 |
| 
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 11/22/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have no problem with the possiblity that God is using Usama bin Ladin to punish the United States for her many sins (greed etc.), but I do want to contest one of UBL's claims. UBL says:
"The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that."
One could make a good case that the reasons Israel entered Lebanon, in an operation called "Peace for the Galilee", was in response to guerrilla attacks on northern Israel; for example, in 1978 Syrian trained fedayeen killed thirty four Israelis not far from Tel Aviv (as an aside, Begin may have also wanted to save Lebanese Christians from 'genocide'). In other words, Israel attacked for reasons of security and according to UBL's own statement "security is an indispensable pillar of human life." Also, Israel was concerned about the reaction of the United States to the attack, especially given the U.S. criticism of Israel's attack on the Osiraq plant in Iraq (Jeanne Kirkpatrick criticised Israel in the UN as did President Reagan in official statements).
Secretary of State Haig was asked before he resigned if he would be willing to send American troops to Lebanon to facilitate Israeli withdrawal. This is not impressive evidence that the U.S. helped Israel. The facts go the other way I think. Firstly, the U.S. joined in a Security Council censure of Israel on August 4, 1982. On August 25 U.S. marines went ashore and redeployed to their ships on September 10 after the PLO evacuated. It was only after the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps that the marines came back on September 20. Reagan was specific that the success of the U.S. mission depended on Israel's withdrawal. I believe the U.S. Sixth Fleet only got involved after U.S. troops guarding the Beirut airport were fired upon. Again, this seems to meet UBL's retaliation test.
"Should a man to be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"
You tell me UBL.
Again, maybe the United States is being punished for "pilfering" Iraqi oil and for Haliburton's sins. However, I doubt the U.S. is responsible for the mess the Middle East is in today. Consider the following counterfactual:
Paradise Principle: Had not Israel became a state in 1948 and had not the U.S. used its influence in the region, the Middle East would be a veritable Garden of Eden today.
I tend to agree with Bernard Lewis that what went wrong in the Middle East was a long time brewing, even before 1776 (how many years after the crusades is this date?) and certainly before 1948. It has been said, "The Arabs do not hate the west because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the west." This brings us to another point. Just how culpable is Europe in all this? Just what was France's and Germany's relation to Saddam? Is the lack of an international coalition entirely the U.S.'s fault, even given the Bush administration's "Imperial Hubris"?
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
...or the literal translation of Genesis 1-3? (see Repenting of Religion by Dr. Boyd on that last one)...
The interpretation of Genesis upon which Dr. Boyd bases much of Repenting of Religion is nothing if not allegorical. He takes the narrative, wrests it from its original context, and then proceeds to use this novel (allegorical) interpretation as a template through which to interpret the Christian approach to "ethics."
As far as the term, "liberal" goes, the full range of meanings of this term is interesting:
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. (JEE-This is the use of term as it relates to politics).
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious. (JEE--This is the facet of the term that is advocated by the "love, not judgment" crowd on this message board).
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Wow, I am surprised to read some of this. I always thought that a political "Liberal" (supporting abortion, homosexual rights, and other sinful stuff) was contradicting of being a Christian. Now I am reading stuff by some of the big shots of the OV camp who seem to lean towards liberalism.
victorywood, could you please quote the stuff you're reading from the "big shots" of the OV camp? I'm not understanding your comment. thanks.
That's VictoryWORD - WORD - not WOOD. I'm not a CARPENTER (though my Lord was one when He was on earth). I'm into the WORD, not the WOOD. 
quote:
Originally posted by Selah
quote:
No wonder so many critics of Open Theism don't see much difference between the OV and Liberal Theology (who do not believe God knows the future and also deny the virgin birth, the blood redemption, the literal translation of Genesis 1-3, etc.).
Again, I'm lost. Who are these critics of the Open View? How do you see Open Theism denying the virgin birth, the blood redemption, and/or the literal translation of Genesis 1-3? (see Repenting of Religion by Dr. Boyd on that last one)... {also, fill in totally confused face here}
~selah
I am an Open Theist myself, so you missed my point.
I said the CRITICS (some) don't see the difference. I am not a critic of Open Theism (though I am critical of some Open Theists and some of the compromise I sometimes see to accomodate to others).
Now with some of you guys embracing a liberal political agenda, it only adds ammunition from anti-OV fundamentalists.
quote:
Originally posted by Selah
PS btw, I was offended when someone called me "liberal" -- until I looked it up. According to Dictionary.com the definition of liberal is quite appropriate. If you're using the definition below, feel free to label me liberal (with a capital "L") anyday!
*"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."
* "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
*"Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor."
Think about it. liberal = good. Not liberal = scary.
The dictionary did not give the true POLITICAL meaning of the word.
A liberal politically speaking believes in the freedom for a woman to abort her unborn child so that she can be free from the burdens of motherhood.
A liberal politically speaking wants to reform society so that homosexuality can be acceptable and homosexual couples can receive the same benfits as heterosexual couples.
A liberal politically speaking wants to to hike up taxes to care for irresponsible citizens who want to have babies without marriage and sit at home on their butts with "their man" and smoke up my tax dollars.
A liberal politically speaking wants to vote for war and then rail against the very war they voted for.
I could think of more definitions that are not found in the dictionary.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 11/23/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Victoryword, sorry about getting your name wrong. I didn't mean it.
Also, regarding your statements belowquote:
A liberal politically speaking believes in the freedom for a woman to abort her unborn child so that she can be free from the burdens of motherhood.
