WN: Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent - NY Sun

[poorinspirit]

It wont accomplish anything.

The ignorant U.S. President and congress, along with backstabbing liberal groups, will just give Iran a few trillion dollars and infinitely better computer technology than they currently have for "reconstruction" after this war happens. Iran will probably end up closer to a nuke than ever before after a U.S. led war.

Not that it would be wrong to attack their nuke facilities, abosulutely lets blow them away right now. But the problem is the U.S. and Europes liberal morons keep giving billions and trillions of dollars to these people after the war every time.

I wonder how Jesus would handle it? What would He say?

I remember Saddam Hussien warned the world that he was going to invade Kuwait if they don't stop crossing the border and raiding their oil refineries. Nobody listened. NATO did not step in to show Saddam that they do not need to feel alone to do this drastic measure and that they will assist in capturing the ones responsible. I wonder if Saddam would be taken aback by that offer and to protect his alpha male ego, he would decline the offer and just reposition his troops to protect the oil refineries to get the ones responsible himself insead of being enraged at this affront from a neighboring nation that seem to boast of America as its ally as if daring Saddam to do invade? But what is done is done.

Of course, the world points to that gassing incident of his "own" people, but I read later that they were not really loyal to Saddam as they were in the region where they were getting support from Syria in opposition to Saddam.... and oppositions of that sort means terrorism. So... in the world's view of a pending threat... did Saddam did anything wrong as opposed to USA invading Iraq because of suspicion of weapons of mass destructions that could be used by terrorists? By trying to make an unstable region of people of religious conficts a democratic nation, is the U.S. trying to save face? America has seperation of church and state, but how can democracy exist in a nation where the political parties are religious ones of differing and opposing views?

All this rant from the Middle East is on America being involved in their business and profitting from it and their partners that in all respect, we do not need to be a nation in an energy crisis. We have the means to be energy indepentant of gas and oil, but the powers that be seem to want to milk the money off of it as much as they can before it becomes worthless before they come up with miraculous inventions that has been sitting on the shelf... some in the works... but strangely in slow progression.

Should we be involved in Iraq and Iran? Nope. Why? Greater atrocities were committed in Sudan and the US did not give a hoot about it. New Orleans seems to be still in recovery and yet how many times has Florida has been hit and yet they seem to be ready each time for the next one?

I have yet to see a nation take the wind out of the sails of Iran by offering alternate power sources to negate the need for nuclear power. Would an offer of windmill powers and solar power in replacing and getting it operating would permit an agreement to shut down the nuclear facility once its meets its output to make its neccessity obsolete?

I know that things are in motion for a greater calamity and thus ushering in the New World Order catering to the anti-christ, but I would not be surprised at how many solutions to crisises were ignored simply because of the fallibility of mankind and where it is heading.

I bet Jesus would say.. "leave them alone.... the blind leadeth the blind and they shall both fall into the pit. You follow Me."

[kari21]

Furthermore Coughlin and Lindberg were noted anti-semites, if you wish to go down the road of accusing me of being an anti-semite, please back it up rather than making snide comments. If you wish to find the real heirs of Coughlin and Lindberg, or indeed Goebbels you can find it in the racist rhetoric of the anti-Arab anti-Muslim mob that abounds on the internet, including on Christian sites or if you prefer your racist rhetoric in its older anti-jewish format on the equqlly nasty Islamisist hate sites.

Nope. Nothing to do with anything racist...I was thinking more along the lines of appeaser. If I thought you were a racist, I'd say so.

Of course war is always wrong

Funny thing about that....God sent the Israelites to war many times. Was God wrong by doing that?

Also, were we wrong to go to war against Japan after they attacked us? Should we have sought to appease Hitler after he declared war on us?

If you won't protect your country, would you protect your own family against a murderer who broke into your home?

We're not in 1941 or whenever the USA entered WW2, nor is there a murderer in my house . We're in a situation where troops from the UK and the USA have invaded Iraq, with spurious justifications, and bought death and chaos to that country, and are now,it seems intent ondoing the same in Iran

Way to go! Avoiding the questions....

Well, I guess in a way you did answer them.....you won't protect your country or your own family....

...and God was wrong to send the Israelites to war. (As you've already said, ALL war is wrong.)

[amor]

Furthermore Coughlin and Lindberg were noted anti-semites, if you wish to go down the road of accusing me of being an anti-semite, please back it up rather than making snide comments. If you wish to find the real heirs of Coughlin and Lindberg, or indeed Goebbels you can find it in the racist rhetoric of the anti-Arab anti-Muslim mob that abounds on the internet, including on Christian sites or if you prefer your racist rhetoric in its older anti-jewish format on the equqlly nasty Islamisist hate sites.

