Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFive days before the crucial elections in Iran on June 12, voters go to the polls in another Middle East country: Lebanon. The stakes in Lebanon are high, since it's looking more and more likely that Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite fundamentalist group, and its allies will win a majority and take control of the government in Beirut. That would create a fundamental choice for the Obama administration: does the United States continue to have contact with, and send military aid to, a Lebanese government controlled by Israel's implacable foe?
Last year, in a power-sharing deal brokered by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, Hezbollah was given a share of power in the Lebanese state proportional to its strength in parliament and on the ground, after massive pro-Hezbollah demonstrations rocked the country.
Expect a lot of outside meddling in Lebanon during the next two weeks -- on all sides.
An early shot was fired this week from Germany, where Der Spiegel, the conservative weekly magazine, revealed that investigators probing the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri have concluded that Hezbollah, and not Syria, is responsible for the spectacular bombing that killed Hariri, a pro-Western billionaire with close ties to France and Saudi Arabia. (Hariri's son, Saad Hariri, is leading the anti-Hezbollah coalition in the June 7 election.)
What's interesting about the Der Spiegel exclusive, if true, is not only that it exonerates Syria, but that it blames Hezbollah. The magazine reports that the UN special tribunal in the case intended to withhold its conclusion until late June, i.e., until after the election. The fact that it is now being reported makes the Spiegel report seem like a calculated leak designed to undercut Hezbollah's election chances.
Reports the magazine:
Spiegel has learned from sources close to the tribunal and verified by examining internal documents, that the Hariri case is about to take a sensational turn. Intensive investigations in Lebanon are all pointing to a new conclusion: that it was not the Syrians, but instead special forces of the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah ("Party of God") that planned and executed the diabolical attack. Tribunal chief prosecutor Bellemare and his judges apparently want to hold back this information, of which they been aware for about a month. What are they afraid of?
That's a good question -- "What are they afraid of?" -- but another good question is: what's the motive of the people who leaked the super-secret conclusion? (And two other questions: is the Der Spiegel report correct that the UN panel has concluded that Hezbollah killed Hariri? And, if they have concluded that, is their conclusion true?)
Writing in the Washington Times, former Dick Cheney aide John Hannah, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel thinktank with neoconservative ties, rings every alarm bell he can reach:
Make no mistake: Hezbollah's triumph would constitute a major U.S. defeat. Despite the Obama administration's overtures to Iran, it remains the case that across the Middle East, the battle for Lebanon is understood as part of a much larger struggle for power being waged by Washington and Tehran.The formal collapse of the Cedar Revolution would send shockwaves throughout the region, providing powerful confirmation of Iran's ascendancy and America's decline. It would dramatically embolden Teheran at a time when Washington hopes to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, its support for terrorism and its escalating efforts -- frequently using Hezbollah operatives -- to subvert pro-U.S. governments across the Arab world from Iraq to Egypt to Morocco.
From Iraq to Morocco! Whew! Talk about the Domino Theory. In fact, the Hezbollah victory would do nothing of the kind, except that it would ratify the democratic expression of what the Lebanese people want. If Hezbollah does win, its victory will be marginal, only a few points, and Lebanese politics will continue to be balanced on a knife's edge, complicated by the presence of armed militias and ethnic warlords across the political spectrum.
America's view of the Lebanon election is pretty clear. Recently, both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made high-profile visits to Beirut to boost the chances of the Hariri-led coalition. No doubt, pro-American, conservative Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are pouring millions of dollars into the anti-Hezbollah effort, while Iran is doing the same -- along with Syria -- for the other side.
Meanwhile, less might be at stake than Hannah suggests. As the Jerusalem Post notes, Hezbollah will be a power in Lebanon whether it wins or loses:
Even if Hizbullah loses the upcoming election, it will continue to control Lebanon. It is the strongest force in Lebanon by far, and the country's Shi'ite community is growing. The Christians in the North have been weakened, and the Druse in the central region will strike a deal with anyone who furthers their interests. Nobody will separate Hizbullah from its weapons, and the group will continue to strengthen and deepen its control of Lebanon.
What's really at stake is not Hezbollah's power and its ability to send dominos toppling, but its international credibility -- and the crucial question of whether the United States will (a) deal with a Hezbollah-controlled government or (b) treat it like Hamas, which was duly elected in the Palestinian territories and then quarantined by the United States.
As the New York Times reports today, Hezbollah is already gaining legitimacy:
Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group, has talked with the International Monetary Fund and the European Union about continued financial support to Lebanon in the event the group's political alliance wins the June 7 parliamentary elections, Hezbollah officials said Wednesday.In Beirut last week, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said future American support to Lebanon, which includes military aid, would depend on the elections' outcome.
European governments have not issued any such veiled threats, and Western leaders have recently shown a greater willingness to engage in political dialogue with Hezbollah's patrons, Iran and Syria. Britain's Foreign Office said in March that it would re-establish relations with Hezbollah's political wing.
My guess: if Hezbollah wins, the Obama administration will figure out a way to finesse its dislike of the group, hold its nose, and continue to support the Lebanese government. To the utter consternation of John Hannah, the neoconservatives, the Israel lobby, and Israel's new right-wing government.
Interestingly, the elections come just two days after President Obama delivers a major speech in Cairo aimed at "re-booting" US relations with the Muslim world. Isolating Hezbollah, should it win a free and fair vote -- at least, as free and fair as Lebanon can produce! -- won't help with the rebooting, unless Obama's main audience is the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
the best reboot would be a REAL NO BULLSHIT extraction of ourselves from that part of the world never to return.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:05am
just <i>that</i> part of the world?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2009 @ 11:07am
"Shiite fundamentalist group, and its allies will win a majority and take control of the government in Beirut."
Interestingly, those same neo-cons didn't seem to mind when it was....Baghdad??!??!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
we are not wanted there. some do not want us in every part of the world, of course, but especially there.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:27am
ain't no money left...
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2009 @ 11:33am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2009 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
no. can't afford to. absolutely right.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 11:59am
Why don't you just endorse Al Qaeda at the same time Mr Dreyfuss? The only significant difference between Hezbollah and Hamas, versus Al Qaeda is Iranian and Syrian support.
All 3 are terrorist organizations dedicated to wiping out both Jews and Western Civilization. All are joined at the hip with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hezbollah has been building up in South America. What does that presence have to do with Lebanese politics?
A little light on the facts
<Hizbollah Makes Inroads into South America September 12, 2008 3:48 PM
By SONIA GALLEGO, ABC News Digital Reporter, Brazil
recent report in the L.A. Times claimed that the relationship between Iran and Venezuela is also being used opportunistically by organisations such as the Lebanese-based Hizbollah, setting up anti- Western terrorist cells in strategic areas of the continent. Already this year, Iran announced that it was setting up TV stations in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, which could potentially be an opportunity for Hizbollah to take their operations further in to South America.
http://tinyurl.com/nwcfke
Hezbollah Presence in Venezuela Feared -
Chris Kraul and Sebastian Rotella, Los Angeles Times
Western anti-terrorism officials are increasingly concerned that Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shiite Muslim militia that Washington has labeled a terrorist group, is using Venezuela as a base for operations.
Linked to deadly attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina in the early 1990s, Hezbollah may be taking advantage of Venezuela's ties with Iran, the militia's longtime sponsor, to move "people and things" into the Americas, as one Western government terrorism expert put it.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:08pm
Colombia drug ring may link to Hezbollah Colombia -- U.S. and Colombian investigators have dismantled an international cocaine-smuggling and money-laundering ring that allegedly used part of its profits to finance Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shiite militia, officials said Tuesday.
By Chris Kraul and Sebastian Rotella Los Angeles Times
BOGOTÁ, Colombia -- U.S. and Colombian investigators have dismantled an international cocaine-smuggling and money-laundering ring that allegedly used part of its profits to finance Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shiite militia, officials said Tuesday.
"The profits from the sales of drugs went to finance Hezbollah," said Gladys Sanchez, lead investigator for the special prosecutor's office here, in an interview. "This is an example of how narco-trafficking is a theme of interest to all criminal organizations, the FARC, the paramilitaries and terrorists."
http://tinyurl.com/6nrf42
17 arrested on Curacao for involvement in Hezbollah-linked drug ring
Associated Press guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 April 2009 21.53 BST
Seventeen people were arrested in Curacao for alleged involvement in a drug trafficking ring with connections to Hezbollah, police in the Dutch Caribbean island said today.
Some of the proceeds, funneled through informal Middle Eastern banks, went toward supporting groups linked to the militant Hezbollah organization in Lebanon, according to Casseres. The smuggling ring also allegedly forwarded requests from Lebanon for arms to be shipped from South America.
"We have been able to establish that this group has relations with international criminal organizations that have connections with the Hezbollah," prosecutor Ludmila Vicento said.
http://tinyurl.com/mbw568
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:08pm
I heard Hezzbollah has nukes, anthrax, drone planes and links to AQ.
Go get 'Em Larry! Flatten Lebanon to bring peace and stability to the region. It worked in 2003. What could go wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 12:13pm
Hamas, Hezbollah-And the Muslim Brotherhood?
By Douglas Farah
A senior Hezbollah official has now stated publicly for the first time that his organization has been providing Hamas with "every type of support" for a long period of time.
