Guest idolsmasher Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Would you not defend your family if they were in danger from a burglar or mugger? But a burgular or mugger is trying to take what is not rightfully His. In this case Israel would be the burgular. Why is it that the Jews are the only ones expected to "love their enemies"? They aren't, Christians are too, those are Christ's words, the word of God. I was mainly responding to Dr. Luke saying our feelings don't matter at all. I think they do. Doesnt seem fair to allow the terrorists the freedom to murder whoever they want, and the Israelis are supposed to sit on their hands and just take it in the name of "love." Who should an Israeli love more? His children or his enemy? The whole conflict is caused by a lack of love in the first place and there has been massive amounts of a lack of love on both sides. It would be unrealistic to think Israel would all of a sudden fall in love with the Palestinians but they could do more than they are doing to make peace and a Palestinian homeland. Who should an Israeli love more? His children or his enemy? I guess that depends a lot on whether or not they truly are God's people. Christ gave His life for His enemies. Christ also said that "by their fruits ye shall know them." Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trubble Posted September 17, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 203 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/17/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/02/1989 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Yes they are Chirstian arn't able to kill people like war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dove2 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Christians have gone to war forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 But a burgular or mugger is trying to take what is not rightfully His. In this case Israel would be the burgular One thing I am unclear about: If no Jew lived beyond the pre-1967 borders, would the existance of the nation of Israel still constitute "burglary" in your opinion? The whole conflict is caused by a lack of love in the first place and there has been massive amounts of a lack of love on both sides. It would be unrealistic to think Israel would all of a sudden fall in love with the Palestinians but they could do more than they are doing to make peace and a Palestinian homeland. Here is what Israel gave the Palestinians as result of the Oslo peace accords: The Palestinians received legitimacy, land, security forces, arms, autonomy, control over the daily lives of almost all their people, and hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and gifts. And they got more: They got offers of up to 97 percent of all the land they were demanding; They got offers of an independent state of their own; They got offers of half of Jerusalem as a capital for their state; They got offers of the top of the Temple Mount on which stand their mosques. They got Oslo +. Does none of that count for anything? How come you do not chastise the Palestinians for kicking opportunity in the teeth every time? 1937, the Palestinians were offered three times what they are demanding today. The land offer was for a contiguous territory that would have been their nation. They turned it down. In 1948, they turned it down again. As before it was more land than what they are demanding today. In both cases, the Jews agreed to the arrangement. The Arabs have had every opportunity to take what they wanted, with the world's blessings. It is their fault that they do not take adavantage of what was made available to them. Who should an Israeli love more? His children or his enemy? I guess that depends a lot on whether or not they truly are God's people. Christ gave His life for His enemies. Christ also said that "by their fruits ye shall know them." The question was retorical. It is obvious to anyone else that an Israeli or anyone worth their salt is going to love their child more, than their enemy. So, an Israeli is expected to devalue the life of his child and love his enemy more than his child if he truly wants to follow God? That is absurd. No one is going to buy into that. I cannot believe that you would even suggest that the life of an Israeli Jewish child is worth less than the life of a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idolsmasher Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 If no Jew lived beyond the pre-1967 borders, would the existance of the nation of Israel still constitute "burglary" in your opinion? Probably, yes, but I would be more willing to live with it as I'm sure the Palestinians would too. Here is what Israel gave the Palestinians as result of the Oslo peace accords: Here's another look at it. Why the Palestinians Refused Barak's "Generous Offer" by Jeff Halper Since the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000, the notion has taken root that Israel "generously" offered 95 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians, as well as parts of East Jerusalem, only to have been answered with violence, with another Intifada. This has been used to "prove" that the Palestinians are not true "partners" for peace. Even the mainstream Israeli peace movement feels "betrayed" by the Palestinians and places the responsibility for their current suffering squarely at the Palestinian doorstep. All this is based, however, on inaccurate information and false assumptions. Inaccurate information: the figure of 95 percent (even 96 percent) was bandied about by Clinton; Israel never offered more than 88 percent. Still, one could argue, even 88 percent sounds extremely generous. After all, no one gets 100 percent in negotiations. That leads to the false assumption: that 88 percent of the territory equals 88 percent sovereignty, or that 95 percent of the territory equals 95 percent--even 100 percent--sovereignty. The issue of territory is important, especially territorial contiguity. But the crucial issue is one of control--not the 