, “Only the father knows the hour and the day”, only to have good ol’ Paul spill the beans about when it would happen.

When he talked about being prepared, he was simply telling people not to be lackadaisical in bettering themselves, reforming their conduct. Time and again, the image was of keeping vigil, in order not to be surprised. But was he talking literal vigils? No. He was talking about a vigil of watching one’s behavior.

I’m astonished at your lack of theological understanding. Stephen, every time you open your mouth your statements sound more ignorant. Are you saying we are not to be watching for His return? Here are just a few verses from the New Testament which tell us to watch. I don’t know what more to say to you Stephen; the last days are eminent and the Bible is absolutely full of verses which make this claim.

What annoys me is that I have explained again and again that I await him, with no concern about how many days it’s going to take. I will wait patiently for the Lord until my dying day, and after that, I will wait to rise when the last trumpet sounds, and then I will hope that I kept his vigil in my heart properly.

I think all this chasing around after dates and scenarios is pointless. God’s not working on our timetable. Rather than root through the bible, parsing it to prove one date or another, or claiming this that or the other is a sign, I will simply wait patiently, and in the meantime improve myself as quickly as I can. Anything else, in my mind, is vanity, is wanting to be the folks that get special knowledge.

The knowledge that is necessary to meet judgment day well is in the Gospels, but it’s not twisted around or encoded, or any of that junk. It is plainly presented in Jesus’ teachings. People have a tendency to value hidden, cryptic, and mysterious knowledge over the obvious and unconcealed, but in this case the most important secrets that Jesus imparts are not secrets at all, just simply the divine teachings that are open to all.

A person could be ignorant of everything else, but if know to love God with everything they got, and if they love their neighbor as they love themselves, if they make peace, if they love and bless their enemies, if they do all the things Jesus advised of them, but don’t know the first thing about the rapture or any of that other stuff, I believe they will get into heaven.

I will let God take care of the last days.

In the meantime, would it kill you to show your rivals and opponents a little bit of class and respect? Your sort of insults and browbeatings are exactly the sort of thing that discouraged me from seeking out Christianity for the longest time.

As for whether I’m miserable, as you say? No. I believe in the Resurrection. I believe in a life and a world beyond this one.

I believe in Christ, and in God. What you believe about me is an illusion, mostly built out of your expectations of what I’m supposed to be.

But, even if you don’t acknowledge this, that’s fine. It’s not your reward or approval that I must secure for the last days.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2011 11:06 PM
Comment #323623

“conservativethinker-
Who cares? Well Abraham cared how he was thought of. His position as the ancestor of descendents as countless as the sky did not excuse him in his mind from doing things the right way, and doing them aboveboard..”

Who cares whether he purchased any land or not. Our topic was not about Abraham purchasing land. So you are wasting everyone’s time by jumping to new topics.

“I do not view the bible as a set of fairytales.”

Yes you do! When you think the Bible is no different than any other book, in fact you believe it less than you would any other book, to you it is not truth.

“These aren’t lies. Many of the books reflect what must have been their best understanding of history that actually occured. Of course, they’ll understand it from their perspective, according to their legends and traditions, but then, that was the best you could ask of people at that time. I am at peace with stories and parts of the stories in the bible not being literally true, but if I go to heaven and find out that indeed the Red Sea was split, I wouldn’t balk at that being the truth either.”

Good Lord Stephen, can you hear yourself double talk? “I don’t think the Bible is fairytales; these aren’t lies; they didn’t really know what they were talking about; but I am at peace with believing these stories really didn’t happen”… In other words, you don’t believe anything, based on the fact that these stories were fairly tales (based on their own misconceived ideas passed down from person to person), but you don’t have a problem basing your side of an argument on what you conceive their ideas to be, but you can’t except my argument because it is based on a literal interpretation of Scripture. Your mind is so screwed up; there is no one who could understand what you are saying. I think you are losing it…

Your next few verses (without copying and pasting them), appear to be saying you believe God can work supernaturally, but you believe it has to be proven to you by science. Do you know what it means to live by faith?

“When Jesus, rather than merely Paul, talks about being ready, not being in the dark, why do you think it has to be about the precise sequence of events of the end of the world? The center of Jesus’ teachings was not an abstract preparedness for a sequence of events. It was preparedness for a day and a time when your character would be put to the test. He told parables and spoke sermons primarily about how people behaved with each other, and how important it was to improve one’s character. He didn’t say, “Only the father knows the hour and the day”, only to have good ol’ Paul spill the beans about when it would happen.
When he talked about being prepared, he was simply telling people not to be lackadaisical in bettering themselves, reforming their conduct. Time and again, the image was of keeping vigil, in order not to be surprised. But was he talking literal vigils? No. He was talking about a vigil of watching one’s behavior.”

This is pure BS; I do not have the time or space to quote to you the sequence of events over and over again explaining the events in detail as they will happen in the earth. Two thirds of the Bible is prophecy; prophecy that is already fulfilled and prophecy not yet fulfilled. You are stating your opinion that prophecy in general and not specific. We have prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the death of Christ on the Cross, and they are very explicit as to every detail of what would happen to Christ. Read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and you will understand. The prophecies of the Tribulation, of the demise of Islam, and of the rise and destruction of the Antichrist are very detailed and for you to say God is only speaking in generalities is very ignorant. These are your opinions, and based on what? It doesn’t matter what you say or believe, greater minds than yours have tried to deny God’s Word. But the Bible says God’s Word will stand forever. So your simple minded opinions don’t mean anything. “But was he talking literal vigils? No. He was talking about a vigil of watching one’s behavior.” On what do you base this BS statement?

“I think all this chasing around after dates and scenarios is pointless.”

No Stephen, what you can’t stand are absolutes. The life of a liberal is based on variables. You can’t believe the Constitution says what it says, and you can’t accept the Bible to be absolute truth. You base your life and you politics on constantly moving principles. I, on the other hand find no fault in the Constitution or the Bible. I believe in absolutes. I accept God’s Word for what it is, and I believe it. You say you do, but your words betray you and you don’t really believe in anything.

“The knowledge that is necessary to meet judgment day well is in the Gospels, but it’s not twisted around or encoded, or any of that junk. It is plainly presented in Jesus’ teachings. People have a tendency to value hidden, cryptic, and mysterious knowledge over the obvious and unconcealed, but in this case the most important secrets that Jesus imparts are not secrets at all, just simply the divine teachings that are open to all.”

I have not said that God’s Word was encoded, encrypted, or concealed; but what I do say is that the Bible was written by men who were inspired, by the Holy Spirit, to pen down the exact words that God wanted put on paper and to be able to understand God’s Word one must have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. I do not say this; God’s Word says it. You don’t believe this and therefore deny that God’s was written by inspiration, because if it was it would be true, and you don’t want it to be true. If anyone is trying to say God’s Word Is coded or encrypted it is you Stephen; because you believe on a liberal can REALLY understand what it is saying. Listen Stephen, there was a time when I was where you are, and God’s Word was totally foreign to my understanding; but when I accepted Christ as my Savior and the Spirit of God took up residence in me, slowly I became aware of what it was saying. That is my story and it is based upon what God promised mankind in His Word, and not on my opinion.

“A person could be ignorant of everything else, but if know to love God with everything they got, and if they love their neighbor as they love themselves, if they make peace, if they love and bless their enemies, if they do all the things Jesus advised of them, but don’t know the first thing about the rapture or any of that other stuff, I believe they will get into heaven.”

You have said this before, many times; but you are wrong. You base your salvation on good works and you are wrong. I can quote to you the verses to back up my statement, but you would just deny the verses. You see Stephen, the same generalities that you love to quote come from the same book as the verses I quote.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The deeds of the law is referring to those who think they can please God by living according to the Commandments; which is what you are claiming Stephen. You believe you are justified before God, because, in your eyes, you are a good person. But the Bible says there are none good, no not one.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This means if you want to live by the Commandants, you will be judged by them, and to be judged by the Law means death (eternal separation from God).

Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Now Stephen, I am going to show you the judgment of God, of which you speak. The books spoken of are the Books of the Law and the other book is the Lam’s Book of life. And those standing before God will be judged out of the Books of the Law (remember, none shall be justified by the Law), and if their names are not found in the Lamb’s Book of Life they are cast into the Lake of Fire. Tell me Stephen, how many of this great multitude escaped the Lake of Fire?

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I promise you Stephen, these words may not mean much to you, but Tom Humes and others are shouting right now, because they understand the price that was paid for their salvation. This something I don’t believe you understand and I base that solely on your past statements.

Our belief in God’s Word is not something we do or try to defend, it is a way of life. And it is this way of life that dominates our every action. I know I put myself in a real place of ridicule by telling you our beliefs. But I understand God’s Word when it says persecution is not against us, but rather against Christ.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 27, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment #323628

CT,
Although Moses is traditionally attributed authorship of the Torah, there are quite a few pieces of evidence suggesting he didn’t. Plenty of Rabbinic writings in the past millennium have suggested Ezra or other later figures as candidates. Personally, I think the documentary hypothesis makes the most sense. I read the book Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman two years ago, which presents a lot of evidence from the original Hebrew text that suggests multiple authors. The strongest bit is the series of duplicate narratives in Genesis (including the creation of the universe, Noah’s flood etc). In every case of these duplications, one story uses Elohim to refer to God whereas the other uses the tetragrammaton.

As someone who comes from a scientific background, I have to trust evidence that is presented to me, no matter its source. When it comes to questions the science cannot solve, I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt and let it fill in the gaps, but if there is an inconsistency between the knowledge I gain with my sensory perception and the knowledge I gain from reading scripture, I opt for the former and adjust the latter. I know this is heterodox from the viewpoint of a literal interpretation of the Bible (no need to quote those verses that say so), but that’s where I am right now. I’m a young guy, so hopefully I’ll get a chance to sort things out before the clock runs out.

The problem is that the Bible contains very incorrect statements with regards to cosmology, astronomy, geology, physics and biology. Personally, I fall back on Galileo Galilei, who said “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 27, 2011 9:41 PM
Comment #323633

I have found that if it were possible for the Bible to be proven contradictory, it would have happened. Secondly, I have found the problem is not the interpretation of the Scriptures the problem is the interpreter. I find it interest that men/women can graduate from the same schools with the same degrees and yet have totally different view of God and His Word.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 27, 2011 10:41 PM
Comment #323637

Conservativethinker-
Genesis one and two. One has him create the things of the earth discretely, over the famous seven days of creation.

Then two begins, in the day that God created the heavens and the earth…

If you’re looking at this in your terms, you’ve got to rationalize it, explain it.

Me, I can accept that there were mulitiple sources, multiple elements to the composition. I don’t have to fight a vain, endless battle trying to justify the bible. The bible can’t be justified by purely rational means, since its very subject is supernatural, and because of that, beyond rational testing.

No amount of proof or argument or quotation can conclusively, validly, soundly required that anything a Christian believes, especially the most important thing, has to be real or true.

I take God and Jesus’s existence and natures on faith.

I don’t need the bible to be a perfect dictation by God to the scribes. I don’t need for it to be entirely real in every detail and aspect. That’s actually besides the point. The meaning of the stories is more important than any exercise in documentation it might be. I believe the divine meaning is in there.

I am not insisting that God could not perform miracles. But he doesn’t have to, in order to earn my faith.

Folks think literalism simplifies things. But languge and human thinking often operate in such a way that only greater elaboration can bring a distilled insight to people. Truth is, literalism just shoves the job of intepreting things somewhere else. Truth is, most laws, to be worth a damn, must be applied to real world settings that don’t exactly correspond to the law’s original intent. So things get interpreted, even if only to find some way to reconcile different laws on the same matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2011 12:35 AM
Comment #323640

“Conservativethinker-
Genesis one and two. One has him create the things of the earth discretely, over the famous seven days of creation.
Then two begins, in the day that God created the heavens and the earth…
If you’re looking at this in your terms, you’ve got to rationalize it, explain it.”

If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to explain Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, is that correct?

Before I give you my answer, I want to know if that is what you are asking?

“No amount of proof or argument or quotation can conclusively, validly, soundly required that anything a Christian believes, especially the most important thing, has to be real or true.”

???

“I don’t need the bible to be a perfect dictation by God to the scribes. I don’t need for it to be entirely real in every detail and aspect. That’s actually besides the point. The meaning of the stories is more important than any exercise in documentation it might be. I believe the divine meaning is in there.”

Either it is true or it is not. If it is not divinely inspired and preserved, then the Bible is no different than any other book and can be disposed of. Sorry Stephen, but as a literalist, I believe it is the Word of God. But again, I base that on the Word.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

What about this verse Stephen:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How do we live by God’s Word, if all we have is generalities and stories written in a book?

Here is a good one for you Stephen. John said Jesus WAS the Word of God:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And in the Book of Revelation, Jesus is named the Word of God:

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

When you say the Word is not perfect, but has flaws, you say that Christ is also flawed. The Word of God is more than a book, it is the very concept of Christ.

“Word” in John 1:14 is the Greek word “Logos”; meaning the very idea or concept of God. The Word of God cannot be separated from Jesus Christ.

This is why we believe the Word of God is perfect. Stephen, do you know that for 2000 years men much more intelligent than you have tried to prove it false and have failed.

“Folks think literalism simplifies things. But languge and human thinking often operate in such a way that only greater elaboration can bring a distilled insight to people. Truth is, literalism just shoves the job of intepreting things somewhere else.”

Literalism does simplify things Stephen, that’s why it’s called FAITH…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 28, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #323646

Conservativethinker

???

God’s existence is beyond our ability to rationally prove, simply put.

“I don’t need the bible to be a perfect dictation by God to the scribes. I don’t need for it to be entirely real in every detail and aspect. That’s actually besides the point. The meaning of the stories is more important than any exercise in documentation it might be. I believe the divine meaning is in there.”

Either it is true or it is not. If it is not divinely inspired and preserved, then the Bible is no different than any other book and can be disposed of. Sorry Stephen, but as a literalist, I believe it is the Word of God. But again, I base that on the Word.

When we watch a good movie or read a good story, it may appeal to us based on something we know and recognize about the world we live in. Jesus himself appealed to his disciples using examples, like brides waiting for a groom, servants taking care of an estate in the absence of their master and, most famously, the story of the Samaritan, the low-caste man with the heretical religion helping the man beaten and robbed, when the Priest and the Levite passed by on the other side of the road without helping him.

Did these stories have to be true to be meaningful? No. The were used as examples. Jesus constantly used poetic descriptions to describe the Kingdom of Heaven. A Mustard Seed that grows from a tiny speck to a huge tree. A Woman finding a lost coin and calling her friends over to rejoice. A field sown with wheat that somebody comes and sows weeds among. Was he lying to people, since obviously the Kingdom of heaven is none of those things literally?

No! The language he uses is rich, multi-layered, and meaningful and truthful in its own way. Jesus’ own words, the words of God were not merely some dry recitation of actual events and literal descriptions. They were better than that, and because of that he was able to pass greater wisdom and knowledge on than if he just went and told people only literal things.

As below, so above: What Christ did within the Gospels, God does with the Bible as a whole.

As far as the Word of God goes?

You do realize you just said that Jesus and the Bible are one and the same. So what does it mean that there are all these different translation, which often change wording, or the sense of words? Which translation is Jesus?

I believe we’re dealing with Jesus as the word of God, God’s creative will as the word of God, and then God’s divine message, conveyed to us mortals through the inspiration of mortal, fallible writers as the word of God.

So, when some mortal writer consciously or unconsciously adds a layer of their own culture and fallibility to the message from God inspiring them, it doesn’t mean that the message God sent us was bad, or inferior to any other kind. We just have to employ a decent degree of discernment and wisdom, to try and filter out the effects of culture. It’s not God sending a false or misleading message, it’s man imperfectly conveying to man what God inspired the first to write.

So, if somebody misprints a bible, it doesn’t hurt Jesus one bit, or make God one bit less worthy of worship. If somebody mistranslates, the bible doesn’t necessarily get everything wrong. Me, I think God designed the scriptures, in his way, to be robust, resistant to the introduction of meaning-killing errors. Imperfect does not mean ineffective. If the writer gets enough of the gist of what God is conveying to him, in the part of the bible he’s writing, then God’s message gets through in good enough shape to help us, to draw us towards God.

You and I think about communication differently. In a very real sense, I would say, you lose the pure message that God grace conveyed to the people in question, when it was placed in the limiting, constraining vehicle of written and spoken language. God’s majesty far exceeds anything that written or spoken language can convey. God’s words are not our words, and the bible is a mere shadow of what God would really like us to learn and discover.

But even a shadow of God’s word, even the dumbed-down, culturally biased version of God’s message that came through, can light the path of the good and the righteous to come to God, and help those who are in need of redemption find it. The light at the end of the tunnel, blinding and blown out as it is, doesn’t compare to what we see when we leave a tunnel or a cave, but it can lead us to that more glorious encounter with the outside world, the world that is to come to our senses later.

I believe what is divinely inspired about the bible transcends what isn’t. I believe that God’s language, and what God’s capable of doing with HIS words, transcends our sense of language and communication. After all, his words are capable of bringing a universe into existence. And if you’ve taken a look at that universe, it gives you just a glimmer of an idea of how God’s true words exceed our pale interpretations and translations of it.

You can hold that bible up, and proclaim that the infallible word of God, but because it has been printed and written in our language, to tell us just the things that are within our ability to understand, it falls far short of the truly infallible word of God. Look all around you, look at yourself. There you see the evidence that God has spoken.

God is not concerned that we learn everything by rote. If we can read off quote by quote, yet look no deeper, if we miss the richness of figurative language, or the truth and instruction that can come through storytelling, we deprive ourselves of the devices by which God shares greater meaning, knowledge and wisdom with us.

As for the word Logos meaning “God”, I’m afraid somebody misinformed you. Just look at any science website, or any rhetorical website. We talk about Biology, psychology, geology- all fields of knowledge. We talk about logic, we talk about dialogue. Hell, we talk in dialogues! Logos is the rootword.

Logos means word, and as you have freighted the simple, multipurpose term “word” with significance beyond it’s plainest, most literal meaning, so too did the author of John’s Gospel bring a deeper sense of meaning to a term that also was made to mean many different things besides the straight, literal dictionary meaning.

The irony is, you’re missing one of languages richest powers, it’s ability to change to serve the needs of all kinds of description and imaginings. You put trust in the printed word, but fail to realize that it does not deserve such trust, that it is but a shadow of meaning, and nowhere as robust in its staying power and its ability to resist decay over time as you might hope.

Even now, the way people use language changes, and phrases that once made sense, once conveyed meaning, now send different messages to those who read them now, or fail to send messages at all. That’s why all the new translations were necessary. Even in King James’ time, the language they used for their translation was purposefully archaic, for the sake of making it sound more poetic.

Isn’t that ironic? Rather than simply hammer out a literal minded translation true in every regard, the authors of the King James Bible made an aesthetic decision to write it in a more flowery, more poetic tone. And THIS is the version so many latch onto when they go looking for the plain and true word of God.

Our words, our language, are treacherous in a way Gods is not. But given the fact we are not God, we cannot understand his word directly. We find ourselves like Job, who when he demands the whys and wherefores of things from God, simply gets told that he is not in a class of being where he can question God.

God’s true word is too much for us, right now, to understand. I do not question your literalist theology because I think the Bible’s words alone are insufficient to convey God’s true message, but rather because no language of ours would be sufficient or ever would be sufficient to convey his majesty. My view doesn’t belittle God or Jesus, but raises them up high, the Father beyond our reach, and Jesus trying his best to help us see God’s grace and love in human terms.

I have faith. I have faith in God. Not in a work of human hands, no matter how divine its inspiration. No inspiration can turn a work of God into God himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2011 9:37 PM
Comment #323684

Well SD, this conversation has gone absolutely no place. You either don’t have the mental capability to understand what I am saying or you fail to read my comments. I will conclude by saying you believe in nothing, you are argumentative and have no desire to seriously debate anything. If I told you the sky was blue, you would want to argue about it. You jump from one topic to another. It’s impossible to discuss any serious subject with you. You are a liberal socialist through and through, and look at everything through the eyes of a liberal socialist.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 30, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #323798

Conservativethinker:

Reread the rules of participation.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 1, 2011 6:52 PM
Post a comment