"We have always said that we supported the resistance in Palestine, but we have not mentioned how or given details of such support," Naim Qassem, the deputy leader of the Lebanese organization, said in an interview published by the Financial Times on Wednesday.
"But Egypt has now revealed that we have given military support to Palestine. We have done so for a while, but we have not talked about it," he continued.
It is one of the secrets of the resistance that we don't talk about the details of our support, but suffice to say that we are giving them every type of support that could help the Palestinian resistance. Every type that is possible," he said.
The statements are the clearest yet of the ability and desirability of Shiite Muslim armed groups (Hezbollah) to tactically ally themselves with armed Sunni groups (Hamas). This means the transfer of technology, lessons learned, tactics, intelligence etc. is well advanced among groups that have long and valuable experience in terrorism and irregular warfare.
While the intelligence community for years denied such alliances were possible, they have long been operative. One of the key bridges between the Sunni and Shiite world has been the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood has mediated or attempted to mediate a host of disputes between Shiite and Sunnis, including the unsuccessful efforts by the International Muslim Brotherhood's Yousef Nada to negotiate an end to the Iran-Iraq war.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:18pm
Hezbollah, Hamas And Muslim Brotherhood continued
The understanding of the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood has often been misunderstood in the United States, where it is often viewed as Egyptian organization. The international structure is largely ignored. It is also worth remembering (although it seldom is) that Hamas is, according to its own statutes-article 2-an organic part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://tinyurl.com/ol6asn
http://tinyurl.com/qju2le
And related to the overall subject of the ties between various groups with the Muslim Brotherhood
<The Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood Almost from the inception of the modern Islamic banking structure (early 1980s), the international Muslim Brotherhood set up a parallel and far-flung offshore structure that has become an integral part of its ability to hide and move money around the world. This network is little understood and has, so far, garnered little attention from the intelligence and law enforcement communities tracking terrorist financial structures.
The fundamental premise of the Brotherhood in setting up this structure was that it is necessary to build a clandestine structure that was hidden from non-Muslims and even Muslims who do not share the Brotherhood's fundamental objective of recreating the Islamic caliphate and spreading Islam, by force and persuasion, across the globe. To this end, the Brotherhood's strategy, including the construction of its financial network, is built on the pillars of "clandestinity, duplicity, exclusion, violence, pragmatism and opportunism.">
http://tinyurl.com/n8jys5
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:20pm
Go get 'Em Larry! Flatten Lebanon to bring peace and stability to the region. It worked in 2003. What could go wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/28/2009 @ 12:13pm
I have some very dear Muslim friends who are from Lebanon and now live here. they fled Lebanon because of Hezbollah.
they repeatedly state how much they hate how Hezbollah has destroyed their country.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:08pm
"Why don't you just endorse Al Qaeda at the same time Mr Dreyfuss? The only significant difference between Hezbollah and Hamas, versus Al Qaeda is Iranian and Syrian support."
You are aware one is Sunni and the other Shiite? Sunnis believe any worthy man could lead the faithful. Shiites wanted direct lineage from the Prophet. The fact that Shiites are an oppressed minority, even in the Muslim world, led them to death cults and favoring martyrs. This is not the usual feature of Sunni Muslim expression.
The fact that you pick up on this minority feature as somehow convinced yourself that it is representative of Islam in general and your failure to differentiate between these two groups is one of the reasons why your analysis is so frequently bad.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2009 @ 12:29pm
Interesting article, the author does leave you with the distinct impression that he favors a Hezbollah victory. Why does that appear to be the case? Is the author so reflexively "anti-Right" that he would be back any group that challenges the right ward bent of the regional govts and that of the Lebanese opposition. It is rather pathetic if not morally irresponsible.
Posted by CPT at 05/28/2009 @ 12:37pm
I have some very dear Muslim friends who are from Lebanon and now live here. they fled Lebanon because of Hezbollah.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:22pm
Do they know they're not "really Muslims", Larry?
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 12:43pm
The opposition to Hez'b'allah from the US raises two questions in my mind:
1) Given that Hez'b'allah is broadly popular in Lebanon, and seen as the only armed power that is willing to withstand Israeli assaults, and given that Hez'b'allah gets democratically elected officials into the government, isn't the serious US support of the Hariri clan tantamount to interfering with Lebanon's democracy? How does the US intend to "reboot" its relations with the Muslim world if the US continues to interfere or even attempt to intervene in elections in Middle Eastern countries?
2) Don't the Lebanese have a right to vote for leaders of their choice? Hez'b'allah is popular for a range of historical reasons in Lebanon - for example, Hez'b'allah ended the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon in 2000. More recently, when Israel engaged in its absolutely barbaric war against Lebanon in 2006 - it was Hez'b'allah that resisted. The Lebanese "military"? It took orders from the US and stood on the sidelines as Israel bombed Lebanon. Don't the Lebanese have a right to vote for political leadership that will actually attempt to defend their country if it is bombed by a foreign power?
"Re-booting" the relations with the Muslim world will have to include the notion that enemies that Israel makes have a right to defend themselves against Israel, and Western military aggression in general.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/28/2009 @ 12:46pm
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 05/28/2009 @ 10:55am
Do you favor a policy of non-interference, then, in Lebanon? From my standpoint, the best way to shore up the US position with the Lebanese people - and Hiz'b'allah itself - is to stay out of the Lebanese election, and respect the results of the election. As I just wrote, I think that attempting to interfere in their election, and back a "pro-Western" ie puppet Hariri regime, is a bad idea. The Hariri clan needs to go. You can't have a government that refuses to take military action to defend the country even when a foreign power is bombing the country and invading it with tanks. Letting the Lebanese vote for a Lebanese government (as opposed to a proxy US/Israel government) is the way to go, I think -
Posted by syfriendly at 05/28/2009 @ 12:52pm
The fact that you pick up on this minority feature as somehow convinced yourself that it is representative of Islam in general and your failure to differentiate between these two groups is one of the reasons why your analysis is so frequently bad.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/28/2009 @ 12:29pm
Sorry SRJ, but that traditional understanding has fallen by the wayside. That is in evidence by the preponderance of intelligence showing how the Muslim Brotherhood has become the intermediary between these Sunni and Shia Jihadists to forge an alliance.
You might want to read further in some of the links I provided on how the Muslim Brotherhood has been facilitating this interaction.
And I nowhere suggested that this was true of Islam in general. There is obviously still strong division between the majority Sunni and Shiites. This instead represents what I believe is representative of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. They find agreement in the greater enemy of the west over their own personal animosity. At least among these leading jihadist elements.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by CPT at 05/28/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hey! welcome back.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 12:58pm
Do they know they're not "really Muslims", Larry?
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 12:43pm
What they represent is unfortunately, a very tiny minority in Islam. They are devout to Islam itself as a way of life. She wears her Hajab daily (although her's is more the Khimar, the headscarf), or a Hajab bonnet cap.
But Dalah is very different from any devout Muslim in the rest of the Muslim world and even perhaps in the US.
I have never known a conservative Muslim couple where the wife is allowed to be openly affectionate in public, to be engaged in interfaith activities and dialogue with non-muslim men;
But most of all, Dalah is a gifted artist. I can't imagine most Muslim men allowing their wife to sketch nude women and men as her husband Haissam has graciously given Dalah the liberty to pursue her artistic gifts.
Here is a link to her website. I encourage one and all to visit it and see her artistic talents.
www.dalahfineart.com
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by CPT at 05/28/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hey! welcome back.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/28/2009 @ 12:58pm
I agree! Welcome back Captain!! Missed your presence here.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:15pm
What they represent is unfortunately, a very tiny minority in Islam.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:14pm
"tiny minority"?!?!?!? But Larry YOU said that the "tiny minority" (15-20%) were the fanatic "devotees"!?!??!?!??-
"While those statements are true of Islam, I have no idea how many Iraqis are devotees of the the religion. I would suspect that the number that actually 1)know the Qu'ran and 2) believe it completely is rather low
Some former Muslims I have read or listened to cite the figures throughout the ME as around 15-20%"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
Iraq's Elections: ISCI's View posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 01/29/2009 @ 09:59am
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:20pm
Ibbel/Antisocialist
Thanks..glad to be back
Posted by CPT at 05/28/2009 @ 1:25pm
Once again, what the results of an election in another country is seen as either a US victory or defeat, without any consideration for that nations own interests. As is, given Lebanon's opportunistic sectarianism, what is likely best for its own democratic development is to be left alone to work out for itself its own national identity and a functioning, executive, legislature and judiciary, and a cleaner electoral system without interference fom the US, France and Syria.
What is amazing is how national elections can be referred to without ant description of Lebanon's own concerns, difficulties and aspiration. Its as if Lebanon exists only as a cipher for the interests of others. And always, always, primary is that of the US.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 05/28/2009 @ 1:29pm
What they represent is unfortunately, a very tiny minority in Islam.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:14pm
"tiny minority"?!?!?!? But Larry YOU said that the "tiny minority" (15-20%) were the fanatic "devotees"!?!??!?!??-
"While those statements are true of Islam, I have no idea how many Iraqis are devotees of the the religion. I would suspect that the number that actually 1)know the Qu'ran and 2) believe it completely is rather low
Some former Muslims I have read or listened to cite the figures throughout the ME as around 15-20%"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
Iraq's Elections: ISCI's View posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 01/29/2009 @ 09:59am
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:20pm
And Dalah and Haissam are a tiny minority within the minority. Their social life and her art put her outside most of most of Islam. It is forbidden for a woman in most of Islam to draw nude men (or women for that matter). It is normally forbidden for a devout Muslim woman to have social dialogue with other men than her husband, much less a nonMuslim.
