An Honest Debate.com

Dear Rev. Carlton,

While I admire your passion for your premillennial dispensationalism, your smearing of Amillennialism is quite inaccurate and unfair. There may be some anti-semitic Amillennialist [just as there have been a fair number of anti-semitic baptist] but the belief is not at all anti-semitic, in fact it, on the contrary, allows a reasonably balanced view of the modern Jewish state of Israel. The assertion that Amillennialist believe that the Jews gave up the promises and retain the curses [I assume that refers to the blessings and curses from Joshua] is a thousand miles from an accurate view of Amillennialism as actually held by those of us who believe it. Paul goes out of his way to point out that if branches were broken off so that we could be grafted in contrary to nature, how much more can the natural branches be grafted back in. You unfairly and inaccurately substitute the term “the New Israel” for the biblical term in Jesus words out of these stones I can make “children to Abraham.” The stones to which he referred were the hard harts of the Gentiles. If you really believe that God loves someone more because they are both a Jew and a Christian you know less with the benefit of the whole New Testament than Isaiah knew with the light that God permitted him. He candidly pointed out that God loved Ethiopia just as much as Israel. If I ask one of my children to take on a task that will be very important for the survival of the whole family, the fact that I didn’t ask one of the others is no indication of my degree of love for the one over the others. You seem to think that it would or should. That is not true — it’s sad. God asked Abraham to keep the covenant so that he and his descendants could keep Gods record of His redemptive work and plan until Christ could reveal that truth to all men. Abraham was more suited to the task [a trait that his descendants could look to for strength for the task through long generations]. I can point to an ancestor of my who fought in the Battle of Hastings. I don’t delude myself to the effect that this is anything for me to be proud of. It is equally perverse for the church to encourage that kind of view to be taken by the modern state of Israel. Israel is a good hearted liberal democracy and should be supported for that reason and none other. Certainly not because God has involved Himself in the politics of our time. If God has intervened, and providentially I’m sure there are reasons he must every day, they are not, I believe for the reasons you suggest in your teaching. Well, for what they are worth these are my thoughts. God Bless.

Eric Stroud

Mark,

Thank you for your kindness in the hearing of my point of view. I am very sympathetic to your strong desire to see the state of Israel succeed. I share at least that view. If Israel is forced to bomb Iran because of an imminent nuclear threat, I will be at the front of the line supporting any reasonable policy that causes us to help them politically, materially, rhetorically, militarily or otherwise. They are like us in many ways and our interest run in the same direction. They are not harming anyone in my view by merely existing. Strategically, they are more than the “canary in the coal mine,” they can’t afford to be sacrificed. They are a bastion of reason, freedom, and enlightenment in a hot bed of envy, superstition, competitive treachery, and strife. That having been said, this is my political assessment not my religious position.

It would be a tragedy though if we were to believe that God’s providential hand needs some kind of help from me, or the US president, or congress, or the United Nations, or any one else. I think I have come to see that while God redeems the consequences of our sins to bring about good all the time, he is not impeded in any way by people not doing evil in bringing about His objectives. In other words God could have kept his promise to Jacob even if he were as honest and trustworthy as his grandfather.

So, the fear that some in Europe have, that Americans believing that God is bringing history to a literal not spiritual Armageddon, may be lulled into a kind of complacency that allow events in the Middle east to spin out of control, accomplishing that fact, is a concern I share. If we believe as an article of faith that we can not influence a better outcome, that is a matter for concern. That belief itself could dull our wits when they are needed at the critical moment. If I’m wrong and this is God’s revealed will in Revelations, people like me who see Armageddon as a spiritual not physical; fight couldn’t stop it on our most influential day.

What we do know is that the opposite view where we are saved from the carnage of Armageddon not by Jesus return but by the Twelfth Imam is very much believed by Ahmadinejad. What a tragedy it would be to stumble into a war only to find out that far from the end of days it was just another sad opportunity to kill some odd tens or hundreds of millions of people. The only way to know is to fight it and observe whether or not Jesus or the Twelfth Imam indeed shows up to stop it before the carnage.

Sadly, that option has been tried too many times in the sad course of human history. The prospect of an Evangelical version of Ahmadinejad making the sincere reciprocal miscalculation, misinterpretation both expecting to be saved from the consequences of their actions by God/Allah at the last moment in kind of a monotheistic, dualistic battle, fought with Daisy Cutters, Moab’s, and nuclear weapons is the stuff of nightmares.

It is not my intention to make anyone look a fool for disagreeing. I humbly acknowledge that I could have this all wrong. But that belief is balanced with the knowledge that God’s will, will in fact be done no matter what I believe about it. That would be true even if I had the power to convert everyone to my point of view tomorrow. If you won’t take my word on that last point, just ask Hal Lindsey. I believe I have come to my conclusions not on my desire to sound good relative to some political expectation, but by my reading of the scriptures and a dismal two thousand year track record of misinterpretation of the writings of John the Devine [or John the Apostle if you prefer]. I think we both agree that every word he wrote is true; it’s what it means that causes us to part ways.

Where you say many Christians have not read a single book on the subject of amillennialism, that would be true of me. I’d be willing to read whatever you think makes the best case for the view you advocate. But just as I didn’t come to this view to conform to the views of anyone that I know, I expect I will not leave the view on such grounds either. One of my good Christian friends, an elder in the church to which I belong happens to be Jewish. I don’t know for absolute certain but I suspect that my politics are substantially more pro-Israel than his. My politics I believe are a bit more conservative than his so we don’t dwell on the subject.

I’m leaving this post because you have done an excellent job in gathering some good material, views and scholarship. Your writing is of a high quality and very insightful, even if we do disagree on this point.

I intended to leave this thread under your comments about Rev. Wright [now of infamy] and his Obama connection. If I disagree with you a little, I disagree with him a great deal. The appearance of this thread here may leave the impression that I have serious problems with the thrust of your ministry which is not at all true. I’m afraid I had too many windows open when I clipped the original message in.

God bless you in your continued work. I will remember to include your continued ministry in my prayers. Maranatha!

Eric Stroud

Mark,

I will look into the books you suggest. I did a couple of Google searches to scan their reviews and they appear quite scholastically impressive.

Rereading my post I can see how you could get the idea that I’m European. Actually, I grew up on the Great Plains and now live in the Midwest.

I have interfaced with this subject a couple of times when Revelations has been selected by a Sunday school class or small group I attend and was called upon to facilitate the conversation. I always took the approach of presenting the various interpretations of the text and to the extent possible cull out the concepts that we could apply to our lives regardless of which of the interpretations is true. Having gone through that exercise at least twice in the last ten years, I was persuaded to the amillennialist view after reading Jack Cottrell’s excellent book “The Faith Once for All.” Ironically, Chuck Colson is promoting a book [no doubt ghost written for him, as were his others] by almost exactly the same title.

I am sensitive to the fact that wrong beliefs can have unintended consequences a generation later. That was surely true of it the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche; although that is probably less true of Nietzsche. On the other hand if the problem is not the doctrine itself, but whether or not the application is reasonable, then that is important to discover as well.

I’d like to thank you for taking your valuable time to respond to my comments. It is plain to me that you have a real heart for Christ’s work. God bless you and thanks again.

Eric

I read Don Richardsons “Eternity in Their Hearts” about a year before I visited this site and read about Epimenides and Mars Hill. I would recommend Richardsons other books to you also. They are, “Peace Child” and “Lords of the Earth.” I am so happy that I discovered this site.
Ken Cox

Are you kidding? I hope this nonsense eventually dies. Thousands of Jews being crucified by the Roman governor Pilate, at the slightest provocation, and Jesus happens to be the one Jew he needs to be coerced into killing, and feels terrible about it!?

It’s no wonder Christianity couldn’t have existed without a diogmatic dispostion that demonized and condemned all legitimate questions.

Jews were suffering terribly at this time under Roman oppression and hundreds claimed to be the mesiah. Jesus would hardly be noticed by the great majority, and even if any Jews felt threatened by this one Nazarian (ridiculous, they be worried about the Romans) they would not demand he’de be crucified as this matter of death was an extremely offensive, pagan and foreign manner of execution to all Jews! Stoning was the manner of death strictly demanded by jewish law for all tresspasses.

lastly, even if any jews at all were culpable in the death of Jesus what the heck does that have to do with the Jews!? Even 2,000 years ago most Jews were already living outside Judea, and of those in Judea the greast majority would have had no idea who the guy was from birth to death.

I can guarantee Jesus would be horrified at the pain and suffering he caused his own people and would do anything to be anonimous.

Pastor Mark

May God guard and guide you in the new station He has sent you to.

Tunji

Sir

I would be careful about accusing the basketball league of corruption,as you may lay yourself open to law suits from the governing body,individual players etc.To make this kind of statement confidently,you would need to have back-up evidence,of the type that can stand up in court.

Private correspondence-please do not put up.

Tunji

Mark,

I am a Christian. I’m not sure about amillennialism, but I do believe God’s apostolic church was His carry-on for His everlasting gospel (covenant). But, being a new creature in Christ, I don’t harbor any anti-semitism in my heart. I have a lot of friends that are Jews, blacks, hispanics, Catholics, etc. The world is my family and I’m glad for that.

I do feel it true wisdom, though, to be wise as serpents. Satan is working hard these days and he has his agents to help press forward his agendas. There is no concord between Christ and Satan and we can’t really have true fellowship with those who aren’t walking in the light of God’s character. We must use the fruits as tools to know who to know intimately and to trust in and believe.

There should be no doubt in the way you and I think, that Satan has a human army that is ready to do his work. “An host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.” “Arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” (Dan. 8:12;11:31).

But, as regards the Jews, I see nothing worse in them and have no theology imposed hatred toward them, whatsoever, because in Christ every believer is one body, no matter where they come from.

I haven’t read any of the bookson anti-semitism you recommended, but the Bible seems clear enough on this. Abraham welcomed and loved strangers without question. This theme ran through the whole Bible when it concerned those whose heart God had converted. The Old and New Testament testify equally to the same righteousness orinating from the God who never changes.

With that overriding freedom, I can still hold to the church as the new Israel of God, even though it fell away and has had as evil a history as Israel of old. As hard to believe as it may be, God is still keeping the church as His designated vessel to carry His final and great truth before He comes.

Judaism is not that vessel. Israel may yet play a part in the closing chapter of Earth’s history, but not because of Judaism. Jews, just like everyone else, must see the goodness and mercy of God, they must acknowledge His power and forebearance and authority, and find repentance for their rebellion.

God accepts us back one at a time, not by the church full or as a nation. Corporate repentance, as a concept, is still only accomplished one broken heart at a time. That is why Paul wrote, “some of them” in Rom. 11:14. Not all would respond; not then, and not today. We can’t hope in a whole nation returning to God. That has never happened in the whole history of Israel and the church. In the whole history of mankind since sin entered, there as ever only been a remnant, a very small remnant, a few good grapes among the bunch of rotten ones. But in His abundant grace the Lord says of the bunch, “Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for My servants’ sakes, that I may not destroy them all.” (Is. 65:8).

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”

And the church, as a whole, will know His judgment as much as anybody. They will know it more, because they were given more light, the gospel. They professed His glorified name, but never knew Him nor did His works. “He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

Some of them, as well as some of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, will be saved, Jews included.

Do you agree?

Mark,
How do you understand Rom. 11:14?

Paul was saying that he hoped to save “some of” his kinsmen, the Jews. Then in the next verse he uses the more general, unqualified “them”, sounding all inclusive. But even though he did not include the words, “some of” when referring to the Jews in verse 15, he had already established what he meant when speaking of his burden for their conversion in verse 14.

Verse one gives the same meaning. God didn’t cast away all His people. Paul was proof of that. But Paul adds that only those who were foreknown were kept. That is, those he referred to in chapter 8:29. Many are called, but few are chosen, and those not chosen are lost. (2Cor. 4:3,4). Only the elect obtained the inheritance, and the rest were blinded, as God had warned from the days of Isaiah. (6:9-12). And Jesus rewarned. (Matt. 13:14,15).

Jesus again warned of the same rejection in a different way, “Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets.

But He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity.

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.” (Lk. 13:26-28).

I don’t feel anti-semitic any more than John did when he penned these words. “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the sabbath day.” (Jn. 5:16). The Jews blinded themselves and the truth needed to be told, as a way of provoking them to see the truth. “With the pure Thou wilt shew Thyself pure; and with the froward Thou wilt shew Thyself froward.” (Ps. 18:26).

But maybe you say, “That was then and this is now. Things are different among the Jews toward Jesus.” I don’t see it. Or maybe you say, things will get better in the future when God pours out His Spirit upon them and then all of them will be saved.

That notion is very unscriptural. Not in the history of fallen mankind was all of God’s people converted. Even in the pure apostolic church Satan had his people. Coming out of Egypt Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Nadab and Abihu, and many other full-blooded Israelites were in complete rebellion. Not to mention the 23,000 who died on the border of the promised land.

David made another plea to total consecration and faith, “after so long a time” (500 years) because so many Israelites perished because of unbelief and still were perishing in David’s day. There have always been the wheat and the tares in the congregation of the Lord.

The Lord has always loved His movement on earth. But there have always been those He waited long to “spew out,” “vomit out,” “shake out,” “destroy.” Yet, that corrupted component, even if it were the majority, would never be the tool of Satan to destroy the whole movement, which was predestinated.

Israel is not to be put on a pedestal; the Lamb of God is to be lifted up. “Behold your God!” “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.” “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.”

“All Israel,” as in “every Jew will be saved,” has never been scriptural and will never be. That is just wishful thinking. “All Israel,” as in God’s movement to reveal Himself to the world and all heaven, “will be saved.” But they will come from every nation, kindred, tongue and people, from the north, south, east and west, Jews and Gentiles alike. “And then shall the end come.” (Matt. 24:14).

Mark, I really am far from being anti-semitic. Being candid toward Israel doesn’t make me a hater of the Jews.