Nope. Nothing to do with anything racist...I was thinking more along the lines of appeaser. If I thought you were a racist, I'd say so.

Of course war is always wrong

Funny thing about that....God sent the Israelites to war many times. Was God wrong by doing that?

Also, were we wrong to go to war against Japan after they attacked us? Should we have sought to appease Hitler after he declared war on us?

If you won't protect your country, would you protect your own family against a murderer who broke into your home?

We're not in 1941 or whenever the USA entered WW2, nor is there a murderer in my house . We're in a situation where troops from the UK and the USA have invaded Iraq, with spurious justifications, and bought death and chaos to that country, and are now,it seems intent ondoing the same in Iran

Way to go! Avoiding the questions....

Well, I guess in a way you did answer them.....you won't protect your country or your own family....

...and God was wrong to send the Israelites to war. (As you've already said, ALL war is wrong.)

It's not avoiding any question, American and British troops are the ones that are in other people's houses, who have and are killing and maiming people. Those actions result from the vainglorious policies of the British and American political establishment, at least a part of which is now preparing to unleash the same barbarity on the people of Iran. If you really want to look back to the political situation of the 1930's, consider who invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland on trumped up allegations.

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I have no doubts about which of the above scriptures I should allow to guide my life, as a Christian neither should you.

[Guest shiloh357]

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

The same God who wrote the Old Testament is the same God who wrote the New Testament. Jesus did not challenge what the Old Testament said; He was challenging the pervered interpretation/application of the Old Testament that was prevalent in the 1st Century.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Most commentators understand "Eye for an Eye" to refer to monetary compensation. This is true of both Jewish and Christian commnentators. If you injure a person, you are to compensate the them according to the complete monetary loss they expeience as result of the injury you caused. You are to pay not only for their treatment but all lost wages incurred as a result of the injury.

Jesus was correcting the rabbinical false handling of that passage. In first century Jerusalem, the Rabbis had perverted "eye for an eye" to be a justifcation for revenge. Jesus corrects that with respect to the issue of personal revenge.

"Eye for an eye" has nothing to do with a nation going to war, and NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that all war is wrong. Pacifism is not Christian and is not biblical. The Bible does not advocate pacifism in any text.

[amor]

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

The same God who wrote the Old Testament is the same God who wrote the New Testament. Jesus did not challenge what the Old Testament said; He was challenging the pervered interpretation/application of the Old Testament that was prevalent in the 1st Century.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Most commentators understand "Eye for an Eye" to refer to monetary compensation. This is true of both Jewish and Christian commnentators. If you injure a person, you are to compensate the them according to the complete monetary loss they expeience as result of the injury you caused. You are to pay not only for their treatment but all lost wages incurred as a result of the injury.

Jesus was correcting the rabbinical false handling of that passage. In first century Jerusalem, the Rabbis had perverted "eye for an eye" to be a justifcation for revenge. Jesus corrects that with respect to the issue of personal revenge.

"Eye for an eye" has nothing to do with a nation going to war, and NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that all war is wrong. Pacifism is not Christian and is not biblical. The Bible does not advocate pacifism in any text.

A relativist interpretation of the teaching of Jesus, I believe that it needs to be taken more seriously than that. The teachings of Jesus are there to guide our lives not to be dismissed as something that was only relevant to a specific first century problem. What makes you think you have the right to "clarify" and modify the teachings of Christ to enable them to sit better with your own worldly political beliefs?

[Guest shiloh357]

A relativist interpretation of the teaching of Jesus, I believe that it needs to be taken more seriously than that. The teachings of Jesus are there to guide our lives not to be dismissed as something that was only relevant to a specific first century problem. What makes you think you have the right to "clarify" and modify the teachings of Christ to enable them to sit better with your own worldly political beliefs?

It is something called "hermeneutics." Hermeneutics are the rules of literary analysis that allow us to properly assertain the correct meaning of a particular text.

Furthermore, in case you missed it, I did claim to orginiate in the meaning of the text, but I appeal to the understanding of both Christian and Jewish commentators who have already exlplained what the meaning of the text is.

For example: Commentator John Gill cites this Matt: 5:38 and makes these comments:

"This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation"; which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says (b), he that shall blind, i.e. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. R. Sol. Jarchi © explains the law thus:

"He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him דמי עינו, "the price of his eye", according to the price of a servant sold in the market; and so the same of them all; for, not taking away of the member is strictly meant.''