Can you say that you know any Muslims like that? I've not really seen it here, and especially not outside of the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:30pm
What is amazing is how national elections can be referred to without ant description of Lebanon's own concerns, difficulties and aspiration. Its as if Lebanon exists only as a cipher for the interests of others. And always, always, primary is that of the US.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 05/28/2009 @ 1:29pm
So you are perfectly fine with a nation like Lebanon that had such a rich cultural history and a reputation in Beirut as the "Paris" of the ME, becoming another Afghanistan?
You don't mind seeing a country that was perhaps the most open society in all of the Arab ME becoming another extremist supporter of global terrorism?
And do you know that 40% of the Lebanese population is Christian? What about them? You have no problem seeing them treated like they are in places like Pakistan? Beheadings and mass murder?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:30pm
Okay, so to resolve your contradiction....which I've mentioned before, that being your bigotry towards Islam (which teachs you that it is "the work of the Devil") in conflict with your neo-conservatism (which wants "most Muslims" to be nice so that Iraq can become democracy like Dubyaa told you)
...your friends are a minority of "nice non-devotee Muslims" of the 80-85% "minority" who are not devotees as they are the "majority" of 15-20% who are radical Islamists.
Gotcha.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:40pm
BTW, have you told your Muslim friends their religion is the work of the Devil, based on hate, and requires murder and subjugation?
Or been polite and kept your mouth shut
(which seems anti-Biblical...given you are mandated to "preach the Word")????
"Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:42pm
BTW, have you told your Muslim friends their religion is the work of the Devil, based on hate, and requires murder and subjugation?
Or been polite and kept your mouth shut
(which seems anti-Biblical...given you are mandated to "preach the Word")????
"Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:42pm
They know I'm a pastor and my view of salvation. We know we disagree so we do not discuss it. And Dalah has had art showings at Jewish centers which is really unusual for a Muslim.
And the command is to preach to the willing. If someone acknowledges they are not interested, we are not to attempt to force Christianity on anyone. A person can only come to Christ out of their own willingness.
I have friends from other faiths because I don't live my life on a blog Mask. I live my life as a fun loving, laid back person who is little changed in many ways from my hippy days.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 2:25pm
MASK,
The only plausible reason for Anti having 'very dear friends' that are muslim is that he is in the process of bringing them to the lord.
Impressive record keeping, BTW.
I'm wondering why Larry doesn't completely spell out the word 'God' when he uses it? It's right there in the bible, hundreds of times. Are we not worthy?
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 2:28pm
I have friends from other faiths because I don't live my life on a blog Mask. I live my life as a fun loving, laid back person who is little changed in many ways from my hippy days. Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 2:25pm
Nice try. You post on almost every topic here at the Nation, and usually multiple times. Some of your answers require research as well.
There's a little gray area in your 'truth', therefore. The only way that a person could post that much material, and lengthy posts at that, is to be near or sitting in front of a computer most of the time. Mask was able to pierce the bubble of your hypocrisy. As much as you are squirming on this one you will have to face the fact that the lord did not make you perfect.
"And the command is to preach to the willing". Well now, that pretty much says that you are witnessing to these folks and hoping for a conversion.
And the 'fun loving, laid back guy' who designed cluster bombs? You can only be fooling yourself. There is no such person.
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 2:43pm
"I have friends from other faiths because I don't live my life on a blog Mask."-----Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 2:25pm
Hmmm....
"Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good habits.'" (1 Corinthians 15:33, NKJ)
"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed." (Proverbs 13:20, NKJ)
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 2:28pm
His reasoning is "The bible is the 'Word of G-d', holy ordained and divinely inspired Truth" therefore it's "okay" for IT to use the word with no dash.
His writings are not the Word of God, holy ordained and divinely inspired Truth....
hmmmm....or are they????....LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 2:51pm
Nice try. You post on almost every topic here at the Nation, and usually multiple times. Some of your answers require research as well.
There's a little gray area in your 'truth', therefore. The only way that a person could post that much material, and lengthy posts at that, is to be near or sitting in front of a computer most of the time. Mask was able to pierce the bubble of your hypocrisy. As much as you are squirming on this one you will have to face the fact that the lord did not make you perfect.
"And the command is to preach to the willing". Well now, that pretty much says that you are witnessing to these folks and hoping for a conversion.
And the 'fun loving, laid back guy' who designed cluster bombs? You can only be fooling yourself. There is no such person.
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 2:43pm
I am semi-retired, so this is part of my recreation. If you notice, I seldom post at night.
You seem to not understand the idea of willing. In social meetings, I do not launch into preaching. If a subject is raised I will answer it openly. If someone tells me they are not open to hear about Christianity, I respect their decision.
I never violate the will of people by trying to force Christianity upon them. That is contrary to what Jesus commanded us. But I'm also not ashamed to declare who I am, who I serve, and what I believe if asked.
As to the last comment, you seem to be someone with very narrow stereotypes of people; and seem to need to put people into a box.
My wife would certainly laugh at your comments. Her complaint has been that I've never left that life style completely; I have no material ambitions, no greed for success. I still listen primarily to music from the 60's and 70's. Still have a beard
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:24pm
And the 'fun loving, laid back guy' who designed cluster bombs? You can only be fooling yourself. There is no such person.
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 2:43pm
Continued,
I had to give up the pony-tail as I went bald a few years ago.
Still enjoy skinny-dipping in my pool. Still burn incense,
If you met me somewhere without knowing I'm the "antisocialist" on the Nation website, you would never associate me with my blogs.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:27pm
The bible is such an amusing book. Whenever someone uses the bible to support a point, you can thumb through it and find another statement that refutes the first.
It seems that the bible can create 'holy confusion' just as much as it points the way to salvation. Is salvation actually 'holy confusion'?
The lord works in mysterious ways. Why did G-d (!?) not allow Sarah to be fertile, the consequence of which was that Hagar conceived Abrahams first born. Then God changed his tactic and made Sarah fertile. Then Sarah sent Hagar and Ishmael away after Isaac was born, certainly angering them. 600 years or so later, Muslims started their faith.
So the point is... did Go-d actually bring the Muslim religion onto existence on purpose, creating all the troubles in the world that have to do with Muslim fundamentalists?
Was G-d responsible for 911? Pretty weird point, but if Sarah hadn't sent Hagar away there may have been less of a chance for another religion to form and hate the 'righteous christians'. In fact, it may have been a sin for her to do that, send Hagar away. Is that resolved by the 'original sin' argument?
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 3:39pm
Larry, no commentary on my citations of Scripture???
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 3:46pm
As to the last comment, you seem to be someone with very narrow stereotypes of people; and seem to need to put people into a box.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:24pm
As I said before, nice try.
I guess I have to be open to 'a fun loving laid back guy' who designed cluster bombs. I learn something new every day.
But the box, pastor, is one of your own creation. Your view of yourself as being free from the odd stereotypes of your own making is, and will be, the ever morphing philosophical struggle of your lifetime. But christians aren't perfect, they're just forgiven, right?
I can't say that I disagree with you 100% of the time. But a seepage of the 'holier than thou' attitude and an occasional slip into disrespectful commentary is what creates most of the dissent here about your opinions.
So, in rebuttal, I would say that I understand perfectly what your opinions are about. I just don't often agree. I have been fully involved with the church and it's minions at times in my life. Hypocrisy and inconsistencies drove me away.
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 4:01pm
It seems that the bible can create 'holy confusion' just as much as it points the way to salvation. Is salvation actually 'holy confusion'?
The lord works in mysterious ways. Why did G-d (!?) not allow Sarah to be fertile, the consequence of which was that Hagar conceived Abrahams first born. Then God changed his tactic and made Sarah fertile. Then Sarah sent Hagar and Ishmael away after Isaac was born, certainly angering them. 600 years or so later, Muslims started their faith.
So the point is... did Go-d actually bring the Muslim religion onto existence on purpose, creating all the troubles in the world that have to do with Muslim fundamentalists?
Was G-d responsible for 911? Pretty weird point, but if Sarah hadn't sent Hagar away there may have been less of a chance for another religion to form and hate the 'righteous christians'. In fact, it may have been a sin for her to do that, send Hagar away. Is that resolved by the 'original sin' argument?
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 3:39pm
Actually, it was because of unbelief and a lack of patience by Sarah and Abraham.
Which shows that there are consequences to not waiting for G-d to do what He's said He will do.
Rebellion against G-d never produces anything good. And thus Ishmael reflects that rebellious spirit. In fact, often little noted, in Gen 21:9, Ishmael was scoffing at Isaac and that is when Sarah said enough. She realized what Abraham would not see; that a battle for the inheritance would develop.
Since it wasn't the fault of Hagar and Ishmael that Abraham and Sarah had not waited, G-d still blessed them.
BTW, this was 2700 years before Islam, not 600 years.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:13pm
To CPT: I can't imagine what makes you think I favor Hezbollah taking over. I have no use for their brand of religious politics. My point here is that the world won't end if they win. Dominos won't fall. The heavens won't collapse. And the United States ought to deal with them, whether they win or lose, because they're a force.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 05/28/2009 @ 4:24pm
Larry, no commentary on my citations of Scripture???