Hi Mark,
I will read your post on part 8. But how do you see the other verses Jesus used against the Israel of His day which I referred to in my previous comment?
Thanks.

Hi Pastor Mark,

I am baffled by the way that the President can tell an out and out lie and the media does not jump all over him! I guess the left is so elated to be in power that they will accept any behavior from their leader. Either that or there is something supernatural happening.

There is a parallel in History to Barak Obama but that is better left alone.

The treasury secretary, a tax cheat. The Secretary of Health and human services biggest contributor was an abortion doctor, until he was slain, the list goes on and on. The most competent person on his staff including himself is Hillary Clinton. I truly pray to God that America makes it through this presidency in tact, in Jesus most Holy and Precious name, Amen.

I don’t think that Obama is the antichrist or anything like that, but I do find his ascendency disturbing. Not as much because of who he is, but the way that people have so blindly projected their hopes and dreams, and heaped adulation upon this unremarkable politician.

I always tell people that it wasn’t the personalities of people like Hitler and Stalin that won them such followings. They don’t hypnotize people or anything like that. Their charisma (Hitler had more charisma than Stalin) doesn’t hurt, but its not the sole reason. They are salespeople, who are able to sell people on a vision of racial utopianism, prosperity, economic justice etc. This is how they work people into such a frenzy.

Once a leader is able to convince people that he has all the answers, and able to sell them on a dream, they will blindly follow that person to the gates of hell, doing horrendous actrocities along the way.

Glad to contribute, and feel free to add the site to your blogroll. – Thanks

Billstoke

1 You know quite well that President Bush lied when he talked of wmd in Iraq.Just Google ‘George Bush and weapons of mass destruction’.The story about uranium purchase from Niger was deliberately planted in the press by that administration-deliberate lies and disinformation.

2 Are you saying it is right for Col North to perjure,because he believes that what he is doing is right? Please clarify.

Tunji

Just want to point out that is is actually impossible for Saddam to have had chemical weapons. They all have a shelf life of only a few years and by the time of the Second Gulf War most of his chemical weapons stockpiles would have been useless as the effect of the chemicals that made them dangerous would have worn off. Also since the weapons he would have been using would have been as old as his tanks (T-80s) then if they had fired at all they would most likely have been more dangerous to the Iraqi military that the US.

Hi There,

Don’t mean to stomp on anyone’s toes, but as a Chemist I can tell you with great confidence that chemical warheads can last indefinitely assuming they are hermetically sealed and properly stored typically in an inert environment like nitrogen or argon. I would guess that even some of the mustard gas rounds from WWI would still produce a significant and strong vapor today.

For the chemicals to degrade you would have to have a reactant (oxygen, iron or some other Oxidation/Reduction agent) along with energy (photon, heat, electric arc) for the chemicals to either oxidize, most likely, or reduce and render themselves useless as a chemical weapon.

Nukes as Mark commented will decay over time due to the measurable and defined half life of the radioactive materials.

Anyway, I think if you did some research you would find that Sadam used chemical agents against the Kurds in the North and therefore had the same, and was willing to use them. A very sad state of affairs if you ask me.

Peace be with you,

Bill

Tunji,

I have attached a link to the Council on Foreign Relations flatly stating that Saddam launched some 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds in the North of Iraq. These attacks were with “proven weapons” and “real” people died. Saddam systematically eliminated between 60,000 and 150,000 Kurds. Did George Bush Lie? Who cares…. We were brutally attacked on September 11th by Islamic Fanatics that had ties to Iraq we defended ourselves, we have that right and obligation!

As far as Israel is concerned I have stated numerous times in this blog, the United States is a Christian country. As Christians we have a moral and religious obligation to defend Israel and the Jewish people. As a Christian Tunji, you should know, understand and honor that obligation.

Frankly Tunji, we have the most sophisticated, well trained military force on this earth. If we wanted Saddams oil we could have just taken it. Have we done that? No, we have set up sales of Iraqi oil with the proceeds going to the Iraqi people, lucky I’m not the President cause I would have used the proceeds to pay for the war that is freeing the Iraqi people.

This is the Council on Foreign Relations Mission Statement

The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.

Has mustard gas been used against civilians?

Yes. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas on Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish villageof Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including mustard gas and sarin killed 5,000 people and left 65,000 others with severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam launched about 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9551/

Please check out the story for yourself.

Bill

Matthew,

Saddam did have long range missiles he bought from Russia. I think he called them “all-huesseins”. Even if he didn’t still have them he could have given the weapons to terrorists. Just because he was a secular dictator doesn’t mean he would not work with terrorists. He also became more religious later in life, as his last words were something along the lines of “Allah is great”.

It wasn’t only the Bush administration who believed that he had WMD’s, it was the Clintons and Al Gore and Lieberman and most of the leaders of the Democratic party along with many foreign intelligence services. They just left GWB holding the bag when the weapons weren’t found and popular opinion on the war went south.

That Saddam had WMD’s at one time is a fact. He didn’t use them because elder Bush threatened to turn Iraq into a “glass parking lot”.

If Saddam was complying with UN sanctions then why did Clinton bomb Baghdad in the 90′s. Sadam barely complied with anything, and would continually deny inspectors access to various sites.

America had every right to invade Iraq, because Saddam lost the gulf war and then refused to comply with the conditions of surrender.

So maybe Saddam did or didn’t still have WMD’s, and maybe if we had known that Bush would have never invaded. However, I do object to this trend of “liberal history”, were the facts are custom ordered to support a certain fashionable ideology.

Pastor Mark and Bill Stoke

On the subject about Saddams chemical weapons. You said they could have an extremely long shelf life. Sadly I think you fail to appreciate that the facts you jst relayed to the other readers were all to apparent in those weapons. His weapons were more dangerous to his own troops as they were stored improperly, and he did not have enough protective equipment for them to use as well. That or the decay of the chemicals over time with improper storage would have made them to dangerous to even handle or useless and just a bluff card.

Also he dismantled his weapons facilities for chemical weapons (verified by the UN), though as we discovered he retained the missile constructing facilities and some stores of poorly maintained Russian chemical weapons left over from Cold War stockpiles, these were mostly harmless as their shelf life had long expired due to improper storage.

Cup of Wrath:

I would be surprised if he gave some of his most valuable assets to small terrorist groups. They were what was keeping him a force to be reckoned with in the local area. The missiles were Scuds bought from the Soviet Union.

As for having WMDs at one time, maybe. He had chemical weapons, SCUD missiles. If you combined those you get a volatile mix. He never did however. He had the ability to but he never did.

The Cinton administration had a particular affinity for bombing people. Firing cruise missiles was almost his foreign policy. He blew up a soap factory killing dozens of innocent people! He thought it was a weapons factory! Then his indiscriminate bombing in the former Yugoslavia definately produced results! You tell me why he bombed Baghdad and killed the very people he was professing to help!

He may not have kept all of his end of the bargain but in no way can you justify the loss of innocent lives in the bombings, and subsequent war.