And, says Maimonides (d),

"if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a servant sold in a market; what he was worth then, and what he is worth now; and he must pay the diminution which is made of his price; as it is said, "eye for eye". From tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money; this is what is said in the law, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour; but inasmuch as he deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done; therefore he ought to pay the damage.''

And Josephus himself (e) says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money; and which, he observes, the law allows of. The controversy about the sense of this law may be seen in a few words, as managed between R. Sandish Hagson, and Ben Zeta (f)."

There are plenty of other able scholars and commentators I could offer who understand the words of Jesus properly in light of the biblical command. It is also a fact of history that portions of the Torah had been perverted by errant scribes who preyed upon ignorance and abused their positions of authority for their own good.

It is that perversion Jesus addressing and correcting. Jesus was at no time at odds with God's Torah. The laws of God are just as much the inspired Word of God as the New Testament, and in fact, the New Testament was written out of Old Testament knowledge and is also written in the terminology of the Festivals of Israel as well as the Sacrifices. The Old and New Testament stand in complete agreement with one another.

The Bible, despite your rants, does not at any time support the unbiblical, unChristian view of pacifism. Jesus, Himself will return and make war against the nations of the world who make war against Israel (Zechariah 14, Revelation 19). God, Himself, sent Israel's armies into war in the Bible and Himself went to war on Israel's behalf. God is not a pacifist and did not inspire any such teaching.

Pacifism is not a part of true, biblical Christianity. It is just a humanistic, worldly ideology.

[ted]

All,

I've seen several personal swipes in this thread, and that's not the way to go about discussion or debate. I'm going to have to step in and ask that people should not continue with personal attacks. Please review the TOS before posting

If it happens again, I will have no choice but to close the thread.

Thanks,

t.

[kari21]

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

Ummmm...the same God who inspired the New Testament inspired the Old Testament!

[poorinspirit]

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

The same God who wrote the Old Testament is the same God who wrote the New Testament. Jesus did not challenge what the Old Testament said; He was challenging the pervered interpretation/application of the Old Testament that was prevalent in the 1st Century.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Most commentators understand "Eye for an Eye" to refer to monetary compensation. This is true of both Jewish and Christian commnentators. If you injure a person, you are to compensate the them according to the complete monetary loss they expeience as result of the injury you caused. You are to pay not only for their treatment but all lost wages incurred as a result of the injury.

Jesus was correcting the rabbinical false handling of that passage. In first century Jerusalem, the Rabbis had perverted "eye for an eye" to be a justifcation for revenge. Jesus corrects that with respect to the issue of personal revenge.

"Eye for an eye" has nothing to do with a nation going to war, and NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that all war is wrong. Pacifism is not Christian and is not biblical. The Bible does not advocate pacifism in any text.

Revelations 13: 4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

We all know that those that receive the mark of the beast are going into the lake of fire so of all the people on the earth you would think that the saints would be allowed to kill, the saints going through the great tribulation are told this from verse 9 & 10. Weird, huh? Maybe it is because vengeance is the Lord's or the batle is the Lord's? Anyway, I can see those verses above as a pacifist stance during the great tribulation. I wonder how that would be applied to the saints before the great tribulation?

[Guest shiloh357]

As to the rights and wrongs of war and violence, as a Christian, I take my direction from the teachings of Jesus. If that challenges something writen by the human writers of the Old Testament, so be it.

The same God who wrote the Old Testament is the same God who wrote the New Testament. Jesus did not challenge what the Old Testament said; He was challenging the pervered interpretation/application of the Old Testament that was prevalent in the 1st Century.

If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Most commentators understand "Eye for an Eye" to refer to monetary compensation. This is true of both Jewish and Christian commnentators. If you injure a person, you are to compensate the them according to the complete monetary loss they expeience as result of the injury you caused. You are to pay not only for their treatment but all lost wages incurred as a result of the injury.

Jesus was correcting the rabbinical false handling of that passage. In first century Jerusalem, the Rabbis had perverted "eye for an eye" to be a justifcation for revenge. Jesus corrects that with respect to the issue of personal revenge.

"Eye for an eye" has nothing to do with a nation going to war, and NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that all war is wrong. Pacifism is not Christian and is not biblical. The Bible does not advocate pacifism in any text.

Revelations 13: 4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

We all know that those that receive the mark of the beast are going into the lake of fire so of all the people on the earth you would think that the saints would be allowed to kill, the saints going through the great tribulation are told this from verse 9 & 10. Weird, huh? Maybe it is because vengeance is the Lord's or the batle is the Lord's? Anyway, I can see those verses above as a pacifist stance during the great tribulation. I wonder how that would be applied to the saints before the great tribulation?

No, that would not be "a pacifist stance" whatsoever.