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 3:46pm
Ok,
Well I agree that keeping company with bad people is a corrupting influence.
HOWEVER, as I've said before, just because Islam is evil with an evil intent, doesn't make all of the people evil who follow it.
Iran is an evil govt, but most of the people there are good people simply trapped in that system.
And being an adulterer or homosexual does not make you evil, it means you are practicing things that are corrupting to your soul and separate you from G-d.
I know you and other atheists and agnostics don't accept the hate the sin, love the sinner ideal, but it is our reality. It is the lens in which we are called to view others.
Colossians 4:5,6
< Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:25pm
To CPT: I can't imagine what makes you think I favor Hezbollah taking over. I have no use for their brand of religious politics. My point here is that the world won't end if they win. Dominos won't fall. The heavens won't collapse. And the United States ought to deal with them, whether they win or lose, because they're a force.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 05/28/2009 @ 4:24pm
you actually believe that a global terrorist organization taking over Lebanon isn't dangerous for both the ME and the US?
Do you hate the 40% of the Lebanese population that is Christian? What did they ever do to you?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:57pm
antisocialist-All of you are sinners so it's good that most of you do not hate yourselves.Of course,some sinners hate themselves and need a bit of help with that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 5:13pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:24pm </i>
I hate to do this, I really do, but I have to ask: these Muslim friends you describe...do you believe they will suffer eternally in hell?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 5:39pm
I hate to do this, I really do, but I have to ask: these Muslim friends you describe...do you believe they will suffer eternally in hell?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 5:39pm
Unfortunately, if they do not turn to Jesus as their Lord and Savior, yes.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Are you one these guys standing on the street corner waving a sign reading "Repent Sinner!! Jesus is your only salvation!!" or similar?
Posted by syfriendly at 05/28/2009 @ 5:45pm
Thrawn-Is it possible to have a "friend" in another religion if you believe that the person is being influenced by the devil and going to hell?That would seem to be more of an acquaintance than friend.Friends, typically, do not condemn each other to hell and believe that they are influenced by the devil and it would be impossible to have a close bond between such people..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 5:45pm
Are you one these guys standing on the street corner waving a sign reading "Repent Sinner!! Jesus is your only salvation!!" or similar?
Posted by syfriendly at 05/28/2009 @ 5:45pm
If you read my earlier post, you would know that is not my style. It was very briefly when I first became a Christian. Once I understood how Jesus and the disciples advanced the gospel, I changed my ways.
<I never violate the will of people by trying to force Christianity upon them. That is contrary to what Jesus commanded us. But I'm also not ashamed to declare who I am, who I serve, and what I believe if asked.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 3:24pm>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 5:51pm
Thrawn-Is it possible to have a "friend" in another religion if you believe that the person is being influenced by the devil and going to hell?That would seem to be more of an acquaintance than friend.Friends, typically, do not condemn each other to hell and believe that they are influenced by the devil and it would be impossible to have a close bond between such people..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 5:45pm
You are indeed a very shallow person IM.
Real friends respect the right of friends to disagree. If the only friends we have are those with whom we agree completely, our circle of friends would be very small.
And you continue a strawman that you know to be untrue. I cannot condemn anyone to hell. Neither myself, nor any other person on earth has that power or authority. People condemn themselves, and G-d merely pronounces the sentence. I did not create the Bible. I did not force the words of Jesus. I merely believe them to be true.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 6:00pm
antisocialist-actually,I'm not at all shallow and you know it because I have expressed very deep beliefs on here.It is you that has stated that you only hang out with your own kind.It is me that has stated that I have friends from all walks of life.Real friends do not condemn each other to hell so we are not talking about your typical disagreement that friends have.A persons religious beliefs are a huge part of who they are and if you reject a huge part of who someone is then cannot be their friend.It is you that condemns people to hell and you are not just quoting the Bible when you do that nor do you quote Jesus.Jesus said that only He decides everyones afterlife and never mentioned any of you who claim to be a part of that decision making process.You were told by Jesus to concern yourself with yourself and what you are doing.People do not condemn themselves according to your beliefs.You have stated that G-d puts people into the wrong religions which means that G-d decides in advance everyones afterlife and all is predetermined by birth..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 6:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Whoever you are, you need de-programming.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/28/2009 @ 6:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:25pm |
Okay, so you'd have no problem being friends, even close friends as you are to your Muslim friends....with a homosexual?
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 6:47pm
antisocialist-actually,I'm not at all shallow and you know it because I have expressed very deep beliefs on here.It is you that has stated that you only hang out with your own kind.It is me that has stated that I have friends from all walks of life.Real friends do not condemn each other to hell so we are not talking about your typical disagreement that friends have.A persons religious beliefs are a huge part of who they are and if you reject a huge part of who someone is then cannot be their friend.It is you that condemns people to hell and you are not just quoting the Bible when you do that nor do you quote Jesus.Jesus said that only He decides everyones afterlife and never mentioned any of you who claim to be a part of that decision making process.You were told by Jesus to concern yourself with yourself and what you are doing.People do not condemn themselves according to your beliefs.You have stated that G-d puts people into the wrong religions which means that G-d decides in advance everyones afterlife and all is predetermined by birth..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 6:13pm
IM, you are plainly just a liar and patently dishonest.
I've stated repeatedly that neither I nor any other person can condemn someone to hell. Yet you continue to repeat your lie that I believe that.
Unfortunately, given that you cannot be honest in our dialogues, I'm through with you.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 6:53pm
Whatever directly benefits the U.S. is fine.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/28/2009 @ 7:08pm
antisocialist-As always,you went for the put down rather than address what was said to you.It is you that said that Gandhi,mormons,etc go to hell and at no time did you provide Bible quotes.You condemned them.The honest reason that you are through with me is because you cannot address any facts I present to you about religion,the Bible,etc and expose your hypocrisy.You put no thought into your religious beliefs because politics is more important to you and that is why you run from discussing that subject with me, and others, as is obvious from numerous boards.As always,you guys point the finger at others,but it is really you who lied.Get that log out of yours eyes,preacher,and then get back to us.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 7:10pm
IM,
last response to you ---
I've provided the quotes of Jesus many times on who is saved.
It is you who rejects them because you say that no one can be sure....
So stop lying about me and move on...you and I are through.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 7:16pm
antisocialist-You did not provide any Bible quotes when you condemned them to hell nor have you ever posted all of the Jesus teachings on the subject because those contradict your claim.Seek God and read the Gospels and other such stuff rather than spending your time seeking Marxists.Not only have I never stated that I reject what Jesus said,but quite the opposite and have stated that I believe in the Gospels and you know that because I have told that to you on numerous occasions and quote Jesus more than you do.Again,it is you who is lying and not me.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 7:30pm
BTW, this was 2700 years before Islam, not 600 years. Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:13pm
I've actually read three different bits of data about the time span. It's pretty hard to say who's right from our point of vantage.
If you want it to be 2700 years, so be it!
And we went into the human interactions on this topic, when I really want to know why G-d, if all knowing, would allow this situation to develop early on. Being all knowing , why would he allow this scenario when he would know (being all knowing) that nothing but trouble would come of it. The fact about Ishmael and his 'attitude problem is interesting, ("One day Sarah was angered by seeing Ishmael mocking or playing with Isaac..." (the Hebrew word is ambiguous), but all of this happened pretty close to the biblical 'beginning' of humankind, so it seems either purposeful or ignorant to let the scenario develop at all. But G-d is mysterious. Let's let two religions develop shortly after the (perceived) creation, then watch the drama. It's interesting, but time to move along. Thanks for the response.
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 7:40pm
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 5:45pm </i>
I think it's actually worse than that. By any interpretation, the notion of hell is an infinite harm; infinite magnitude and infinite duration. This means a few things:
1) Antisocialist's statement about a "right to disagree" is disingenuous. We're talking about what is effectively an infinite torment. I'll get into why that's problematic in a minute, but for now, suffice to say that this isn't like "red is nicer than green" or even "capitalism is superior to socialism." It's an issue of literally infinite magnitude.
2) An infinite harm outweighs a finite one. This seems pretty obvious. That means that antisocialist can't possibly defend the kind of restraint he embraces. Now, maybe he can say "I won't try and COERCE them to believe" and things like that, but his own position logically obligates him to reason with them in every way possible.
Now here's where it gets interesting (and where I hope for an engaging response from antisocialist). His position isn't tenable, and here's a few reasons why (i.e., untenable implications of his position):
1) The only morally defensible action is to save as many people as you can, meaning that you tell the Gospel to as many people as you can find. Anyone who fails to do so is complicit in an infinite harm.
2) You won't reach everyone. I don't just mean that you won't persuade everyone you get to. I mean that you physically won't get to everyone, even though with just a BIT more exertion, you could have. You now have an infinite harm on your conscience because you could have made salvation possible for that person.
3) Your own position of the Atonement is inconsistent with this. By your position, were all sins covered or no? If yes...what's punished?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 10:07pm
HEZBOLLAH HANGS TOUGH
by Trish Schuh The Indypendent March 7, 2005
Hezbollah is a Syrian-Iranian sponsored political/resistance party that began over 20 years ago to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Accused of bombing the U.S. embassy and the American marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, Hezbollah has long been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Since the end of the Lebanese civil war in 1990, Hezbollah has operated extensive social service networks including schools, hospitals and community centers throughout Lebanon. It also holds 12 seats in parliament.