1 The reference for the book I referred to is ‘The lies of George W Bush:Mastering the politics of deception’,David Acorn,Crown Publishers,New York,New York,2003.You really should read this fascinating,fact-packed book.

2 On the Council on Foreign Relations,I have learnt from experience to check on the funding of these right- wing sounding ‘independent’ think tanks.With their right wing backers hidden behind a maze of fronts and trusts,it often is all too easy to shield their ideological leanings.

Bill,would you kindly indicate the identities and ideological leanings of the largest donors to this think tank?

3 Bill, I asked earlier whether what you are saying is that Colonel North was right,and indeed justified,in lying on oath because he felt it was the right thing for him to do.Please clarify.

4 Bill,I am certainly not obligated to blindly support Zionist,aggressively expansionist,militaristic Israel.

In the first place, Israel is no Christian country,as more than 90% of the population do not profess or practice Christianity.The rallying cry for its creation in 1948 was not the Bible, but the Torah.There is a difference,I believe,between the two.

While not willing to be drawn into any long debate on millennialism, or replacement theology, I simply note that the Church as it exists today,is not historical Israel,that it has never been historical Israel,and will never be historical Israel.

5 Be real,Bill,it has clearly been shown that the men who flew planes into Americam buildings had no connection,financial,ideological,logistical or military,to Iraq.Please Google,as I said earlier ‘Bush and weapons of mass destruction’ and you will read all the evidence.Almost all were Saudi citizens,linked to Al Qaeda.They clearly had no link to the secularist,modernist government of Saddam Hussein. Saddam indeed loathed extreme Islam of the type professed by Al Qaeda.You really have no need of calling a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

6 Bill,do you mean all that military hardware was amassed because of the type of chemical weapons used at Flanders in WW 1? You mean Iraq was attacked because of the type of weapons used by the USA in Vietnam 40 years ago (agent orange),whose effects are still visible in that country today?You mean Iraq was attacked because of the type of gas that is today in the possession of not less than 2 dozen countries?!Please don’t stretch your credibility.

7 Make no mistake.I am no fan of Saddam.He was in the words of President Fidel Castro ‘cruel even to his own people’.He no doubt was a tyrant.But,the monarchies of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia are not any less tyrannical than Saddam was. Don’t see any ‘democracy’ in these states.The important thing to the US is that they are friendly countries-decode: they allow or encourage American exploitation of their resources to the detriment of their citizens,blindly support US foreign policy etc.In short,they are US puppets.

By the way both Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were once darlings of the US.They were both trained,financed and armed by the US,but fell out with their master when they began to be independent minded,pursuing their own visions of the world.

8 Certainly, the USA was built on Christian values,but I would not call the USA today a ‘Christian’ country’.Its cultural values,public morality,foreign policy hardly reflect Christian values.

9 Even with the most sophisticated military on earth,your present President is intelligent enough to realize that he cannot afford to open up a third front by say invading Iran,when about one quarter of the US Armed forces are presently tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq.There is a limit to the reach of even the most sophisticated army in a unipolar world.

And,yes,the USA has grabbed the resources of Iraq.The overriding consideration was to get control of the supply,which the USA has done.And then the benefits of Iraqi oil money have not largely flowed to the Iraqi citizens since the invasion.It has largely flowed into the hands of officials close to the corrupt,puppet Iraqi ‘government’,as well as an army of US contractors,for example the one of which Dick Cheney was the head.

10 Pastor Mark,you certainly had no reason to laugh out loud.What Bill was talking about was theoretical chemistry.Matthew was talking about the real condition of the chemical agents found by the inspectors.

I will continue.Need to go and earn some ‘capitalist’ income now(joke)- will conclude on return from work.

May God bless you all,brethren.

Tunji

Pastor Mark

1 A quick note.I did not say definitively that the CFR is a right wing organization,but suggested that it probably could be,and asked Mr Stoke for clarification.

2 General Noriega just flashed into my mind.Like Saddam and Osama,General Noriega is another of the former ‘good boys’ of America.This really sad character indeed was an agent of the CIA(this is well documented),while heading the Panamanian intelligence and armed forces!But when he started to think and dream above the station expected of him by seeking to have Panama control the Suez Canal, he was violently reminded of the status expected oh him.He will have a long time to ruminate on American ‘democracy’ from inside an American jail.

Tunji

I will comment in full this weekend, I find myself busier than normal.

Until then God Bless,

Bill

Billstoke

1 I do find your comments on wmd interesting.I do not think the fact that Saddam possessed mustard and similar lower level (relative to say an atomic or neutron bomb) weapons is being disputed. Such chemical weapons had been put to use as early as WW1 by Germany,Britain etc.The USA has shown itself willing to freely deploy chemical weapons over time.

The real question is this: Was the possession of these weapons,also in the possession of at least 2 other countries at at that time,the reason for the massive arms deployment and attack on Iraq?

Perhaps the Soviet Union should have,in that case,attacked the USA in a bipolar Cold War world over the ruinous use of agent orange and similar chemical weapons in Vietnam,don’t you think?

And do recall the USA disinformation put out that suggested that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.Uranium is not what you use to make mustard gas,but an atomic bomb.

By the way,which country did Iraq most likely buy mustard gas from?You guessed right,the USA.And which country is the greatest possessor of wmd today.Once again you guessed right- the USA.

2 On the UN all I need say is that if Nigeria,Poland,South Africa etc adopted an attitude to world affairs similar to that you now hail the US for adopting under Presidents Reagan and Bush Jnr,I am convinced that life for most inhabitants of the world would be nasty,brutish and short,a state of complete anarchy.

There is the need for a forum to discuss,debate,air grievances.The dramatic comments of President Gaddafi notwithstanding,the UN remains today the place where it is most likely consensus on world affairs may be achieved.This is inspite of the quite arbitrary use for example of US veto to shield Israel form sanction and criticism.There may be need for reform of the UN,but there definitely is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Tunji

Naivety. The American creation. (As obviously I must be sticking to my anti-American bias yes?) Rest assured Mr. Stokes I generally do like Americans. Their government and its corrupt policies are another matter. Do I hold the common layman responsible? No as they have as much influence over those decisions as I.

Also as to your mention on WMDs well that still comes to terms as to what right the US has to be deploring a country that owns a lesser extent of its own WMD stockpiles has to be invading it. Since then by the US’s own admission it has the largest stockpile of WMDs in the world which it hasn’t hesitated to use against unarmed civilians might I add. For some examples all you need to do is examine the various wars your country has waged.

As for me being a young idealist. I may be young but i do have the troubles of the everyday world breathing down my neck. Job to keep up with inspite of school. I also donate the money I don;t need to my sponsor child which is a great thing for anyone to do and I highly recommend it. So to say I live an easy life is great for you to say, not for you to prove.

The UN is much better for a multipolar world. (A reality the US should open its eyes to.) Than one “super power” which claims to be the extreme law giver while openly allowing corruption and taking on bribery and subversion at its highest level? I don’t think so. Its time America woke up and realized its no longer the biggest kid on the block.

Bill
Calling your President an ‘idiot’ is quite out of line,don’t you think?
tunji

Bill Stoke

I am not sure what you would like me to be answering.

Secondly I am not kidding myself. Honestly I think you should get off your highorse about America being the worlds only super power. I can hear the Russians laughing along with the Iranians. Does the 2008 Georgia war come to mind? How about when you backed down to Russian political pressure about the missile shield? Iran certainly isn’t cringing under stiff sanctions or having its wishes impeded upon in any way. Even the Taliban seem to be alive and kicking. Maybe Sept 11 wasn’t enough of a wake up call? But all these other events should at least tip you off to the multipolar balance in the world. One which does not have the US, or any other country on top.

Aplogies about the name.

Billstoke

You assign to the head of a sovereign,independent state the role of water boy,and say a member of the UN should not have been allowed into the US to address the UN.And you indeed are referring to a state that is now one of the ‘good boys’ of the West,having agreed to give up its nuclear ambitions.US companies have been among the multitude of companies that have benefited from this rapprochement.This is the kind of crass arrogance that leads to world wars, Mr Stoke.

You seem to forget that it is the sense of injustices meted out to their peoples that led to the 9/11 and similar attacks-this is not to condone the attack,but to simply point out what leads to such things.The truth is that the world is in grave danger when states take unilateral action,outside the purview of the comity of nations.

And yes,the world is still unipolar.With the breakup of the Soviet Union,the balance of world power shifted significantly.It is one thing to want to play the world policeman,the reality is that policing the world when you are the single,dominant power becomes just that little bit more difficult. In the Cold War era,there was an aggregation of states into 2 poles.A strategic attack by one bloc on the other would almost certainly have led to a mass retaliatory attack by the other side.Things have changed somewhat in the post Cold War era,I think.

Tunji

My last words on this subject are; Amen Pastor Mark and may the Grace and Love of God be with all of you!

Hi All,

This was out on the AP about an hour ago. I think unbelievable. He was nominated two weeks into his presidency, Alfred Nobel is turning in his grave!

OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan woman’s rights activist.

The Nobel committee praised Obama’s creation of “a new climate in international politics” and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama’s predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

He added that the committee endorsed “Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”

President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.

The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a “kick in the leg” to the Bush administration’s hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Five years later, the committee honored Bush’s adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year’s prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

“The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it’s given too someone … who has the power to contribute to peace,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.

Nominators include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.

“We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty,” the foundation said.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel’s death.

The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel’s guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

___

Associated Press Writer Ian MacDougall contributed to this report.

Bill Stoke.

I find myself agreeing with both you and Mark on this issue with Obamas Peace Prize.

This is ridiculous!! The man hasn’t done anything worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize! The man has not done anything deserving of this prestigious award! I am personally outraged! All he is becoming is a symbol! An underserving symbol for such an award as this!

To give this to him is both completely outrageous and ridiculous!

Mark,
I just wanted to tell you that I have enjoyed reading the posts on your Honest Debate blog, and look forward to following the conversations on here.
I do find it interesting that in the blogs I have read that mention world powers China is never mentioned. This is a country that has the largest army in the world and with all the outsourcing of American manufacturing facilities, China has become a huge economic macine, and to a degree does own us in the extent of american debt they financed as well as the goods that Americans buy every day that are made in China. DeWitt, Nebraska is a case in point that on a local economy that has been set back with the factory that was started there that made Vicegrip tools and was sold off and eventually moved to China leaving the local people that had made a quality product for many years without jobs.

Keep up the great work on the blog.
Thanks,
Kim

China has nuclear weapons as well. So maybe the plot of the popular video game series of Fallout isn’t so farfetched after all. (Nuclear war between US and China.) Seems like a lose lose situation here.

On the bright side any surviving scientists in the US would get to see what a nuclear winter looked like…

Reverend Mark

I was about to curse work,till I remembered that it is God Himself who commanded that man must work- till the Garden,he who does not work shall not eat,he who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel, etc.I came back to meet a mountain of work!

Mr Crook’s article in the Financial Times was meant to encourage a re-examination of the positions we hold onto,including the some of the positions held onto on this blog:

1 I note that the writer is probably not a ‘Christian’ writer.Like the vast majority of Western Europeans,I think I can safely and reasonably assume that he knows the name of his Church Pastor,attends services once in a while,and fills ‘Christian’ in the space on official forms that he needs to fills,but that Jesus means little more than that to him.In any event,he did not hinge his article on a Christian ideological standpoint.

2 He has rebukes for both the left and the right,with probably a few more harsh words for the right.

3 I do agree with him that what is happening is an attempt by right and left to delegitimize the other,to push each other out of the political space.This is the extremism and polarization of American politics he is talking about.

4 If I may draw on my experience in the corporate world,polarization of this type, and to this extent, usually occurs when transformational leaders enter the saddle of leadership.They try to bring about sweeping ,fundamental changes,not only to the policies and processes underlying how the corporation operates,but indeed try to redefine the vision,mission and ideology underlying the enterprise’s existence.Now,you will either like the (usually charismatic) new leader,or you will dislike him intently.You are unlikely to sit on the fence.

I think something very similar is happening in America today.PO is attempting a fundamental redefinition of the political space.Some love him to pieces.Others hate him with a passion.

5 Yes I agree that the rightist political space is by now encouraging political murder,and that it is chillingly similar to the environment preceding the murder of Rabin.Quizzes about why PO should be killled are posted on the internet,he is disparagingly referred to by some on the right as ‘The Obama’,similar to the Latin American President that some call ‘The Indian’,loaded guns are borne in a clearly threating manner within a hundred metres of the President etc.The President of the United States is called a traitor.And what do you do to a war-time traitor,especially a CIC…you guessed right.

This is the kind of environment where sooner or later one zealot will feel he is doing the country a world of good by shooting the President.In Israel the zealot was a seminary student who was convinced he was doing God’s will by shooting Rabin.Remind me of Jesus’ prediction that one day people would kill Christians,and feel they were doing God’s will.

6 This rage is squeezing out the middle political space,the more moderate elements in the polity.As Mr Crook notes with only slight exaggeration ‘On substance,there is no discussion,.Opponents’ views are not worth examining:bad faith goes without saying’. He goes on,correctly in my viewpoint ‘To repeat,this is an attitude of the politically committed,not representative of the country as a whole.Indeed,most Americans’ disgust at the relentless anger and ill will helps to explain their disenchantment with politics’.

7 The extremes do not realize that trade offs are essential in a multi racial,multi cultural,multi faith society.Perhaps,a return to the more consensual middle is what America needs today.

Tunji

Oh and if Tunji posts anytime soon I would like you to email me at:
ewe-thanasia11@hotmail.com

I have some questions for you.

It could be a calculated move. I’m sure alot of liberals would like to see Fox discredited.

Bill

You tautologically use one definition to affirm the other definition.Not surprisingly, you arrive at the same conclusion- PO is simply guilty of betrayal of trust,and nothing more. Certainly,and by definition,political opponents will feel that the other party in power HAS betrayed the trust of the other,by not pursuing the policies and plans espoused by the other.You indeed are stating the obvious.

