thereselittleflower Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.68 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 Ezekiel 38 is about a war still future to us. That's my point. Persia (Iran) is prophesied to attack Israel as part of a coalition of nations and Persia along with those nations, according to Ezekiel 39 will be supernaturally defeated by God. I understand this is what you claim. But I am asking how this claim is true - where is your evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Yes, but the problem is that you can't seem to really condemn the goal of destroying Israel. That doesn't seem to really figure into your "Christianity." The only thing you can condemn is Israel's response, not the genocide that causes Israel's response. I would also point out that the verses you quote have nothing to do with foreign policy. The revenge being condemned in the verses you cite have to do with personal revenge. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns a nation taking such measures in self-defense against an aggressor. By your logic ANY military response to aggression is "revenge." If the US was suddenly hit by missile strikes from Canada and we fired back, that would be, by your definition, revenge. If we follow your logic to its natural conclusions we would have to be pacifists and simply let another nation destroy us because to respond would "revenge." You are confusing revenge and retaliation. Responding militarily to military aggression does not qualify as "revenge." Israel sending nukes as a last response when it is no longer able to defend itself is not revenge. A revenge scenario would like this: Person A sues Person B and Person B loses the suit and then decides to sneak over to Person A's house and slit all four of the tires on their car and pour sugar down the gas tank. That's revenge. You completely twist and pervert Scripture to support your views and you are using the Bible to support your selective morality. What do I need to provide evidence for?? The Bible says Iran (Persia) will attack. What evidence do I need? The Bible's claims aren't good enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.68 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) shilo So we are absolutely, 100% positively clear - I condemn the destruction of the country Israel. I condemn the destruction of all nations and people. Edited July 17, 2015 by thereselittleflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.68 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) Shilo there is a difference between revenge and defense and the concept of a just war. Against a nuclear launch under MAD, there is no longer any defense for the defense that MAD provided has failed. Since MAD can no longer offer any defense in such a situation, a counter launch of nuclear weapons is not defensive, it cannot protect you. You equally become a destroyer of your destroyer for the sake of punishing them and for no other reason. That is revenge by definition. That is vengeance by definition. Retaliation is revenge / vengence by defintion re·tal·i·a·tion rəˌtalēˈāSH(ə)n/ noun the action of returning a military attack; counterattack. "the bombings are believed to be in retaliation for the trial of 15 suspects" synonyms: revenge, vengeance, reprisal, retribution, requital, recrimination,repayment; More the action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge. Retaliating for the sake of retaliating is simply, clearly revenge. There is no moral right in destroying one's destroyer. Nothing good can come of it. Only evil and suffering. As christians what does Christ say to do? Matthew 5:39-43 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. Edited July 17, 2015 by thereselittleflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.68 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 What do I need to provide evidence for?? The Bible says Iran (Persia) will attack. What evidence do I need? The Bible's claims aren't good enough for you? Are you saying there is no proof for your interpretation of this scripture? It just means what you say because you say so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 What do I need to provide evidence for?? The Bible says Iran (Persia) will attack. What evidence do I need? The Bible's claims aren't good enough for you? Are you saying there is no proof for your interpretation of this scripture? It just means what you say because you say so? Did you read the scripture therese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The only reason you are condemning the destruction of Israel now, is because you are forced into a corner. For the last two and a half weeks the ONLY thing you have condemned is Israel's defensive countermeasures. The destruction of Israel and the Arab world unified has been raised by myself and other people numerous times and you ignored it. When you get to the place where you are cornered on the issue before you are willing condemn it, I really doubt if you condemn it. Considering that you support your racist, anti-Zionist views with websites run by people who support Israel's destruction, it is important to consider that you are known by the company you keep. You don't seem to understand revenge. And you are misusing the definition of retaliation in that the Oxford Dictionary doesn't define retaliation as revenge. It cites it as a synonym. The difference between a definition of word and a synonym is that synonymous don't have the same definition, just the same connotation. That means that in certain contexts, a retaliation could be used synonymously or used in the same "spirit" as "revenge" even though they don't mean the same thing. You are trying redefine a key term and you don't have the right to do that. If we take your view that military retaliation is revenge and follow that up with the idea that Christians cannot support any act of revenge, then any