After mass demonstrations on March 8 of 500,000 Lebanese, the Lebanese government pushed for the reinstatement of pro-Syrian prime minister Omar Karameh who resigned last week. Targeted by neoconservatives in Washington and Tel Aviv, Hezbollah could determine if Lebanon remains at peace or lapses into civil war.
Interview: Hussein Naboulsi Director of Hezbollah Media Relations Hezbollah, Beirut Lebanon
Q: Did Hezbollah assassinate Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri or have anything to do with his death?
A: Rafiq Hariri was one of our most important national figures. He saved Lebanon in many ways. He got us on our feet. He supported the resistance and worked against Resolution 1559. He believed in our right to liberate Lebanon. And he supported Hezbollah to the international community.
Q: Who killed him then? Was it Syria?
A: There is a UN international investigation now that will gather the evidence and determine who committed this crime. In one month we'll have the answers and we'll know.
Q: In the Arab press the US or Israel are accused of killing him?
A: We know this: those behind it were the enemies of the Lebanese. It is an attempt
Posted by Brahman at 05/28/2009 @ 10:20pm
A: "Hezbollah didn't kill this guy, he was our friend"
B: "How do you know?"
A: "A media guy from Hezbollah said so."
Seriously, this is your argument?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 10:53pm
Thrawn-I do not believe in original sin or the OT sins,except for the usual do not murder,rob,or cause others harm stuff and believe that Jesus died to save humanity so that all people have a chance to turn their lives around and be redeemed regardless of religious belief or lack of religious belief.In Taoism one can save the world by giving their life out of love for the world,but they are not just referring to dying in order to get sins forgiven,but it is the love itself that saves the world from itself and gets God to act because God(Tao) automatically responds in a positive way to that love and humanity gets redeemed because of the love.As far as the afterlife and punishment are concerned,I leave that to God,but have a difficult time believing in eternal damnation because that is inconsistent with the God of my experience and is not something that the perfect parent does.Particularly,for being born into the wrong religion or being unable to accept this one faith.My take on the teachings of Jesus is that belief is a way,but not the only way to a nice afterlife..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 10:54pm
Democratizing the Middle East...Wasn't this Dubya's great plan?
What've you got?
A rigged Confessionalist system in Lebanon can't even keep Hezbollah out. What are the chances that Iraq will turn out any better for the US?
Once the US pulls out and its influence fades...
That's the problem with Democracy...It's conceivable that a regime unfriendly to the West could be legitimately elected.
It's possible that a totally undemocratic regime could be legitimately elected.
Posted by koroviev at 05/29/2009 @ 01:03am
thank god there's no oil in lebanon.
just imagine...
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2009 @ 01:57am
thank god there's no oil in lebanon.
just imagine...
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2009 @ 01:57am
If there was oil the country would stabilize around the economy. It might not be the prettiest picture, but people would have something to lose by tolerating warfare.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/29/2009 @ 07:05am
Posted by Milhaus at 05/29/2009 @ 07:05am
I think FROSTY's point was...if there was oil, Cheney would have told us "Lebanon is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and we need to invade NOW!"
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 08:04am
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 05/28/2009 @ 10:54pm </i>
I'm not sure I completely agree with the position of the Atonement either; the purpose of my responses was to show (at least in part) that antisocialist's position is internally incoherent. I'm arguing that from his own premises, his conclusion doesn't follow.
That said, I also don't believe that humans are capable of fully redeeming themselves because no human being is capable of perfection. That, I'd argue is where grace steps in, and the church has made a mistake when it's tried to put that in a box or say "but only if you believe X and Y." My thought (and apparently a fairly common Catholic doctrine) is all are invited in and the only ones who don't come in are those who actively choose to reject it.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/29/2009 @ 10:07am
"and the only ones who don't come in are those who actively choose to reject it."----Posted by Thrawn at 05/29/2009 @ 10:07am
Doesn't that conflict with "None come to the Father, but through me"?
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 10:13am
Thrawn-Grace certainly is most of it.When I say redeem ourselves I ,only,mean that we must do our part and try the best we can to do the best we can and God's grace takes it from there.I agree on the actively choosing to reject it,but I view that as rejecting the idea of what Jesus stood for rather than the physical entity that was Jesus because God would know that many very good people would be unable to switch religions or become religious and become a believer in the physical being that was Jesus.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2009 @ 10:17am
ROBERT DREYFUSS,
Your article raises the "what is democracy" question once again - is it free and fair elections and the legitimacy of a the victor and consent of the governed that this implies, or is it something else.
When Hamas wins a free and fair election, we are supposed to somehow ignore the will of the people and pretend that the victor is not legitimate because we don't like this group. But if we do that, then why have elections at all? Are elections just a front for those vying for power, or is "consent of the governed" a real principle?
I know that Obama has so far backed the Bush doctrine that "elections are meaningless unless our guy wins", but this has serious adverse global consequences for US leadership and puts us squarely in the hypocrite camp, making it easy to ignore US interests entirely.
It makes it easy to say, "The US doesn't REALLY believe in democracy, and is just like any other group - including terrorist groups - seeking power over others".
Posted by Metteyya at 05/29/2009 @ 12:30pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 05/29/2009 @ 10:13am </i>
Nope (I've had arguments with others on precisely that point). There is a subtle but hugely important difference between "none come to the Father except through me" and "none come to the Father except through BELIEF in me." The latter requires action by the individual, the former only requires action by God/Jesus. The reason for the refusal exception is, as many have argued, that God will not force heaven on anyone.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/29/2009 @ 7:38pm
the wise future policy for this country involves something like this...
1. identify resources that will be needed for the nation to produce what it needs to produce.
2. for resources located in dangerous and/or unstable regions, work out arrangements to keep them flowing until substitutes can be found or until such regions settle down.
3. dedicated ourselves to scientific research directed at finding substitutes for such resources and implementing the same.
4. maintain a smaller, highly professional, quickly expandable (through dedication to an extensive guard/reserve system) military which is highly mobile and high tech.
5. limit immigration and access to our markets for those who do not share our values and whose access to our markets endangers our ability to produce wealth.
a. immigration should be carefully monitored and quotas set that target a population growth rate which sustains our population growth rate or allows it to slightly increase if native reproduction rates stagnate.
b. cease stupid luddite mentality and embrace science and the pursuit of knowledge - devote sufficient resources to targeted technologies and to implementation of such.
6. accept a sustainable, sane, reasonable, growth rate. use public policy and government to protect and enhance the lives and rights of the little guy and the big guy...consumers and business big and small. throw such odious terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" onto the trash heap of history and base public policy on pragmatic realism and a-ideological research.
7. temper compassion with wisdom and wisdom with compassion. the hardest of all...
the dystopic future is NOW, folks, and we will not be able to "save the world" one day if our own house is not in order.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/30/2009 @ 06:55am
and we will not be able to get our own house in order if we cannot change the suicidal course, based on conventional wisdom cum foolishness, we currently myopically pursue...
yesterday's wisdom is often tomorrows foolishness.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/30/2009 @ 06:58am
Posted by ficheye at 05/28/2009 @ 3:39pm
You need to reread the story. God told Abraham that Sarah would be fertile and that he would be a father of nations. It was Sarah trying to act as God - making the decision for Abraham to go to Hagar, and Abraham agreeing, rather than believing in God's promise - that was the problem. LVL is correct on this point.
I don't subscribe to LVL's theology, and the Bible is a challenging book (how could it be otherwise and help us to develop spiritually?). But, this is not a good argument.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 4:25pm
Hate the sin, not the sinner. I do find it strange that you do not take this to its logical conclusion in respect to your views of Islam, such as your assumption that Muslims will persecute the 40% of Christians in Lebanon. What evidence do you have that it will follow the Bangladesh/Pakistan model rather than a Kuwait?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/28/2009 @ 10:07pm
The flaw in your argument is that it assumes the individual believer is responsible for saving everyone, essentially assuming that every believer is God. You have to acknowledge the limitations of people and the basic principle that if it is not in your power to do or not do something, then it is not in your power to make a moral choice when deciding to do or not do it.
So, based on this flaw, your criticisms of LVL are off point.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 09:06am
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 09:06am </i>
I think it does, though I admit that I have to fill in a missing premise in order for this to work. Since I don't think he accepts that the sole purpose of evangelism would be the spreading of good news, I think that under his position, individual believers ARE charged with this responsibility. If they're not, he has a different problem instead. If missionaries aren't charged with this responsibility, than God has to instill everyone who honestly seeks with a specific belief in the doctrines necessary for salvation. I don't think he defends this latter alternative, and for good reason (it's plainly empirically false).
So basically, antisocialist has to defend 2 means by which those not currently exposed to the Gospel are saved by exposure to basic Christian doctrine:
1) Missionaries
2) Action of God
My argument is simply that (2) is empirically false and (1) creates awful theological consequences. Though I recognize that people's capacities are limited, I argue that things are different when you're talking about an infinite harm. Since accepting some basic level of correct doctrine is supposed to be a prerequisite to salvation, it must be the case that everyone who seeks is exposed to said doctrine. If God doesn't always do it (which he doesn't), that means that God has saddled missionaries with this ultimately cruel task (b/c massive guilt necessarily results if you think that by exerting yourself JUST a bit more, you might have averted INFINITE suffering for someone). The argument from finite capacity makes sense only if God fully picks up the slack.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 09:59am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 09:59am
You are also making assumptions about it having to happen on earth. We not assume some end of time Harrowing of Hell? This solves this problem. Alternatively, you could just say that all things are possible with God, ergo it happens some other way.
