1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, my Hebrew Bibles contain (in Hebrew) for the most part the books we would consider the Old Testament. My Greek New Testaments contain (in Greek) the New Testament. Two volumes, two languages. Even in the case of these individual volumes, each book within them was written and distributed separately. Individuals, leaders in the respective religions, made recommendations as to which ones were more reliable. Then Councils made decisions as to which ones would be gathered together and made into the "Bible."

    No one sat down and wrote the Bible from cover to cover.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Halfsek, I used the resource I linked because it was one of the first to come up with the kind of timeline I was looking for. I knew you, or others, would complain about it because it was written from a Palestinian viewpoint. I stated it was from a Palestinian viewpoint because it IS written using language more sympathetic to Palestinians than to the Jews. It is not neutral, that is what I meant. So now you know for sure what I meant.

    I have already pointed out that there are also Jews who want to see total Palestinian eradication. Not all Jews want to see a two state solution, just as there are Palestinians who don't want to see a two state solution. There are two state Jews and there are two state Palestinians, which you have just stated. The only point I have been trying to make is that one side is not totally wrong or evil, and the other side is not totally right and righteous.

    On this we seem to be coming to agreement. Unless you insist on needing to be the one that is totally right, while I am the one who is totally wrong. Just like the middle east.
     
  3. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    Sorry people are jumping on you over this. Both Testaments are in my ONE Bible!
    Tom in TX
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    As long as you understand that the Bible is an anthology, the collected works of authors inspired by God.
     
  5. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Let's get this straight. The Bible is a whole bunch of books(more like short stories or pamphlets) by mostly authors unknown, written over a period of at least a few hundred to a thousand years, compiled semi-chronologically and bound between two slabs of leather. It is regularly contradictory, often incoherent, and usually vague and ambiguous.

    Separately and together, these "books" can be interpreted in myriad ways and why there's a half dozen or so sects calling themselves Jews, probably a half dozen thousand variants on Christianity, and at least several distinct interpretations of Islam(whose Koran was at least supposedly written by only one person, but draws from both the Old and New Testaments).

    Many of these books appear to have been written under the influence of and describe "visions", essentially dreams and hallucinations(bad goat cheese?). And the Old and New Testaments and Koran, and the various interpretations(religion in general), have been directly or indirectly responsible for the bulk of wars, hatred, intolerance and misery of recorded history, right up until this very day.

    It is astounding in what we casually refer to as "the modern age", most people still cling to these ancient myths and superstitions and use them to guide their lives, thoughts and actions. Our "leaders", on all sides, regularly invoke these "books" and quote from them in order to inspire and motivate us to do some of the craziest things from flying airliners into buildings to invading nations halfway around the globe.

    Jesus at least got it half right. He preached a philosophy of love, even for "thine enemies". So perhaps it's appropriate on this day of Easter, ironically named for a Pagan goddess, that we take some time to examine what the meaning of these "books" really is. They are at best interesting in an historical context, to better understand the thoughts, actions, motivations and beliefs of ancient peoples and those who followed them, just as this "Book of Judas" sheds light on the thought processes and conflicts of early Christianity. I don't expect many to immediately incorporate Judas or his "book" into their theology. But by the same token, perhaps it should give them pause to reexamine Genesis, Exodus..., Matthew, Mark... in a more dispassionate, critical and even skeptical light.

    So take this day, Jesus' day, to ponder what His message really was. Did he intend His legacy to be the repression for nearly two thousand years of His own people, the Jews? Did He expect his name should be used as a rallying cry for a battle royale against Islam? Or did he preach we can live better lives by dwelling in peace and with forgiveness and kindness towards all? That's the moral I take from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and even Judas!

    BTW, don't get me started!:grin::p
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Happy Easter Jonstad. Nice sermon. Ever think of going into the ministry? :lol:
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Me? Preach? Never!;)
     
  8. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    :lol: given his understanding of the Bible, he'd probably fit in at the UCC just fine. :lol:
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Good description. I was trying to not get into it that far, because since it is already painfully obvious that many folks in today's age don't comprehend that the New and Old Testament groupings are hundreds of years apart and not the same book... I figured their heads would explode if I tried to dig down to the fact that the many sections within the Old/New Testaments were written by different authors at different times... and circulated uncombined for a long time before being bundled together.

    And as you already mentioned, different groupings have appeared over the years as well as different interpretations due to translations and different versions based on royalty (King James version for instance) where things were tweaked here and there to that person's interpretation of the text.

    I mainly was going for the point that a lot of folks who talk about "the Bible" don't really know for certain just what they are talking about, and perhaps haven't even read any of it. I figured the in-depth history lesson would go completely over their heads.
     
  10. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Wrong again - you must have gotten that pacific salt water in you eyes when last (if) you tried to understand the Bible. But we have had enough Bible debate threads, and this is a different topic - at least for now.:grin:


    Well except for the judas bit (sorry, I see no reason to glorify a traiter and very possibly a thief too) at least you got something from the scriptures more or less correct. But I would ask you to consider one thing. Since Jesus Himself made several very specific statements about Himself, equating Himself with God, that He is the ONLY way to God and thus heaven,.... that you ONLY have 3 options: you either believe He is deranged/mental case, or a bold faced liar, or that He is the authentic Son of God. You have made it clear you don't beleive the last one, so given the other two options - why would any words of Jesus as recorded by Mark, Luke, John, or Matthew make any since to you at all?


    But back on topic, I have never said the US invasion of Iraq was a Christian response, nor a non-Christian response. It was a pragmatic political decision made to act to preserve the safety and security of American citizens of all religeous beliefs (and/or the lack thereof). How those decisions play against one's faith are part of the everyday life of applying God's Word to our lives. I think one could make a case that Jesus would not advocate military force to change a nation like Iraq. In fact I think Jesus would make the case that we should cast ALL our cares upon Him, and trust Him for our safety and security. Now can you imagine the screams of horror from your own mouth if we did that?:eek2: I suspect it would take about 20 seconds past the president's speech announcing said policy before you would be screaming for the Army to ignore the pres. and push to Bagdad and Tehran before its too late. :lol:
     
  11. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Back on topic - perhaps the most telling argument against those who are not concerned about Iran's quest for Nuclear Weapons, and that they would act sanely, only using them for self-defense, consider the president of Iran's statement a couple of days ago (around the start of Passover, no less):
    Iran's new hard-line president called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
    Ok one more time, you want me to believe the world is a safer place if Iran gets nukes. :lol: :lol:.... Oh please!......
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I never said the world would be a safer place if Iran had nuclear weapons.

    But is the WORLD a safer place if the USA goes and bombs other countries?

    How is that making the WORLD safe?
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I said don't get me started!;)

    As indicated, and agreed upon by the vast majority of Biblical scholars, the New Testament as well as the Old were written over periods of at minimum a century or two, obviously by various authors, often unknown, and translated, transcribed, edited and redacted during and after those periods. The story of Jesus as a simple but wise itinerant peasant preacher who taught peace and love for all humans and was summarily executed for His trouble is a compelling and bittersweet enough story, but hardly one by itself compelling or appealing or rewarding enough to draw many followers to try and emulate Him. Another element was needed. And that was the "God" thing and the "reward" of everlasting life.

    Certainly as a devout and pious Jew, Jesus believed in the Hebrew God. Remembering that there is scant corroboration of the life and/or words of Jesus anywhere outside the New Testament(the "book of Judas" actually being one of them):rotfl:, it would be my interpretation that IF Jesus ever even uttered the phrase "son of God", it was meant that all humans are sons(or daughters) of God. And assuming there is a "God", that would surely be a logical conclusion.

    The chroniclers who variously translated, transcribed, etc. the compilation now known as the New Testament during those first few hundred years(and chroniclers since) were not just dispassionate, objective scholars. They were actively working to make Jesus' story appeal to their own generations. Without the "God/eternal life" element, regardless of how sadly poignant the tale was, for most, the lesson of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek was not a way to salvation but a way to get yourself killed. And in the absence of any official or unofficial verification of the life, times and words of Jesus, these chroniclers were free to speculate and embellish as they pleased.

    I find the saddest part of Christianity is the emphasis on "salvation" through blind faith, making peace, love, justice, compassion, understanding and tolerance secondary. Perhaps even more depressing that for many people the only rationale for adhering to the latter virtues is the former system of draconian reward and punishment. Otherwise it would be just "screw everybody".

    I don't happen to believe that. I believe all other things being equal, humans generally will be compassionate, understanding, tolerant of their fellow humans and love them as well. Humans aren't perfect of course. The best we can do is try. And as far as I'm concerned, that's about all any "god" is entitled to ask for.

    And if I'm wrong? If there is a jealous God that demands worship and fealty in return for It's favor? A God for Whom striving for a virtuous life is not good enough?

    Well, I'll bow to that God alright, in the opposite direction so He can kiss my butt! I'll sooner face oblivion(which deep down we all know is a real possibility anyway, our egos just won't allow us to consider it), or an eternity with all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. AND atheists who at least tried to be virtuous because it was simply the right and humane thing to do.


    Oh yeah, the topic!:blush:

    Well, I'd certainly scream if it were proposed we leave our fate to invisible beings that may or may not exist. That's a no-brainer. And make no mistake, I AM implying a double meaning there!:sure: But, as you point out, it's very unlikely Jesus would advocate invading or attacking with deadly force others of "His children" on a hunch. In fact, He would likely be the first one to stand in the path of the tanks and stealth bombers. And since you claim to be first and foremost a follower of Jesus, your course of action is clear. You must vigorously and conscientiously oppose any such invasions or attacks. Anyone who advocates otherwise obviously is NOT a true follower of Jesus. Since I am under no such constraints(delusions?), I suggest that I should decide who to attack and when. And also when to talk and negotiate. Lately, hunchs have not been a winning strategy for us!:(
     
  14. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    And once bundled together,
    it was called the Bible. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    By whom?

    And which version?

    I think you're missing the point.

    There is no "the Bible". There are lots of Bibles... different incarnations and content... and other religions have their own Bibles in some cases completely different.

    Have you actually read any of "the Bible"? Or are you just repeating things you've heard others say about it?

    Just curious.
     
  16. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    By the will of God


    The Holy Bible
     
  17. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Is a neighborhood safer overall if the police shoot a few criminals while exercising restraint, or that the police just leave the neighborhood to the drug lords, ....?
     
  18. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Depends on the neighborhood. Seriously. There are usually sacrifices... Town A is made safer by killing the drug lord in Town B... but people in Town B died, so Town B isn't safer.

    Also, attacks tend to provoke retaliation... and wars escalate.

    I don't believe in pacifism, and I know force is sometimes necessary. Sometimes you do have to fight to keep the peace. But you have to know when and what battles to fight, and sometimes most importantly when not to fight at all, and to talk.
     
  19. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I take it by your lack of reply, that means no you haven't read any of it?
     
  20. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/17/D8H1U6QO0.html

    Let's not forget that in addition to the US, the EU and the UN are trying to get Iran to not have nukes.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page