It is clear that it is in the other definition of treason ie someone acting against the interests of his own people or country,that this term has commonly been used on this and other right wing blogs.In the context of PO’s perceived inaction in Afghanistan,the suggestion is that he is deliberately acting against US interests,is acting in concert with foreign forces or countries against US interests,and that he is unfit to lead the US in peace time or wartime.This much was said by Mr Cheney a few days ago (interestingly Mr Cheney and his daughters are reticent about the greed of their family and the political bungling and lies that led to US involvement in Iraq).

Tunji

Reverend Carlton

1 I see that that you have clarified that in relation to the polarization of US society,what you said was with reference to ‘these times’,and not ‘this time’.

2 With regards to the shenanigans of Halliburton (you named the company),you have not denied that massive reaping off of the US taxpayer took place.

As to Mr Cheney,the device of blind trust is one used worldwide to shield elected officials from charges of conflict of interest. It is just that ,a device.The underlying reality often differs from the legal device’s exterior.

Your assumption that the award of the contract to this company and the subsequent stealing and corruption that followed had nothing to do with Mr Cheney,seems rather a simplistic assumption in the world of real politic,if I may say so.And then,those shares held in the trust have now reverted to the ownership of the former Vice President,with increased value.And you say he hasn’t benefited from the company’s scams ?

3 I do not accept the suggestion that I have uncritically accepted the views of the leftist media,while ignoring those on the right- my supposed bias.

If you would read Mr Crook’s article again- and I broadly endorse its contents- he has harsh criticisms for both left and right,with probably more criticism for the right.
And by the way, these are the views of a veteran journalist,writing for a conservative business and financial publication.What could be more conservative than the Financial Times of London?

4 I didn’t say that you called PO a traitor-you certainly haven’t done so.What I did say was that PO has been called a traitor on this and other rightist blogs-and that is a fact.

5 Your comment on the supposed comparison to Jesus is interesting.I certainly did not compare the 2 based on the content of their visions.One is talking of hope and change here on earth.The other brought a message of salvation in the hereafter,as well as fellowship with and faith in the Creator while in this world.

The point you seem to miss is that in a setting of new visions,possibilities etc, ‘experience’ often acts like a millstone around the neck.The past events and traditions are simply incapable of pointing the way to the future.

The Jews in Jesus’ time relied on the traditional worship,the traditions of the elders,as epitomized by the Ultra-orthodox Rabbis and Pharisees.Jesus had some choice words for these personages,I recall-hypocrites,whitewashed sepulchers etc.

Recall also the battle between David and Goliath.King Saul put the old traditional armor on David.Rightly David rejected it as, facing the huge well trained warrior,he had no chance with the heavy armor .Goliath also was depending on the old in the new setting.He derisively laughed at the ‘boy’,calling him a dog,wondering aloud how the teenager could possibly come against him.Well,the pebble triumphed over armor,as you know.David’s pebble and sling were entirely unknown war weapons in the changed setting.That is why they triumphed- no one gave them a chance.

In continuously hammering on PO’s ‘inexperience’,the right misses the point.I believe that the USA is at a turning point in its history. Cold War relics like Bush Jnr and Cheney certainly have nothing new to offer the country.

6 You frankly admit that you think the left is illegitimate.But then ,the extreme left considers you illegitimate,also.You do not seem to appreciate that in this kind of setting the only way the differences between American left and right could then sorted out is by resort to violence.Think about that.

7 As to not promoting violence,that is yet another interesting comment.If I show my children violence-soaked videos daily,assault my wife daily in their presence,resort to fisticuffs with any and all my neighbors,how can I then be surprised that they grow up to be gangsters and thugs.

How can people who call their President a traitor stand back innocently later on if someone decides to take them on their word and kill the traitor?How can people who post quizzes on why the President should be killed,later claim they had no hand in creating the environment that led to his death?Think about that.

Tunji

Matthew

Traveling in West Africa from tomorrow.But I will expectedly have email access throughout.
Cheers.

Tunji

Still writing from a foreign computer (sigh). Though the only comment I have to interject into this disscussion is that neo-Marxism is actually against authoritarianism. Also Alinsky was against Marxism and could be best described as a socialist or a libertarian socialist more likely considering his aversion to authority. So I fail to see how Mr. Alinksy’s teachings could make the US an authoritarian state.

Also personally I can understand why numerous people would want to kill Bush. There is no end of reasons why this might have happened and nearly did happen in one case (though it was more likely the man was trying to kill the Georgian president instead). Whether it was disgruntled soldiers family member or a radical Muslim I can see plenty of people who want him dead. PO on the other hand hasn’t done anything to warrant the malice against him that is being radiated by the right.

I’ve read much about the man now but never Rules for Radicals. It should be interesting. Though he might also be reffering to the anarchist idea of a vague federation.

Your fear about him being a narcissist is fairly unfounded. I have done work in psychology and he doesn’t display any prominent traits of blatant narcissism. My father who is also a professional in this field agrees with my assesment. He mostly plays of Martin Luther Kings speech style it would appear. Im not sure how much the writer knew about those traits either. I’d agree with his asessment of Oprah but just because a man is supported by a blatant narcissist does not make him a narcissist.

Personally looking in on the subject I can see why people would want Bush dead. I never said I did. So whats so chilling? They seem like fairly basic statements that simply highlight why he will probably go down as the most hated president in US history.

Just to get off topic for minute and spread a good word around there is an interesting article I found on atheism is dead:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/10/thank-god-for-wellgod-unlikely-case-of.html

I think you should all enjoy it.

Hi Matthew,

Long time no see, been too busy I guess!

Just before the shootings Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled “allah akbar”. There is currently an investigation in progress that is looking in to his affiliation with the mosque that was associated with the 9-11 cowards. here is a link to the story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting

Plain and simple Matthew this was a terrorist attack, nothing more, nothing less!

Your interpretation leaves much to be desired I find. For one thing it pressuposes you know the truth 1) about Obama and his being a narcissist (which your lack of knowledge about the subject and those fairly poor articles from American thinker do not help me believe otherwise) 2) you think that despite the paltry information about this incident you (and this article) claim to have good knowledge (though even the writer admits hes profiling and I also love his use of Islamist despite no evidence of that.) Combined with the fact that he may have yelled Allahu Ackbar! To say that he was harrased and under stress would be a better picture than to paint him as a “fifth column extremist”.

Reverend Carlton

If the Major had screamed ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ and not ‘Allah is great’,as he shot fellow Americans,his actions would not have been any less terroristic.My principled stand is to against ALL acts of religious,political,or ideological terrorism.

By the way,how democratic do you think the exclusion of the Muslim Arab Israelis from the armed forces is,which you recommend for the US ? It reminds me of the US internment of persons of Japanese origin (US citizens) in camps for most of WW 2.

As to speaking the truth about PO,the real question here is not the definition ‘truth’ (‘truth’ will defer depending on the person or situation at hand), but inciting people to kill a sitting President.The parallels between right wing Israel and the atmosphere they incited before their Prime Minister was shot,and right wing America,and the atmosphere they are now creating around PO is chillingly close.

Tunji

To me the fact that Obama is dithering is not ideal, but its better that he arrives at a careful decision and stands by it, than he makes a quick one and then is hesitant about it later. I’m the same way.

The ambassador can say whatever he wants, and he is certainly is in a position to know something, but there is only one person who’s opinion I weigh heavily. General Petraeus was right about Iraq and I think Petraeus should be Obama’s top advisor on Afghanistan, and the course forward. He is a scholar and a hero in my book.

As for Afghanistan. It fairly like Vietnam except that it would be better if the US pulled out now. Though it really shows opinion is divided.

But I rest with the statement that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

Pastor Mark,
Of course the dithering is a bad thing, it shows weakness and could cost lives, but isn’t arriving at a correct and careful decision, and one that he is willing to see through, the lesser of the two evils? I know with something as complex as Afghanistan there is whole process of study and analysis that has to be done, and can only be rushed by so much.

Matthew,
Some thoughts on Vietnam: We had won Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was a failure, the people were turning on the Vietcong, and the North Vietnamese army was being decimated. However, what happened is that some very ignorant and naive people sabotaged the war effort, and their accomplices in the media spread propaganda that we were the bad guys and the war was lost. This loss of support emboldened the NVA, because they knew if they kept fighting we would leave.

American support fails, we end up leaving, Saigon falls, and the communists butcher over a million people, which vindicated every American life that was lost over there. You didn’t hear one peep out of Jane Fonda’s stupid ignorant mouth about the massacre that happened when we left.

Not trying to change the subject here, but Vietnam has become synonymous with a bad war. As horrible as war is, Vietnam was a holy war if there ever was one, and evil happened to triumph over good, because of what was going on over here, not there.

Reverend Carlton

1 I certainly did not suggest or say that you,personally,are inciting persons to kill PO.
What I did say is that persons on this and other media,especially on the right, are using language that is tantamount to incitement to kill.

2 As to whether the left (also) wanted Bush Jnr dead,my principled stand is against all forms and acts of political terrorism and assassination. A bullet to the head remains what it is-a bullet to the head-whether fired by a leftist or a rightist.

3 It is amazing that when it suits the right there is talk of the ‘wisdom’ of actions,not the pursuit or defence of democratic or civil rights.
You talk about Israeli Arabs enjoying full civil rights in one breath,and in another breath hail the decision to exclude them from the military.You clearly must be unaware of such harassments these Israeli Arabs still face,such as the illegal demolitions of their Jerusalem houses.And then,some would refer to these Knesset Arab folks as no more than the equivalent of ‘house niggers’-that is as contrasted to ‘farm’ niggers.

4 What really is absurd is that you do not see anything wrong in either the exclusion of Israeli Arabs from the military,or the internment of persons carrying the US passport of Japanese origin during WW2.Incidentally,it just happens that Americans of German descent were not interned-perhaps because they were white men,not strange looking people from the Far East-no offense meant to that proud nation or its people,Japan.

Cupofwrath

1 I agree with you that PO needs to carefully balance all the considerations.It is essential that a decision that the US will see through is announced.
But,he should do so soon – he’s taking quite some time.

Reverend Carlton

As to the purported ‘innate’ tendency for Islam to engage in acts of destruction and terror,please read history.The Crusades or the Inquisition,objectively considered,were indeed acts of terror against large sections of their own ‘Christian’ populations,as well as large numbers of other persons.

Reverend Carlton

1 It is disturbing that you brush aside what I actually say and continue to insist that I said what you think I said.
I have clearly said that you,Reverend,have not personally used language that may be construed to be incitement to kill.But other persons have called a sitting President a traitor on this blog.And,what is to be done to a traitor,especially one who is CIC…

2 And I am quite aware of the difference between the Gaza Strip or West Bank,and East or West Jerusalem.Please check the detail,before you tar me with the generalist brush.

3 Frankly,this is the first time I will hear President Roosevelt referred to as a socialist-similar to your continued reference to PO as socialist.It does seem that anyone that does not exactly fit into your understanding of what a ‘good’ capitalist is,is ‘socialist’.

Tunji

Reverend Carlton

I’m not a great fan of US style informality. In most of Nigeria,we always address older persons,men of the cloth,or people of high standing in society,formally.Please permit me to continue to address you in the way I was brought up to do.

I did Google ‘Roosevelt the socialist’ and found out that other persons consider this late President to have been socialist.I am simply amazed!

In the matter of PO’s ‘treason’ the problem is that you are juxtaposing fact and fiction.If really those who say he is a traitor are serious about the matter,then they should take up the matter with the Senate/House and get him impeached,and jailed.
The fact is that the extreme left is taking their noises against a President they dislike to ridiculous extent.

Tunji

Reverend Carlton

1 Correction- Instead of ‘extreme right’ I said ‘extreme left’, in my last post.

Somecandor

1 Since treason is an impeachable political offence,and since it is a crime not a civil offence,well-defined in the criminal code,and since treason constitutes an impeachable offence,I don’t think you have a problem.

I am assuming you are a US citizen.You shouldn’t simply sound off on the net,you need to report PO to the US Police,since we here are talking of a crime.Also,you must take up the matter with your Congressman in order that impeachment proceedings commence immediately.Have you forgotten Watergate,or the impeachment of President Nixon?

2 You must note that your civil rights end where the civil rights of your neighbor begins.The First Amendment does not enable or in any way empower you to tell lies,to slander the name and reputation of a fellow citizen,or to insult a fellow citizen whose politics is different from your own.

3 As to my use of dated references,do note that historical patterns(not the replication of events exactly) tend to reoccur over time.

If the question is whether a particular religion seems to encourage mindless violence,going back to check the comparative historical record of the 2 faiths is not out of line.The FACT is that both Islam and Christianity have historically shown violent tendencies-as manipulated by,and as understood by men.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Muslims alive today do not see eye to eye with men who fly planes into buildings,or those who shoot fellow soldiers.

Tunji

Somecandor

1 In addition to declaring war on Muslims,you should also consider immediately declaring war on the National Rifle Association and the rest of the gun lobby that continues to encourage gun proliferation in the USA.Afterall,it is because groups such as NRA promote liberal gun ownership that teenagers can easily obtain guns and casually walk into their schools,and kill their classmates.Many dozens have so far been killed in your country from this cause.

This is really interesting.While PO’s Cairo speech spells out a new detente with the Arab and Muslim world,Mr Stoke is busy declaring war on Islam.

2 The fact that people choose not to exercise a right does not mean that the rights are not present on the statute books.Libel and slander remain punishable offenses on USA statute books,I believe.

3 It is obvious from my comments thus far that I think it is not right to disallow US Moslems from serving in the US military.

Tunji

Reverend Carlton
1 You seem to assume,wrongly,that I am ignorant of historical or contemporary Islam.

2 Your characterization of the Cairo Declaration as a proclamation of weakness is not far from Bushite unilateralism.It is such desire for ‘strength’ and dominion that led Aryans to seek,in a Darwinian fashion,to dominate Europe and indeed the world.
You forget that other peoples around the world might,just like you,seek to project unilateralist domination against other peoples and races.This is the kind of thinking that leads to World Wars.

Tunji

Somecandor
Reverend Carlton

1 A ‘crime’ has been committed,to your knowledge.I ask you to do your civic duty and report the man who committed the offence to the Police,and you say that is laughable.No,it really is your assertion that is laughable.
Also,you should go further and collect a signed public petition calling for his immediate impeachment.
The real point is that you do not do so because the underlying reason for your stand is the political hatred you have for this President.

2 You do not appreciate that in the world of today with divergent peoples and cultures,the only authentic way of life is not the American one.Severe and quite unnecessary offence is caused when we disregard how foreigners live and think.This is the kind of civility,cross-cultural accommodation and mutual respect the world needs today.

3 I need only say,once again that projecting the kind of ‘strength’ that you desire in the world only leads to antagonism,an arms race,and war.Have you forgotten so quickly the arms race during the Cold War.We had a potential situation of mutually-assured self-destruction.

4 Interestingly,you do not seem to consider as terrorism the (American) Oklahoma Bomber,who because he had some perceived differences with the US Federal Government,felt the way to get ‘justice’ was to bomb Federal buildings.Also,you do not seem to consider that high school kids who slaughter their classmates are sowing fear and terror in the community and country.
But,you consider that a white Muslim convert to Islam who shoots fellow soldiers and citizens is a terrorist.I think this is quite revealing about your underlying ideological motivation.
Just as an aside I was in England some time back.On the train I distinctly felt the coldness and fear of several commuters,due to the ‘yob’ phenomenon.Asking a young man in London nowadays,it seems,to have regard for his fellow commuter might earn you a knife in the chest!

5 If as you suggest the intelligence services knew of the Fort Hood attack before it occurred,then someone should pay for the damage and loss of lives.But,do back the assertion up with process.

6 You assume that I know little or nothing of Islam.Wrong.I do possess a Masters degree in Theological Studies.One major course we did was Comparative Religion,including the study of the Koran.
Mr Stoke,we bring to our faiths some of our culture and individual personalities.A pugnacious,bully boy might for example read in the Bible ‘Compel them to come in’.He might then take this as a call for Crusade to forcibly convert non-Christians.Persons watching him might then reach the conclusion that ‘Christianity’ is a war-like faith.But,would that conclusion be correct?

Tunji

Somecandor:

Maybe you should answer the allegations Tunji made about Timothy and school shooters, as he does raise an interesting point. Well we’re at it how about abortion clinic bombers?

As for no Jihad in the Bible? Come on! What Samson did to the Philistines would be a terrorist attack! The ancient Iraelites slaughtered thousands! All in God’s name! Indeed if it were to turn out that Islam was right and Christianity wrong (I don’t think it is so don’t imply so later ) Then we would most likely see Christianity and Judaism as violent! (Though mind you this is using todays standards and not recognizing the cultures of the time or what their values are compared to ours). You forget as well the much of the Koran also contains alot of the OT and NT.

Also I’ll answer your three questions myself as I’m sure I’d be asked them:

1 and 2: He has some good qualities and advocates some ideas I can agree with. I don’t agree with everything he does (he is only a man how could I?) so supporting abortion or not is a fairly moot question. I can ask how you justify the excessive use of force by the American military against Iraq and be a Christian. For instance we still demonize Chamberlin for appeasing Hitler and forget that his career aside from that was very sucesful and his push for infastructure was what allowed them to build their army in order to go to war in the first place.

3. My country (Canada) already has a mixed economic model (combining socialism and capitalism) so I can enjoy my ideas fairly freely while advocating a push for more. Its not to hard since the majority of the world has the model.

i have a comment/question regarding a statement you made about the appointed feasts of the jews. i went to lev. 23 where it says that these are god’s appointed feast days. later in ex. 31:13, god tells the people of israel that they are to keep his days…for those days are to be a sign to know that he is god. he spoke to israel….but it does not say that these are jewish holy days…it plainly says that these are god’s chosen feast days.
so….why don’t we recognize these days.
thanks.

mark,

thanks for taking time to respond…if nothing else becomes of an honest debate…it gives me reason to keep studying. ok…. here we go.

in my reading of rom. 14. 1-6… in context…paul is speaking about not judging a person for his eating habits (being a vegetarian) and about what days a person chooses to fast. i see nothing about days of worship.

as for col. 2…i feel it is one of the most misused and misunderstood chapters in the bible. i’ve spent many hours studying this chapter…and i’m looking forward to see what you think about my conclusions, the first important thing i noticed was exactly what you mentioned in your last blog to me….who was writing this…and to whom was it written. paul wrote to the collosians…who were not only were they keeping the sabbaths…they were also keeping the old testament clean and unclean laws. paul told them in vs. 8 to not be deceived by philosophies of men…vain deceit… tradtions of men…or rudiments of the world. in vs. 16…paul is writing to sabbath keeping people… telling them to not let any man judge them for their holy days. vs. 17 goes on to indicate that these feast days are a shadow of things to come……………i.e….the feast of tabernacles.

nowhere in col. 2 do i see where the holy days or “law” is done away with. in vs. 14 it speaks of ordinances…which i believe paul was initially referring to in vs. 8. read on in vs. 20-22 where these ordinaces are broadly defined. vs. 14 says that these ordinances were against us. so….if it is the law that was nailed to the cross in vs. 14…then the law was against us. however … 1john 5:3 states that the commandments are not grievous…and they are the love of god. when i read it this way…it makes me see things differently….how about you?

different strokes

I think Galatians 2:15-21 Says a lot about how the law applies to jews and gentiles. Just my 2 cents.

15″We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17″If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[d]

since cup of wrath has made the judgement (i would ask that he read rom. 14:13 again…he must have missed that verse the first time) that i should wind down our debate…i would like to make just a couple of comments/ remarks before i do so.

rom 14:
mentions “eating” in vss. 2, 3, 6, 17, 20, 21, 23.
mentions days of worship……?
seriously.

we can debate the issue of the law forever… i certainly will hold to my beliefs and i’m sure you will do the same. i can “see” your side of the argument…however…i don’t accept it. again i ask you why so many argue so diligently against keeping the law when 1 john 5: 3 says that the love of god is the keeping of the commandments… for they are not grievious. (there is some very stong language in 1 john about the commandments.) the argument boils down to the fact that you feel the “law” was done away with when the new covenant was established. i don’t see it that way. read heb. 8-10. yes… laws were abolished…but they had to do with the shedding of blood and sacrificial ceremonies… and those laws were only a shadow of things to come and were no longer needed after christ’s ultimate sacrifice. i don’t see that his sacrifice had anything to do with the commandments.

one last thought before i wind down. you say that the sabbath was a a unique and specific covenant made only with israel…and therefore we are not under that covenant. am i correct? if that is true…then why would the new covenant apply to us? heb. 8:8,10 says that god will make a new covenant with israel and judah. isn’t that a unique and specific covenant also?

wound down