95 percent, but the significance of the other 5 percent (or 12 percent). It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 If no Jew lived beyond the pre-1967 borders, would the existance of the nation of Israel still constitute "burglary" in your opinion? Probably, yes, but I would be more willing to live with it as I'm sure the Palestinians would too. Why would you still be willing to consider it burglary? Also, what Halper fails to point out is that the Matrix of control would diminish once the terrorism would subside. The Israelis addressed the matrix of control, and explained why it would be necessary. Israel said years ago, that as the Palestinians proved that they were abandoning terrorism, that Israel would withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. They would dismantle the checkpoints, but they put the onus on Arafat to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. They gave him seven years to dismantle them. Arafat never lifted a finger. If Arafat had dismantled the terrorist infrastructure, abandoned terrroism as a means of achieving social and political agendas, and became a true statesman, if the Palestinian community taught their children to be musicians, philosopher, politicians, artists and poets instead of suicide bombers, they would have had their country by now. They would have had something to be proud of. By now Israel would have relinquished the matrix of control, and we would be talking about the sovereign nation of Palestine. People like Halper seem to imply that Israel does what it does in a vacuum. They do not. Israel does not take these measures because of some preceived racism that is assigned to them by their critics. Israel has been subjected to 55 years of terrorism. The terrorists have forced Israel to create the matrix of control. The contiguous issue was solved in 1937, but the Arabs living in Israel rejected it. They could have had three times more than what they are demanding today, if they had wanted it. QUOTEÂ I cannot believe that you would even suggest that the life of an Israeli Jewish child is worth less than the life of a terrorist. This was uncalled for, I never said anything of the sort. You are reading this into what I say or you are interpreting it in your own terms. Christ is the one who said to love your enemy. Take it up with Him! I asked you whether or not an Israeli should love his child more than his enemy, and you started your answer with "It depends a lot on whether they are truly God's people." From this, you seemed to infer that if Israelis want to follow God's pattern of love, then they should love their enemies more than their children. It appeared that you think that Israel should not retaliate when their children are attacked by terrorists. They need to "love" the terrorists by allowing them to murder with complete impunity and not seek any recourse against the deaths of their loved ones. It seems that you were saying that if I kill someone who is trying to kill me or my child, I am not following Christ. That is just how it came across. Perhaps you could elaborate more. I feel that you misapply the whole "love your enemies" concept with regard to this conflict. Nowhere in the Bible are commanded to "love" someone to the extent that we are willing to put ourselves and our families in mortal danger. The context of that passage is dealing with how you are to deal with individuals that you come in contact with in your daily life. "Pray for those who despitefully use you, bless those who curse you," and so on. There is no way that you can apply that to how one is to treat a terrorist who is a mortal threat to your family, and still maintain any sense of hermeneutic integrity with that passage. God expects us to protect our families. By using that passage to say that Israel has no right to respond to terrorists because it is "unloving" is what many call "theological gymnastics," and just plain out of step with what the Lord meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 This is just so typical. 1) The offer made by Barak was not the final settlement of the Oslo accords. 2) Control of the Palestinian area was to be GRADUALLY turned over to them once they proved they weren't using it for a military base to launch attacks. They have proven it now... 3) Arafat is the father of terrorism. Why don't you let him come live in your house? Why would anyone think he is serious about peace? HE is the problem! FOr the millionth freaking time.... Israel is the only nation willing to help the Palestinians. They just want to know that it won't cost them their lives. So now Mr LoveThyNeighbor will you condemn every time that Arafat and Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Force 17 and Fatah and Al Aqsa Brigades has sent innocent children to kill innocent children? I've asked you this for a couple of months and you constantly avoid the question by changing the subject. Will you justify it again now that more people are looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneAccord Posted September 19, 2003 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 147 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,587 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 19, 2003 So now Mr LoveThyNeighbor Is that an insult or a compliment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 That depends completely on the answer to the question...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 19, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 19, 2003 Greetings brethren in the Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ, Israel has a right to exist. G-d has ordained it thus and made it so. No amount of feelings otherwise will change that. I do again feel for the innocent Palestinians. Israel is their best friend in this matter. They have tried to express Love. They have tried to express Peace. The Palestinian leadership does the Palestinian innocent a disservice. As for our feelings overiding G-ds Will??? Lu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts