Ahmadinejad: We will destroy Israel soon

[Stygian]

Yup, missed the point again! Three strikes, you're out!

Are you making threats to me????

I still fail to see the threatening nature of a common baseball term, but obviously, Gman has had enough of this conversation, and I know when to stop, so I will. I was beginning to sense some hostility in this conversation as well.

[Gman]

Yup, missed the point again! Three strikes, you're out!

Are you making threats to me????

I still fail to see the threatening nature of a common baseball term, but obviously, Gman has had enough of this conversation, and I know when to stop, so I will. I was beginning to sense some hostility in this conversation as well.

You said that you were taking this seriously... Remember?? Likewise I sense some hostility so I warned you..

[Stygian]

I never said I didn't take this seriously. I wouldn't have discussed it if I didn't. I've PM'd you, so there is no need to continue this conversation here. Or really, it's not best to continue this at all considering how it's turning out.

[Philip]

Fact is, people with viewpoints like Stygian has are the very definition of the word naive. And throughout history, nations with leaders equally naive, that minimize or ignore the danger from aggressors, have paid the price. Thing is, you can't just sit around chanting, hoping and waiting to see if your worst fears become reality - because when you give aggressive, well-funded bad guys enough time and resources, your fears will very likely BECOME a reality. And I'd rather be proactively wrong then re-actively wrong. At least being proactive, you have a chance. And if that is what Israel does, I really don't care if Iran is just a misunderstood nation that allowed its leaders to run their mouths too long and too aggressively, while hiding their nuclear activities. They will have wrought what they have sown. And they have been repeatedly warned by many nations hopeful for a peaceful resolution - which they refuse to alter course.

Reading Stygian, don't you get the impression that: 1) He dislikes Israel far more than he does Iran; 2)That he has continuously minimizes their past ACTIONS, history and what they believe; 3) That he is more worried about God's covenant people protecting themselves than he is about what Satanically inspired radical Muslims might do if they acquire nukes - as they might well DO what they have long threatened. We've seen what they have done to their own citizens, slaughtering them in the streets, sending their people - including children - across minefields ahead of their armies. Only fools ignore these! And there is NO "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in war. Underestimate the danger or capabilities of your enemies, wait too long to confront them - then you may well do so to great disaster.

[Stygian]

Philip, those claims are unsupported, and slanderous. You still vastly misunderstand me, and what I'm saying. I'm neither pro-Israel or pro-Iran, but I see neither as truly 'good.' I abandoned this conversation out of respect, and I'm disappointed you're not doing the same.

[Canuckster1127]

Let me understand ... Jesus didn't say turn the other cheek in terms of being re-actively wrong ... what he really meant was go ahead and hit someone else before they hit you and if you're wrong at least you're not the one being hit?

It wasn't enough with Iraq we need now to just go ahead and hit Iran without more care being exercised?

The irony of it all is that the values being promoted here are actually Islamic in terms of Jihad. The idea of pre-emptive strikes being morally justified didn't enter in Christian Nations until they were espoused from the Islamic nations attacking them.

[Gman]

I never said I didn't take this seriously. I wouldn't have discussed it if I didn't. I've PM'd you, so there is no need to continue this conversation here. Or really, it's not best to continue this at all considering how it's turning out.

Yes, it's a very very touchy subject for sure... Paul however reminds us of his unconditional support and love for his Jewish brethren and would even consider being cursed and cut off from Christ for Israel..

Romans 9:3-4
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

That is why I feel Christians should be strong for Israel also. But I also realize I can't convince everybody either.

[Canuckster1127]

Isolating the 3rd and 4th verse of Romans 9 might lead one to the conclusion that Israel held more than just a strong place in Paul's heart, but when you read the entire chapter it's clear that Paul isn't suggesting that Israel's position is maintained.

In my opinion, the idea that the political entity of Israel today, is to be supported without question simply because of who they are isn't a rational position for a Christian to take. I personally believe Israel is an important ally and one who deserves continued American support. That doesn't mean everything they do is right or that other nations don't have legitimate positions or concerns to be addressed. Negotiations require a willingness to make concessions on the side of all concerned. An American position that affords no concessions at all on the Israeli side ironically, would likely in the end be a surer path to continued armed conflict than not.

Romans 9:1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!a Amen.

6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c

10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f

16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”i

26and,

“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,

‘You are not my people,’

they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”j

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,

only the remnant will be saved.

28For the Lord will carry out

his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”k

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty

had left us descendants,

we would have become like Sodom,

we would have been like Gomorrah.”l

Israel’s Unbelief

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble

and a rock that makes them fall,

and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”m

[Gman]

Isolating the 3rd and 4th verse of Romans 9 might lead one to the conclusion that Israel held more than just a strong place in Paul's heart, but when you read the entire chapter it's clear that Paul isn't suggesting that Israel's position is maintained.

In my opinion, the idea that the political entity of Israel today, is to be supported without question simply because of who they are isn't a rational position for a Christian to take. I personally believe Israel is an important ally and one who deserves continued American support. That doesn't mean everything they do is right or that other nations don't have legitimate positions or concerns to be addressed. Negotiations require a willingness to make concessions on the side of all concerned. An American position that affords no concessions at all on the Israeli side ironically, would likely in the end be a surer path to continued armed conflict than not.

Bart, there is much proof however that Christ is going to restore Israel back to the kingdom as recorded in Acts 1:6. And in the Tanach Micah 4:2. This I believe is where prophecy can guide us to legitimate truths in scripture. But I agree that everything Israel does isn't necessarily golden, that isn't the point.. The point I feel however is the Christian position on all this.. Yes we know that not all Israel is Israel's Romans 9:6 but do we just leave it hanging?

Israel is not perfect, I have never advocated that, but it is about to go through a huge test and the people there are frightened.. I've been there and have seen this.. It makes me worried too.. That's all.

[Philip]

Let me understand ... Jesus didn't say turn the other cheek in terms of being re-actively wrong ... what he really meant was go ahead and hit someone else before they hit you and if you're wrong at least you're not the one being hit?

1) We're speaking of nations here, not individuals; 2) Ever read some of the things that Jesus/God told Israel to do in the OT? Proactively!

It wasn't enough with Iraq we need now to just go ahead and hit Iran without more care being exercised?

I'm certainly NOT suggesting that this is what needs to be done - as I'm unqualified to know that. And we DO need to use utmost caution and prudence. And I think Iraq WAS a huge mistake - the idea of nation building, spreading democracy, the unnecessary dismantling of a dangerous, tribal society, resulting in the pitting of rival Islamic sects against each other. Saddam himself and his inner circle could have been removed without a huge war and massive death. But comparing Iran and Iraq is comparing apples and oranges.

But I can guarantee you that once you can credibly ascertain that a state of the size and resources of Iran is developing nukes and has threatened your annihilation, then they ALREADY have become the aggressors, funding terrorist groups and arms against Israel. And with their history, we know they are capable of just about anything. These are not innocent, peace-loving boy scouts we're talking of. Iran has long been arming Hezbollah with rockets and missiles they've sent into Israel's civilian population areas. And now they've long been threatening Israel's REMOVAL. And we know that they are pursuing the means to facilitate that.

The irony of it all is that the values being promoted here are actually Islamic in terms of Jihad. The idea of pre-emptive strikes being morally justified didn't enter in Christian Nations until they were espoused from the Islamic nations attacking them.

A very disingenuous statement - which fails to distinguish between many key variables that also make the comparison invalid. Plus, no one is even talking, at this point, about much more than attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, not bombing their cities or people. But just look at what aggressions Iran have ALREADY long been supporting, with money and arms, to hurt Israel and others in the region? And now they have admitted financially, arming and supporting the butchers in Syria, to help them retain power. They're now supporting the killing of Syrians in their own streets.

And must a nation be forced to absorb the detonation of a few dirty nukes by the very ones who have threatened to ELIMINATE you and have long been funding groups that have long been launching attacks and missiles into your cities? So just WHO has ALREADY acted FIRST here?

Truly, I don't want to keep arguing about this. I don't even know what the best actions/inactions might be. But I do know that there are certain realities, that once critical mass is reached, action is wise, even necessary. First aggression for no reason - that's not what I'm advocating at all - maybe others are.

[Canuckster1127]

Where is your allegience? The Kingdoms of men or the Kingdom of God?

There's nothing disingenuous regarding the roots of pre-emptive strikes and the history of Islamic Jihad. It's a simple knowledge of History.

[Gman]

Where is your allegience? The Kingdoms of men or the Kingdom of God?

.

I believe its both Kingdom of men and G-d. As we can see further down the road of Romans, G-d isn't done with His people yet (the Jews). Romans 11:1-2

Anyways, perhaps this is for another discussion. Also I'm not claiming ultimate truth here either.

[Philip]

Surely no one here is suggesting an unjustified, evil strike at an innocent nation - but what we are speaking of is far from an innocent nation, nor is it one that hasn't long been an aggressor through its surrogates and clandestinely, and now blatantly with its pals the Syrians and Russians, been committing atrocities.

But I would agree, whenever Israel acts without justification of irresponsibly, they are WRONG, and need to be called out on it. No, we shouldn't blindly support them. They don't get a "we're God's Chosen People, Get Out of Jail Free" card. Israels hands are not untarnished - but then again, no nations' are.

Where is your allegience? The Kingdoms of men or the Kingdom of God?

Such questions trivialize and simplify the realities of the present situation into a false dichotomy.

Does God not have men stand up against evil? Do we owe evil ANYTHING?

Edited to Add:

And must one, seeing a known enemy reaching to wield a sword against you, wait until that enemy lops off your right arm, before you proactively attempt to prevent him from picking up that sword or responding? That is the case with Iran. From it's president to its Supreme leader, it has long been stating its threatening intentions against Israel. We've seen the rockets and arms long used against them, that Iran has long been funding and arming its surrogates with. We've seen what they've done to their own people. Now they're helping the Syrians butcher THEIR people (5,000 people killed last month, 1,600 last week). We know they are pursuing nukes, that they have also repeatedly lied about their nuclear activities and intentions. And once armed with nuke capabilities, the ability to prevent the smuggling of small, dirty nukes into Israel will be lost.

Again, the real question is whether Iran can be stopped from obtaining nukes. It is highly questionable whether strategic strikes can eliminate facilities underground or under mountains. Such strikes may only start a horrible war, and not be able to realize their hoped-for objective. But if they CAN do so, I believe Israel is more than justified at being proactive. In a country so small, just one or two detonated small nukes could be catastrophic - that is what they realistically fear, as theirs is not a rational enemy, and is one blinded by hate and religious fanaticism.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm a simple sort of guy. I take what Jesus had to say and how the early church understood and followed it seriously.