I'll admit that theology is not my strong suit. I'm not interested in doctrines of salvation by belief. I think they are besides the point. The point, for me, is centered on the Sermon on the Mount, and you know who is walking with God and who is not be the "fruit" they bear - and even then, we should be careful to keep our eye on our own fruit, rather than the fruit of others. When you make it more complicated than that, it becomes real easy to lose your way.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/29/2009 @ 7:38pm
So basically, THRAWN, do you believe that a "good" agnostic or even atheist can get into Heaven?
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:07am
<i>Posted by Mask at 05/30/2009 @ 11:07am</i>
Yes and no. I don't think it's about "goodness" at all, because then it leans perilously towards a works-based system. But yes, I do think an atheist or agnostic can get into heaven. I'd argue that the only way you don't get in is by choosing to say "no thanks." From everything I've read and heard, this is very close to the Catholic Church's position.
I find the idea that an atheist or agnostic who doesn't believe in God for philosophical reasons or simply has never heard of monotheism goes to hell is fundamentally against the idea of a perfectly good and loving God. The idea that God somehow can't let them in makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 09:59am
You are actually stating exactly opposite the declaration of scripture. It is G-d who draws us to Him through the Holy Spirit. Our role is to proclaim the good news (gospel). We are commanded to do so, but only to those willing to hear as Jesus commanded (Mtt 10:14). For us to have a greater role , actually puts the praise and the glory on us instead of G-d. The word draw (John 6:44) in the greek text is elko which really means to compel. It is a sense of compelling that so many people always speak of when relating their decision to receive Christ.
John 6:43-45, and vs 63-65
<Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes these points: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Chapter 9, Art. 3)."
more to follow.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:04pm
As Paul stated in Ephesians 2:8,9
<For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.>
And again in the Westminster Confession
<"When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only (Chapter 9, art. 4 and 5).">
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:06pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 3:04pm </i>
To start off, does your position mean that anyone who honestly seeks God and never speaks to a missionary will have a revelation of Christ and obtain basic Christian doctrine, or would you maintain that these revelations would not be necessary for salvation?
Paul's description of salvation as a gift is extremely telling. I know of no concept of gift in which the receiver must take positive action to receive the gift. The only way they don't get the gift is if they refuse it. They certainly don't have to affirm X and Y beliefs in order to get it.
Your claim about God's action is equally telling. If God's action is all that is involved in salvation, the only constraint upon it would be coercion. That is to say that if it's God that's doing the saving, it's not us. We don't take any action to save ourselves; it's all God. That fits squarely into the argument I've made. God is the one who does the saving, but he will not coerce anyone into heaven. The impact of that combination is that only those who actively refuse God's gift of salvation go to hell. I don't think there's any way out of that; ANY act by which a human being can save themselves, including affirming a set of beliefs, negates the statement that salvation is purely God's gift.
Also, I am curious about some material from the Westminster Confession. Does it claim that the human heart is totally depraved? Such a claim lacks any meaningful foundation so long as human beings are at all capable of good even apart from a specific conversion.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
Thrawn-Many Tibetan Buddhist monks who were tortured and imprisoned by the Chinese kept their faith and even ministered to their torturers and helped them out,but they do not believe in God.Obviously,those monks were doing something that was Spiritually good which seems to contradict the idea that one must be saved through grace and be a Christian in order to do good.I have known non Christians who sinned far less than most Christians do so I do not really understand antisocialists views.Many seem contradictory or they deny human nature and it seems like they pretend that we are different than we really are and can really just switch religions or join their brand of the religion simply because we heard about it.I,simply,have no clue as to how he believes people get into heaven other than to be born into the religion which he believes that God puts people in which sounds like salvation is predetermined by God when God has you born into the various religions or lack of religion..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 4:42pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
1.I'm not sure how you got the impression that only G-d is involved.
Christians are the voice and physical presence of Christ to declare the good news. As Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing, hearing comes from the Word of G-d".
Some people respond and some don't
Those that respond, do so because they then experience G-d through the Holy Spirit drawing them or compelling them to seek Him.
As to the gift. If you don't believe the gift exists, how can you receive it? This gift comes through the person of Jesus the Christ. If you will not believe that He proceeds from G-d, and that He is the sole authority granted the right to give you the gift, you will not accept the gift as coming from G-d.
As the writer of Hebrews declares, "without faith it is impossible to please G-d, for you must believe that G-d is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11:6
So, back to Romans 10, we see that the promise is that if you call upon the name of the Lord, you will be saved.
But you need to know who the Lord is. And the declaration of the Good News through mankind is that vehicle.
<For "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
"But how can they call on Him to save them unless they believe in Him? And how can they believe in Him if they have never heard about Him? And how can they hear about Him unless someone tells them?">
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:31pm
continued answer to Thrawn
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
As to calling faith an action that precludes the gifting, you distort the entire meaning. You have to go back to the greatest gift of G-d's creation, the agency of Free Will. G-d will not force us to accept the gift.
Secondly, I can believe with all my being that I'm going to receive the gift of a new Mercedes; but if there isn't someone to provide the gift, my believing is in vain. The action again is all on the giver, not the receiver. All we have is the choice of our Free Will.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:41pm
Also, I am curious about some material from the Westminster Confession. Does it claim that the human heart is totally depraved? Such a claim lacks any meaningful foundation so long as human beings are at all capable of good even apart from a specific conversion.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
It's odd you have never been taught this central doctrine of both Judaism and Christianity with all the knowledge you seem to have of scripture.
As shown below, total depravity does not mean that people are incapable of doing any good. It deals with our nature separating us from G-d.
Total depravity (also called total inability and total corruption) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.
It is also advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of Lutheranism, and Methodism, Arminianism, and Calvinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:43pm
Thrawn-The problem with antisocialists view is that we humans do not have that kind of free will.Antisocialist could not change religions nor did he choose to become a Christian.His dad was an alcoholic atheist who would not allow the name Jesus to be spoken at home.It is quite normal for such children to become alcoholic atheists or to turn to that brand of Christianity.As an act of rebellion antisocialist became a Christian who gets to say the name of Jesus in his house.A name that his dad would not allow him to say.That he would become this type of Christian was quite predictable and we humans are predictable because we do not have that degree of free will.A devout Buddhist can no more change religions than any other devout person because our human nature prevents us from doing so.So,again,I'm not sure how he thinks people get into heaven other than be born into the religion or find your way to it by accident.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
I've mention this before, but I think Larry Wall's talk about religion pretty much captures the essence of this discussion.
"Please allow me to qoute a couple 'bits' from Hebrews, slightly paraphrased:
You can't please God the way Enoch did without some faith, because those who come to God must (minimally) believe that:
A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him. That's it. The "good news" is so simple that a child can understand it, and so deep that a philosopher can't."
He mentions Shroedinger's Cat and God as the observer, which I think raises interesting questions about God's active role in each of our lives.
He also touches on the problems similar to those i'm nobody is raising, "...we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism."
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/02/09/06/1343222.shtml
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 6:19pm
We aren't clockwork oranges. We can make choices. But, I agree with your central criticism that a salvation message based on a "special sauce" of any variety does a disservice to God by turning God the person into a formula. That's a mistake.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 8:20pm
Israel to U.S.: 'Stop favoring Palestinians'
hmmmm....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2009 @ 8:35pm
srjenkins-Certainly,we make choices,but the ability to make choices is quite different from having the degree of free will that this brand of Christianity believes in..We humans are very much ruled by beliefs we were raised with,religions we were born into,whatever mental or physical illnesses we may have and the degree to which we may have them,cultural coding,etc.Few people switch to other religions and even fewer switch more than once and the reason for that is because we do not have the degree of free will that it takes to make such changes and make those types of choices.We are quite predictable because we can only make a limited range of choices.Even when people convert to new religions they have a habit of incorporating many of their old beliefs into their new beliefs because we cannot shed such things and do not have the level of free will that it takes to do so.When you do nothing more than believe in the religion that you were born into or pick the dominate religion that is around you then the idea that you chose to do that is nonsense.You did what the vast majority of humans do because it is human nature to stay with the familiar and comfortable and going with human nature is not a choice.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 9:02pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 9:02pm
Ruled? No. Although, I'll certainly agree that we are shaped by them.
I was initially raised Lutheran, but when I went to church, I generally went with my nominally Roman Catholic grandmother. In my teens, I eventually was confirmed as a Catholic.
I love the Catholic church - it's traditions, the sense of being involved in a shared religious experience and the wide variety of religious expression, particularly its monastic tradition. But, there were things I couldn't believe, such as the infallibility of the Pope. It's things like this that got me searching. I went to Buddhist retreats. I studied religious texts and practices. I've been to various temples, mosques, chapels, whatever.
The one place I found an approach that made sense to me was with the Quakers, but even there, I had trouble. The meeting house was far away, I was one of the younger people attending, and I had one experience where they were discussing a workshop on racism that was based on the premise that racism, sexism, and heterosexism are all problems caused by white heterosexual men.