military retaliation on our part in defense of our country is "revenge" and as such, Christians would have to condemn the Revolutionary war. We would have condemn the US' participation in WWII and in particular, our retaliation against Japan. Furthermore, you would have to condemn law enforcement for retaliating against violent criminals if they are engaged in a gun fight because the police retaliation is "revenge" according to your fallacious approach to retaliation/revenge. Justice could never be served against deserving criminals, because that would be revenge. You are trying to artificially broaden the definition of revenge in order to condemn Israel's use of nukes, and this has nothing do with how words are actually defined. To say that "retaliation for the sake of retaliation" is revenge is a nonsensical argument. Retaliation is ALWAYS for the sake of retaliation. We retaliated against Japan for the sake of retaliating against them because of the bombing of Japan. Retaliation doesn't occur for any other reason than to retaliated. When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were engaged in military retaliation, not revenge. War is a very nasty, dirty reality. There are no sanitary wars. If we take your approach to revenge then we would have to be pacifists and oppose any and all military responses to unprovoked aggression. So your definition of "revenge" and you moral approach to this issue precludes a nation from defending itself and it would also men that Christians should not support the military at all. Your use of Matt. 5:39-43 only applies to personal relationships. It doesn't apply to national defense or foreign policy. We as Christians are not called to be pacifists. There is nothing in the Bible that precludes or forbids military retaliation against another country and does not prohibit Christians from supporting those actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Proof of my interpretation??? Ezekiel 38:1-5 is makes it clear that the nations will gather to destroy Israel and verse 5 includes in the list of nations, the nation of Persia (Iran). It is very straightforward and plain. One does not need to do too much there in terms of understanding the passage. It plainly states that Persia will join a coalition of nations headed up by Gog and Magog. What exactly do I need to prove?? The passage says what it says.. There is no getting around the plain statement it makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted July 17, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.70 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2015 Shilo there is a difference between revenge and defense and the concept of a just war. Against a nuclear launch under MAD, there is no longer any defense for the defense that MAD provided has failed. Since MAD can no longer offer any defense in such a situation, a counter launch of nuclear weapons is not defensive, it cannot protect you. You equally become a destroyer of your destroyer for the sake of punishing them and for no other reason. That is revenge by definition. That is vengeance by definition. Retaliation is revenge / vengence by defintion re·tal·i·a·tion rəˌtalēˈāSH(ə)n/ noun the action of returning a military attack; counterattack. "the bombings are believed to be in retaliation for the trial of 15 suspects" synonyms: revenge, vengeance, reprisal, retribution, requital, recrimination,repayment; More the action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge. Retaliating for the sake of retaliating is simply, clearly revenge. There is no moral right in destroying one's destroyer. Nothing good can come of it. Only evil and suffering. As christians what does Christ say to do? Matthew 5:39-43 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. A nation which would attack another nation with a MAD system is a nation which is a murderous country with no morals or compassion for their own people. Think about it. If a leadership hates so completely, and does not care at all about their own people or their own lives but are consumed with hate, that is the only time a leader would attack a country with a dooms day device. The Palestinians hate Israel and the Jews so much that they have sworn to the death of all Jews. If the Palestinians hate the Jews so much that they would attack Israel in a fashion to kill all Jews, knowing that will set off the doomsday device and kill all Palestinians, their anger and morals are so corrupted that they have no respect for life or compassion. MAD is a device or plan which is designed to prevent being attacked and assumes that those who want to attack value their own peoples lives. If Israel has a MAD system, they have been under constant attack and have yet to use it. Israel values life. Not just theirs but even the lives of the Palestinians and other Arab/Muslim countries. MAD is a defense system and the only reason it would ever be used is if a very murderous corrupt people filled with hate who care nothing for the lives of anyone would attack. In that scenario, MAD is a defense system needed for the protection of the entire world against such a savage, barbaric, corrupt people. People so focused on killing that if the annihilate Israel, they would not stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The difference between Israel and the knuckle-draggers in the 23 Arab governments is that Israel's leaders would only use nukes as a final move. Israel has never used nuke and would never use them as long as conventional warfare is sufficient. The nukes serve as a deterrent, not from attack from a singular nation, but from a unified multi-national attack to the degree that Israel is over powered and can no longer defend themselves. The nuke release would the final blow from Israel to the Arab nations. And that is good, and right and appropriate. It is the correct response in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts