News: Now Where Do We Go?

An interesting story. Are you trying to make a point with it, or did you post it because it is an interesting story from World War II?

 

Here we go again! Aren't you talking about on the West Bank, not in Israel proper? Oh, that's right. Some folks think that Israel should not be satisfied with the pre-1967 borders, regardless of how much many children and adults on both sides die over a bunch of dirt.

Oh, never mind. Why should I even try to reason with dispensational premillennialists over this? We Christians argue over the fine points of eschatology while Israeli and Palestinian children are dying in violence by both sides - over who has a right to this piece of dirt or that piece of dirt. We should all be ashamed of this, regardless of our eschatological viewpoint.

 

I saw it on T.V, Israeli settlers and the army of Israel in conflict. The settlers were eventually removed, and in parting, fire was set to the fields.

It was an awful thing to see for many different reasons. I would not want to be removed from my home either. I am hoping that these people will be given homes to go to. And I hope that as the Palestinias said on the other side, that they can find peace as neighbours. I hope that as much as the political fight goes on, that the people that are neighbours Israelites and Palestinians that they can find friendship and peace.

 

An interesting commentary at: www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/06/22&ID=Ar07903&Section=Editorial

 

I am still amazed, SheEagle9/11, that you and other dispensational premillennialists think that the Jews have a God-given right to the land while they remain in unbelief. Again, I ask, don't they have to repent and come to Jesus in faith before they are returned to the land(if that is supposed to be what happens)? Did God ever rescue the Jews in the Old Testament before they repented and turned back to Him? The answer, of course, is no.

 

1)Well, ya'll sure enough keep bringing it up in stating why the Jews are entitled to the land(I do check on why dispensationalists are teaching ). I see you still either can't or refuse to answer the question as to whether the Jews are only entitled to the land while in belief and not unbelief. I suspect you don't answer it because to truthfully answer it(as I know you believe the Bible ) would be DEVASTATING to your position.

2)That is pure slander and so beneath you. I try to treat all people equally regardless of race or ethnicity. And that means I also try to not show bias toward anyone based on his race or ethnicity, as well.


(Ken, sorry I messed up your post with my reply.)

[ June 22, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle9/11 ]

 

1) I totally, totally disagree with your interpretation of the Bible in this area.

2)Did you not see my post a little ways above this of a commentary in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? A commentary in which I am in full agreement?

By the way, I am much more of a libertarian than a conservative. Therefore, I do not march in lockstep with the conservative fundamentalists.

Also, I see you still fail to understand that God gave the land to the Israelites based on the condition of their faithfulness. Do you deny this Bible truth?

 

Well, then, with your permisssion as a moderator in this forum, I will post the article as a paid subscriber :

Waging war to reach peace
by Bradley R. Gitz

Whatever the outcome of the current cease-fire efforts, a searing clarity has finally been introduced to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the form of Israel’s conclusion that there can be no peace until the killers of Hamas are themselves killed.
Ever since the Second Intifada began nearly three years ago, and even more obviously since the Bush administration launched its latest "road map" peace initiative, two indisputable facts have been visible.
The first is that certain bloodthirsty groups associated with the Palestinian cause want not peace but the annihilation of the Jews and Israel. The second is that those same groups will use terrorism to disrupt anything that comes to resemble a peace process in the region.
It was probably naïve for the Bush administration to believe that a Palestinian Authority represented by new Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas could engage in serious negotiations for peace with Israel. The source of that naiveté was the even more naïve assumption that Abbas had either the will or the ability to rein in the terrorists on his side.
No Palestinian leader will lift a finger to combat Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any of the other hate-filled Palestinian militants. That task will fall to Israel and Israel alone. But it is also a task that constitutes the necessary and most important step on the path toward genuine peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.
The Sharon government’s decision to wage a war of annihilation against those who have been waging a war of annihilation against Israel represents the only hope for peace in the region because it is the only means of eliminating the forces that obstruct such a peace.
Some claim that Israeli retaliation for terrorist attacks on its citizens jeopardizes peace by contributing to a cycle of violence, and that it should turn the other cheek and refuse to play into the hands of the killers who wish to sabotage peace negotiations by provoking it.
But Israel has not survived against tall odds for so long by turning the other cheek. Nor can any Israeli government, including perhaps especially Ariel Sharon’s, adopt such a passive policy and expect to remain long in power.
A far more accurate conclusion to draw from the latest round of terroristinspired violence in the Middle East is that the war on terrorism is, indeed, indivisible, and that the groups that are blowing up Israeli civilians are as much our enemies as Tel Aviv’s.
The Israeli decision to switch to a policy of targeting the political leaders of Hamas has been widely criticized, but is probably essential to the success of any war against such groups. To attack lowlevel terrorist operatives while leaving unharmed those who direct their activities would be precisely analogous to waging war against al-Qa’ida but granting immunity to Osama bin Laden.
A crucial part of any effort to combat terrorism is to put the terrorist leaders themselves in the cross-hairs of violence, to make sure that they come to feel the same kind of fear and dread they seek to inspire in their victims.
The most important contribution that the Bush administration can make at this point to peace in the Middle East is to support the Sharon government’s campaign against Hamas and other terrorist groups. That our president might have come to precisely that conclusion was suggested by comments last week in which he noted that that "the mission of the free world, those who care for peace, is to deny the people like Hamas the ability to destroy and kill."
But then, President Bush must also know that the only way to ultimately prevent Hamas from killing is to allow the Israeli defense forces to first kill Hamas. And that no meaningful cease-fire is possible over the long haul with people who load bombs with nails to kill as many women and children as possible.
Israel wants and desperately needs peace. One suspects that most Palestinians also long for the kind of peace that would make their dream of an independent Palestinian state come true. But none of this can happen as long as there continues to exist groups on the Palestinian side consumed by hatred for Jews and a desire to destroy Israel.
Peace is possible in the Middle East. But only so long as war is first relentlessly waged against the enemies of such a peace.

Free-lance columnist Bradley R. Gitz teaches politics at Lyon College at Batesville.

This story was published Sunday, June 22, 2003.

 

But you see, SheEagle9/11, the article you posted goes outside of discussing this as a plain political matter and brings in this idea of in essence "if you don't support Israel carte blanche you don't believe the Bible". I thought you wanted to leave narrow religious interpretation out of the discussion and discuss it in terms of politics and what is best from a practical standpoint?

I am still wondering though if you believe that to inherit the land - again - Israel must repent and come to Jesus in faith before God will bless them as "the apple of His eye"?

 

See, now if you would simply say, I believe thus and so, instead of "God says" - when you know that other Bible believing Christians can just as easily say "God says" - and contradict with Scripture what you claim "God says". Dogmatism in the area of eschatology is simply unwarranted.

"This suggests a warning against dogmatism about an issue shrouded in apocalyptic language that can yield divergent interpretations. Few doctrines based on such narrow biblical evidence have created such a broad battlefield as the millennium: it has been one of the most divisive issues in Chritian history. Southern Baptists have shon wisdom in refusing to make one specific view of this doctrine a test of fellowship." - James Spivey, "The Millennium" Has Our Theology Changed?, Paul A. Basden, Editor, page 262.

 

I understand your point. I still stand by my statement, I don't think there is any warrant for dogmatism in the area of eschatology. Other than believing that Jesus will return, the rest is mere speculation on our part. If it was as clear-cut as dispensationalists seem to believe, there would not be a zillion different opinions on the details by honest, Bible-believing, Holy Spirit-led Christians.