That tore it for me. Any group where spiritual development is built on self-hatred and crimes of social identity is just as lost as a group that claims their leader is infallible.
The reason I'm sharing this personal anecdote is that I think any authentic spirituality is marked by questioning. It doesn't matter what culture you belong to or what you believe in. But, learning new forms of spiritual expression is a lot of work - and most people just want an answer they can live with.
But, I think it is a mistake to say that limits on learning or in general, desire - constitute limited choice. The individual isn't limited by the general tendencies you describe.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 10:36pm
srjenkins-If the individual was not limited by these general tendencies that I mentioned then we would see far more people changing religions, changing their other beliefs,we would not see children growing up to be quite similar to their parents like we tend to be,we would not see alcoholism,spouse abuse,and other such things running in families.Over 80% of alcoholic/drug addicts were sexual abused as children so did those people really choose to become some kind of addict or did they just react to the emotional horror and discovered that these things killed the pain?Does someone with OCD really choose to wash their hands alot or whatever or are they compelled to?All humans have some degree of OCD.People,like ourselves,who step outside of the religions we were raised in and go on a Spiritual quest are rare and I was raised to believe that it was good to go on a Spiritual quest so I'm still living within the teachings of my parents.I'm afraid that ruled by is more accurate than shaped by although we humans wish that it was different.We wish we had all that free will because that makes us feel more in control,but reality says that we humans spend far more time reacting to life emotionally than making rational choices and we stay in our comfort zones as a reaction to life and not as a choice.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:12pm
srjenkins-Have you ever been to one of those evangelical meetings where people go forward to get saved?Very few,if any of them who go forward to get saved,first study religions and Christianity in particular in order to make an informed and rational decision to go forward to be saved.Typically,a good talking preacher scares them into thinking that if they die on the way home then they go to hell so these people have a strictly emotional fear based response to the preachers words and get saved.The idea that a fear based emotional reaction constitutes a choice is ludicrous.You are reacting and not choosing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:24pm
Man, let me say right at the outset that this thread is incredible. Some really fantastic discussion going on. That said...I'll probably need a couple of posts to respond to everything.
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:31pm </i>
A lot of this isn't really responsive. First off, if you're responding to the missionary problem, you still haven't dealt with the double-bind. If, directly or indirectly, missionaries are responsible for bringing people to Christ (which seems to be what you're saying), all of the infinite guilt analysis applies.
This doesn't, however, deal with the salvation problem. In the relationship between the individual believer and God, is there a sharing of responsibility? You seem to believe that there is. How this avoids becoming a more limited theology of works is difficult to see. While I recognize that one cannot call on a name one does not even recognize or accept, Romans never says that one who does NOT call on the name of the Lord is NOT saved. That conclusion simply doesn't follow. The parable of the Prodigal Son also seems like a strong refutation to the "there's some thing you have to do" claim; the father's love and acceptance was NOT conditional on ANYTHING the son said or did, and to suggest that this detail is accidental or insignificant seems a very hard argument to make.
Next, let's talk about the gift. The claim that you can't receive a gift without acknowledging it is plainly false. If I see a family member struggling and decide to place money on their account or take a debt of theirs upon myself, I am giving them a gift. It doesn't matter whether they recognize it or not; I will have covered their burden regardless (and I assume you sense the implicit analogy here). Unless they say no, it's done.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 12:16am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:41pm </i>
I don't think we disagree. The difference is where the "bar" lies. I account for coercion by saying that you can reject the gift. My argument is simply that God's grace is no more limited than that.
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:43pm </i>
I've heard of the doctrine, but what I never got was this: when they speak of the prevenient grace of God intervening, when do they believe that happens? If they believe it happens only for those who are Christians, total depravity is plainly false, because the implication of it would be that non-Christians cannot do good things. If the phrase "total depravity" is used to mean nothing more than the simple fact that we incline to some degree towards sin and thus oure relationship to God is distorted, I see nothing problematic about it.
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2009 @ 8:20pm </i>
I'm not entirely sure I disagree with you there. I think we both (judging from your statements) affirm that non-Christians can be saved, and if you're not arguing that salvation requires action on our part, I think we're probably agreed.
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:12pm </i>
But we DO see a lot of these things. We DO see people struggling with questions of faith, questioning their own religion, etc. We DO see people changing religious traditions, or entering or leaving the religious community entirely. Granted, many people don't do that, but to suggest that it's more-or-less locked in simply ignores empirical reality.
Oh, by the way, one other thought for antisocialist. The "anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" really cuts against your position. It isn't "Jesus-specific" (Abraham?)so it means that Jews and Muslims can be saved.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 12:25am
Thrawn-Rarely does someone change religions and those who do tend to incorporate many of their old beliefs into the new.It is virtually unknown for someone to drastically change from one thing to another unless there is some rational explanation for that,like an act of rebellion or mental illness.I'm not saying that we make no choices,but am saying that our choices are limited by who we are.A devout person cannot just up and change religions because they heard about a new one.Only a complete flake up and changes religions without extensive study and thought.It is known from studies that most people who change religions do so because of marriage or to assimilate into the dominate culture.Not exactly deep reasons.While some can question their religious beliefs most are too scared to or do not want to get uncomfortable by doing so and that is particularly true for those who believe in the scary God.Questioning that God can get you sent to hell quite quickly.Even those who question things tend to be similar types of people so are we choosing to question things or is it in our nature to question things?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 12:57am
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:12pm
"If the individual was not limited by these general tendencies that I mentioned then we would see far more people changing religions..."
You are raising the nature vs. nurture question, and to some extent, the nature of sin/evil and moral suasion. If alcoholism, spouse abuse and so forth run in families, what accounts for it? Is it due to genetics? Is it because people tend to ape behavior they see? Does it have something to do with the times we live in? All interesting and valid questions.
But, I also think you are coloring the data a bit. I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of all people sexually abused as children turn into alcoholics/drug addicts. And what of the other 20%? And what of the view that addiction is a disease?
However, I think my original reference is the biggest problem for your position. If what you say is true, then Clockwork Orange-style conditioning or worse, Nazi-style eugenics (limited to stopping reproduction) focused on people with undesirable behaviors would be one way to steadily improve the world. But, I think the point of Clockwork Orange is that if you take away the element of making a moral choice, you end up with someone that is sub-human.
The idea of free will is ultimately the assertion that part of what makes us human is the ability to make moral choices. The idea of "original sin" is basically your point of the influence of evil. The empirical evidence of groups provided by groups like alcoholics anonymous show that if an individual is given support (by others that have faced a problem, a spiritual community, God, etc.) they can overcome this influence and make a better choice.
There is no doubt of the influence of evil in the world. But, there's good too.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 06:10am
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:12pm
I wasn't raised to think about religion at all. My grandmother talked about being an "Old Testament" Catholic. My uncle is a Baptist for a number of reasons, but mostly because it gave him something he needed. My mother was a Lutheran because divorce isn't an option in the Catholic church. My father has a vague spirituality based on asking for a sign, and having something happen that he thought was a sign.
The only lesson I learned from all of this is that people tend to believe what they need to believe to function in this world, and many of their beliefs are shaped by chance and circumstance. I think this is partly your point. But, I don't think you can go so far as to say this eliminates choice. It's there. I think most people are concerned about other things and don't make a choice here - which is...making a choice.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:24pm
Yes, I remember going to the Baptist services with my uncle. Two hours and all that carrying on a water dunking and what not. Bored me to tears.
"The idea that a fear based emotional reaction constitutes a choice is ludicrous."
But, it is a choice. If you are afraid to ask a woman on a date, to dance, or to marry you, then you've made a choice. You've allowed your fear to decide for you. People do make this choice, everyday.
The ludicrous part is that most healthy adults know that they have to overcome their fear and choose to do things that they are afraid of doing. It's part of adult responsibility.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 06:29am
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2009 @ 11:24pm
"...if any of them who go forward to get saved, first study religions and Christianity in particular in order to make an informed and rational decision to go forward to be saved."
But the story doesn't end there. They have to drive home. Then, they have to wonder whether they got home alright because they were "saved" or whether it all was necessary. Authentic spirituality never ends. There is no end point to it, other than perhaps death.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 12:25am
I don't get hung up on salvation or Christian theology. Christ laid out what was important in Matthew 22:36-40.
"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
I think trying to live up to that standard is more than enough to worry about.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 06:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/30/2009 @ 5:31pm
Larry, a point I've never gotten clear...
those who died BEFORE hearing the Gospel, pretty much everybody uptil the 1-2nd Century AD....most of the world until the 15-16th Century....lots of it upto the 19th even 20th Century....
how do THEY get into Heaven?
(Just to leap ahead) the answer I usually got is "Oh, they get an excemption and get the choice to choose Christ AFTER they die, since they didn't get to hear"....which doesn't seem to work, because in that case, if a person simply dis-believes, i.e. an atheist, what would make them different from the person who "never heard"???
