Prayer for the IDF

[Fenris]

Nevertheless I can see a difference between Hamas and Israel. Sad that you don't.

Can you see the sameness?

Well, on one side we have a state that grants its citizens rights and tries to live at peace with its neighbors and has done more to protect the lives of civilians in a war zone than any army in the history. And on the other side we have a bunch of genocidal lunatics who believe it's their religious obligation to annihilate their neighbor and murder every Jew in the world.

So no, I don't see any sameness at all. Anyone with any morals at all shouldn't have any problem distinguishing between the two.

[RabbiKnife]

Nevertheless I can see a difference between Hamas and Israel. Sad that you don't.

Can you see the sameness?

Well, on one side we have a state that grants its citizens rights and tries to live at peace with its neighbors and has done more to protect the lives of civilians in a war zone than any army in the history. And on the other side we have a bunch of genocidal lunatics who believe it's their religious obligation to annihilate their neighbor and murder every Jew in the world.

So no, I don't see any sameness at all. Anyone with any morals at all shouldn't have any problem distinguishing between the two.

And, further, one side says that even people of a non-Jewish ethnicity and a different non-Jewish faith can be citizens and have all the rights of ethnic and practicing Jews, while the other says that Jews are dogs, should be wiped off the face of the earth, and have no rights to even breathe.

yeah, same-same, right?

Ford in his flivver.

 

[Fenris]

yeah, same-same, right?

Or more generally, if someone can't see the difference between the Americans and the Taliban, or the American GIs and the SS murderers, I have questions on that person's moral framing of the world. To say that we're all fallen is one thing; to say you can't see the difference between Hitler and mother Theresa is another thing entirely. (Yes, I know you're all Protestant and mother Theresa is Catholic).

[journeyman]

And on the other side we have a bunch of genocidal lunatics who believe it's their religious obligation to annihilate their neighbor and murder every Jew in the world.

So no, I don't see any sameness at all. Anyone with any morals at all shouldn't have any problem distinguishing between the two.

while the other says that Jews are dogs, should be wiped off the face of the earth, and have no rights to even breathe.

yeah, same-same, right?

You mean, like this?

As for the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is going to give you as an inheritance, you must not allow a single living thing to survive. Instead you must utterly annihilate them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites - just as the LORD your God has commanded you, Deut.20:16-17

[Fenris]

You mean, like this?

As for the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is going to give you as an inheritance, you must not allow a single living thing to survive. Instead you must utterly annihilate them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites - just as the LORD your God has commanded you, Deut.20:16-17

Yes, and so? This command was given by God. Are you seriously comparing the ancient Hebrews to the Nazis or Hamas?

It was also given 3,000 years ago into a much different world. Nobody seriously pretends that it remains in effect today.

So you basically can't tell he difference between the Nazis and Israel or America. Thanks for playing.

[RabbiKnife]

Yes, this is why it is foolhardy to sin against God.

God can engage in complete genocide should He justly decide that is necessary.

[journeyman]

Yes, and so? This command was given by God. Are you seriously comparing the ancient Hebrews to the Nazis or Hamas?

No. Apparently you are.

It was also given 3,000 years ago into a much different world. Nobody seriously pretends that it remains in effect today.

It doesn't matter how long ago it was. Your interpretation of the scriptures is lacking. I

So you basically can't tell he difference between the Nazis and Israel or America. Thanks for playing.

Its people who think they're justified by the law who are in error.

[journeyman]

Yes, this is why it is foolhardy to sin against God.

God can engage in complete genocide should He justly decide that is necessary.

Yes he can and at the return of the Messiah, all will see how just that is.

[Fenris]

No. Apparently you are.

You know, I love a good debate. But it's to the point where you're not worth talking to anymore. I mention there's a difference between Israel/the USA and their foes, and you cite a biblical source about the ancient Israelites being violent, ostensibly comparing the sides. And then you say I'm the one comparing the sides. I mean, how disingenuous can you be?

It doesn't matter how long ago it was. Your interpretation of the scriptures is lacking. 

I don't even know that this means.

Its people who think they're justified by the law who are in error.

No one is talking about "justification" or "the law". We're talking about how Israel and the USA are not like their genocidal lunatic enemies. Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

[journeyman]

You know, I love a good debate. But it's to the point where you're not worth talking to anymore. I mention there's a difference between Israel/the USA and their foes, and you cite a biblical source about the ancient Israelites being violent, ostensibly comparing the sides. And then you say I'm the one comparing the sides. I mean, how disingenuous can you be?

No I don't even know that this means.

No one is talking about "justification" or "the law". We're talking about how Israel and the USA are not like their genocidal lunatic enemies. Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

My compression of the scriptures comes from what the Messiah taught, which is that the land promised to Israel is synonymous with the Kingdom of God and cannot be gained or lost by violence.

Your defense of the apparent violence by the ancient Israelites in their conquest of the holy land was that "God command it" and "it happened a long time ago", but right and wrong are things do not change over time, as God remains the same.

[Fenris]

My compression of the scriptures comes from what the Messiah taught, which is that the land promised to Israel is synonymous with the Kingdom of God and cannot be gained or lost by violence.

Ah. Well, my comprehension of the land promised to Israel was that it was an actual land, in the middle east, where Abraham lived. For example, Gen 15 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Nothing about the "kingdom of God".

Your defense of the apparent violence by the ancient Israelites in their conquest of the holy land was that "God command it" and "it happened a long time ago", but right and wrong are things do not change over time, as God remains the same.

So God commanded the Israelites to sin? Your theology isn't making much sense.

[journeyman]

Ah. Well, my comprehension of the land promised to Israel was that it was an actual land, in the middle east, where Abraham lived. For example, Gen 15 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Nothing about the "kingdom of God".

The passage you cited is a promise to the Messia, to whom it rightfully belongs and he will divide it among the strong, those who live by faith in him. The Kingdom of God includes all of creation, but the unbelieving world cannot see it and will be plucked out of it by their roots.

So God commanded the Israelites to sin? Your theology isn't making much sense.

It's an example of judgement falling on the ungodly by the word of the Lord. It's understood now who the Word of the Lord is.

[Fenris]

The passage you cited is a promise to the Messia,

This is an anachronism. The concept didn't even exist to Abraham.

to whom it rightfully belongs and he will divide it among the strong, those who live by faith in him. The Kingdom of God includes all of creation, but the unbelieving world cannot see it and will be plucked out of it by their roots.

Not what was promised to Abraham.

It's an example of judgement falling on the ungodly by the word of the Lord. It's understood now who the Word of the Lord is.

I don't even understand what this means.

[journeyman]

This is an anachronism. The concept didn't even exist to Abraham.

Sure it did,

Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen.17:19

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering Gen.22:2

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Heb.11.17-19

Not what was promised to Abraham.

Yes it is,

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Psa.2:8

I don't even understand what this means.

It means the earthly is a figure of the heavenly.

[Fenris]

Sure it did,

Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen.17:19

Dude, this is about God's covenant with Abraham's descendants. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the messiah.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering Gen.22:2

Says "offer him" not "sacrifice him".  (actually Hebrew is better, says 'bring him up'). This is not messianic and rather has everything to do with the age in which he lived. People routinely sacrificed their children to their gods. Abraham had to prove that he loved his God just as much they loved theirs. The difference being that his God does not desire human sacrifice.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Heb.11.17-19

Not holy writ and he was never dead.

Yes it is,

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Psa.2:8

Um this was written like a thousand years after Abraham and is about king David, who wrote it.

It means the earthly is a figure of the heavenly.

I don't know what that means either.