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2009 @ 07:13am
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2009 @ 07:13am
See Harrowing of Hell in Wikipedia for one answer.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 07:41am
srjenkins-We,obviously, define the word choice differently.I do not view emotional reactions as a choice,but see such things as emotional reactions where little,if any,thought,is put into it.For me,a choice is something that you have put thought into.Your clockwork orange reference means that I'm not explaining my position very well because that is not where my views lead.The point I'm trying to make is that the idea of only belief in Jesus gets you into heaven goes against our human nature because so few people can easily switch to another religion because that takes us out of our comfort zones and God knows that we have those and that the ones born into the religion or in a Christian country would have a slight advantage and God would not do that and to believe that God would shows you have a low opinion of God.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 11:04am
For me, second to Christ is Epictetus. The central tenet of Epictetus's thought is that the place for freedom is in the choices we make in our response to the world around us. One of his more famous quotes: "We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them." The proper realm of freedom is understanding how are views or our emotions lead us astray. So, we probably do disagree about the meaning of choice.
However, I don't disagree with your assessment. Christianity, or more accurately specific sects of Christianity, trying to lay claim that there is no salvation except through their particular interpretation of Christ's teachings is more about maintaining their power than bringing people to Christ - The Grand Inquisitor problem, if you will.
Who am I to say that a Hindu's view of Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu is wrong? In some ways, this interpretation is consistent with Christian belief. Irrespective, it is not for me to make choices for others. I can only choose for myself.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 11:59am
srjenkins-What I cannot figure out is why those people in those brands of Christianity believe that God would even want people to join the right religion who put little thought into it and were just reacting emotionally.It seems that God would want the good Buddhist or Hindu to go into the right religion because those are the kind of people who would make an informed decision to be in the right religion.Why would you want the flakes who switched religions just because they heard about it?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/31/2009 @ 12:39pm
Oh, by the way, one other thought for antisocialist. The "anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" really cuts against your position. It isn't "Jesus-specific" (Abraham?)so it means that Jews and Muslims can be saved. Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 12:25am
No, it is specific to Jesus alone as Lord. NT Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.
John 20:28,29
Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Peter's first sermon Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Matthew 12:8
"For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Matthew 22:42-45 He confronts a question from the Pharisees that king David called the Messiah the Lord; thus establishing His position to them as both Messiah and Lord
All of the Apostles declared the Lordship of Jesus in the gospels, the book of Acts, and their letters.
And of course Paul's teaching in Philippians that one day everyone will acknowledge Jesus as Lord (Phil 2:9-11)
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 1:49pm
Who am I to say that a Hindu's view of Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu is wrong? In some ways, this interpretation is consistent with Christian belief. Irrespective, it is not for me to make choices for others. I can only choose for myself.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 11:59am
Here is where your position and that of most universalists comes into a direct clash with Jesus Himself.
Jesus stated that this is the very crux, the cornerstone of whether you hold a right view or not.
He asked of men, "who do you say I am"? It is the first question I always pose to someone in discussing salvation.
Jesus stated in Matthew 16 that the correct answer, "that He is the Christ, the Son of the living G-d" is not only the rock, the foundation of the church, but that only by this truth being revealed to an individual by the Father, can it be discerned.
He has no parallels, no similarities in other religions. As the heart of Judaism is that G-d was using the Jews to reveal to the world that among the so-called gods, He, Elohim, YHWH, is alone the true and living G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 2:18pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 1:49pm </i>
First of all, Lordship belongs to the Father as well, so this is only partly true.
Second of all, and related, does this mean that anyone who just calls on God the Father is not saved? I'm thinking here of the Jewish community.
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 06:41am </i>
That may be true on one's own salvation, but my whole argument is that if other people's salvation (and thus absence of eternal torment of one form or another) depends on affirming particular things, it seems like education becomes an awfully compelling obligation.
I also heard an interesting twist on this that R.C. Sproul unintentionally defended, in the sense that he mentioned it, and repudiated it immediately. He said (not a precise quote) "I know the Inquisition was wrong, but I would at least ask you to put yourselves in their position. As they saw it, Hell was the worst thing that could possibly happen to a person. Any suffering in this temporal existence that could prevent hell was therefore morally justified if not compulsory. What they did, they did because it was necessary in order to promote correct thought."
I hope Larry does not take offense at this, but I have one question for him: if the methods of the Inquisition were successful in getting people to affirm whatever minimal doctrines you claim to be necessary for salvation, would they then be justified?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 2:38pm
I hope Larry does not take offense at this, but I have one question for him: if the methods of the Inquisition were successful in getting people to affirm whatever minimal doctrines you claim to be necessary for salvation, would they then be justified?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 2:38pm
No, because they would not be coming from a willing and seeking heart. Salvation cannot ever be coerced.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 2:18pm
From the Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible:
"That the confession is in Caesarea Philippi is noteworthy, as that city was full of pagan shrines. Yet in the midst of that idolatry, Jesus is confessed. It is also noteworthy because the city had a river flowing from an underground spring, which was seen as an opening into Hades, the underworld, and the river Styx. Thus, when Jesus says the gates of Hades will not prevail against his community, he is proclaiming that his community will never die out. The blessing of Peter is important, since Jesus promises to build his community on people like Peter, that is, those who make such a confession. He reminds Peter that he came to this conclusion about Jesus due to a revelation from God, not from human testimony. The play on words in verse 18 is between Peter, called "Rock", and the greek term for a shelf of rocks, which would include Peter but not refer solely to him. The binding and loosing refer to binding some rulings on community members and setting them free from other ones, which is precisely what Jesus has been doing..."
If it is only discerned from the Father and not from human testimony, then the points Thrawn is raising are moot.
Christ also says, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you set your mind not on divine things but on human things."
I think it is a mistake to pretend to understand Christ's teachings - what must or must not be believed. He had 12 disciples that couldn't figure it out half the time, and they didn't have to deal with a church hierarchy hell-bent on maintaining their position of privilege and power distorting those teachings either. Given this is true, I think a little humility is in order.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 8:21pm
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 8:21pm
You have it partially correct. The building is on the foundation of the revelation of who Jesus is. All truth in the NT springs from that cornerstone.
That again is why I said that the central question to all humanity is the question Jesus asked; "who do you say I am"?
That answer will either lead you into the the truth or steer you from it.
I'm perplexed by your statement that "Jesus confessed"? Jesus as the incarnate G-d in sinless flesh had no reason to ever confess.
Finally, I realize that liberal theology makes this strange claim that one cannot really understand the teachings of Jesus. The fact of the constant stumblings and errors by the disciples was absolutely true-up until the resurrection and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
NT scripture is clear that we absolutely can know the mind of Christ because of that same indwelling in all who receive Him.
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
John 16:13-16 " However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."
Luke 24 with the disciples.
"These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled...concerning Me. And He opened their understanding, that they they might comprehend the Scriptures."
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 9:33pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 9:33pm </i>
First off, srjenkins said "Jesus WAS confessed," not "Jesus confessed." His point was that followers confessed Jesus in a community where pagan shrines existed. I'm still not sure what the impact of this point is, though.
Second, you can't possibly interpret those scriptures as broadly as you seem to suggest. First of all, the "eye-opening" in Luke is specifically in the context of prior prophecies; the only Scriptures that existed were those in the Old Testament, and so that's all that the author could have been referring to. Second, you can't possibly interpret the John text as literally saying "everything, absolutely, everything will be clear to you." That interpretation is plainly impossible at the point where disagreement about some important points of doctrine existed then and still exists now between believers. In fact, there was disagreement even between Paul and Peter. Jesus doesn't promise theological omniscience. The opposite extreme of "we can't know anything" is equally problematic, of course, for plenty of reasons (among other things, it would make Jesus' teaching meaningless and deny the plain fact of human reasoning power).
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 9:47pm
Second, you can't possibly interpret those scriptures as broadly as you seem to suggest. First of all, the "eye-opening" in Luke is specifically in the context of prior prophecies; the only Scriptures that existed were those in the Old Testament, and so that's all that the author could have been referring to. Second, you can't possibly interpret the John text as literally saying "everything, absolutely, everything will be clear to you." That interpretation is plainly impossible at the point where disagreement about some important points of doctrine existed then and still exists now between believers. In fact, there was disagreement even between Paul and Peter. Jesus doesn't promise theological omniscience. The opposite extreme of "we can't know anything" is equally problematic, of course, for plenty of reasons (among other things, it would make Jesus' teaching meaningless and deny the plain fact of human reasoning power).
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 9:47pm
A. I acknowledge I didn't see the "is" in SRJ's post. That's why I remarked that the comment seemed strange.
B. I can and do stand by my position on understanding all the teachings of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. It is a centrala tenet of most orthodox Christian teaching on the subject. You will not find anyone in the Evangelical side of theology who does not share that view.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 10:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/31/2009 @ 9:33pm
And there are no problems between discerning the will of the holy spirit, and our will?
The crux of the matter is that you want to focus on Christ as a being - because you're concerned about salvation. I want to focus on Christ as a teacher. Salvation is a mystery, and I don't want to pretend I understand it. I don't. I focus on what I can understand, which is Christ's teachings.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/31/2009 @ 9:47pm
The point of the post is to put a little more context on Matthew 16. LVL states: "Jesus stated in Matthew 16 that the correct answer, "that He is the Christ, the Son of the living G-d" is not only the rock, the foundation of the church, but that only by this truth being revealed to an individual by the Father, can it be discerned."
The rock, much like the rest of Jesus's comments, are informed by context - and LVL is adding in more in his interpretation than I would.
I never claimed that we can't know anything about Christ's teachings. I did claim that we should be skeptical about what we pretend to know - because it is real easy to think we know something we don't.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2009 @ 11:14pm