A liberal politically speaking wants to reform society so that homosexuality can be acceptable and homosexual couples can receive the same benfits as heterosexual couples.
A liberal politically speaking wants to vote for war and then rail against the very war they voted for.
A liberal politically speaking wants to to hike up taxes to care for irresponsible citizens who want to have babies without marriage and sit at home on their butts with "their man" and smoke up my tax dollars.
that last one is especially a sad sad sad sad SAD statement. fyi, I was one of those "irresponsible citizens" on welfare. I wanted to breast feed my child and (after working in daycare centers) with good reason I had little trust for care of very small infants. Additionally, this generalization made by many who feel similar, discounts the tax dollars I PAY that MORE than covers the time I received help. If you only knew...
obviously, I'm not a good "liberal" to use as an example. I fully disagree with each of your suggestions above. This is the reason I disagree with you and john calling people on this site liberals. See, I had a sense (and now you've clarified that sense) that the meaning of "liberal" for your purposes is as stated above. The meaning of liberal if I'm being called one - and if I'm going to accept that label - is about freedom,tolerance, and lack of bigotry.
Matching meanings is key.
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
The interpretation of Genesis upon which Dr. Boyd bases much of Repenting of Religion is nothing if not allegorical. He takes the narrative, wrests it from its original context, and then proceeds to use this novel (allegorical) interpretation as a template through which to interpret the Christian approach to "ethics."
John - it amazes me how I can post something and you are on it asap! Really, if you disagree with the way Dr. Boyd interprets Genesis (etc) why are you on this board every single day? Doesn't the religious right have a website? Honestly, I don't understand.
quote:
As far as the term, "liberal" goes, the full range of meanings of this term is interesting:
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. (JEE-This is the use of term as it relates to politics).
ya, thank you. I saw that too - it was number 4. I can assure you that I'm not a part of a political party founded on principles of anything... If this is the definition you want to use, it doesn't apply to me.
quote:
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious. (JEE--This is the facet of the term that is advocated by the "love, not judgment" crowd on this message board).
[/font=Book Antiqua] [/size=3]
Jee, ok, I should be having much more fun if this is so!
If that's the facet of the term advocated by the love not judgement crowd - I'm guess I'm not one of them.
FYI (in full)
4 entries found for licentious.
li·cen·tious Audio pronunciation of "licentious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-snshs)
adj.
1. Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
2. Having no regard for accepted rules or standards.
[Latin licentisus, from licentia, freedom, license. See license.]li·centious·ly adv.
li·centious·ness n.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: li·cen·tious
Pronunciation: lI-'sen-ch&s
Function: adjective
: disregarding legal restraints esp. with regard to sexual relations <arrested as a prostitute for licentious sexual intercourse> —li·cen·tious·ly adverb —li·cen·tious·ness noun
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
licentious
\Li*cen"tious\ (-sh[u^]s), a. [L. licentiosus: cf. F. licencieux. See License.] 1. Characterized by license; passing due bounds; excessive; abusive of freedom; wantonly offensive; as, a licentious press.
A wit that no licentious pertness knows. --Savage.
2. Unrestrained by law or morality; lawless; immoral; dissolute; lewd; lascivious; as, a licentious man; a licentious life. ``Licentious wickedness.'' --Shak.
Syn: Unrestrained; uncurbed; uncontrolled; unruly; riotous; ungovernable; wanton; profligate; dissolute; lax; loose; sensual; impure; unchaste; lascivious; immoral. -- Li*cen\"tious*ly, adv. -- Li*cen\"tious*ness, n.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
licentious
adj : lacking moral discipline; especially sexually unrestrained; "coarse and licentious men"
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Wooo hooo liberals r us!!
peace, joy, love, and reason,
selah
Ps...I really have no time for this thread. 
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 11/24/2004 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: spen, thanks for poppin in. You made my day.
Even though I disagree with you/your theology at times, I have appreciated the way you have also shared your change and growth with us on the board. I certainly have not experienced you growing toward becoming more judgmental. Quite the opposite. I have experienced John this way...or perhaps more verbal about judgments he already had...
Spen: Selah, thank you for your kind words. Perhaps I better understand the beliefs on this board and, regarding the OV, I think I understand issues. They seem weaker to me, but in the context they are discussed, not too dangerous. In as much as the gospel is preached and central, "why" we believe and the mechanism behind this is secondary. I think that you haven't experienced me growing "more judgmental" because I don't feel judgmental. Frankly, the investment to follow the nuances of logic don't seem central to me.
I am much more concerned about the issues of "spiritual experiences" that were put forth in a certain book than I am about OV. I still believe that is is abusive and destructive and an attack on the gospel. I think that I have had my say and people fought and listened, what more could someone ask. I hope that the dialogue that I have had with others regarding these issues has at least made those who have not been involved with them more sensitive to the potential abuses and prolems they create.
Thank you and all the others on this site for helping me learn to communicate better and perhaps it might even do some good.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 11/24/2004 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
John,
To me, this behavior is not just representing a "conservative presence" it's more like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My, how loving and kind of you to say.
So now I'm not even a Christian. This is what I've come to expect from your ilk. How enlightened.
Hey everybody, John's a "wolf in sheep's clothing!" Beware! He DARES challenge the liberal hegemony on the CVM board! (Selah crossing herself and chanting "the Our Father").
This type of interaction is exactly why I have raised concerns with some of the leaders from WHC who participate on this board. John, I don't know what you look like but I assume you do NOT look like a wolf disguised as a sheep. Since it's impossible for us to know the tare from the wheat why do we even try. Jesus told us to keep the tare until the harvest. GOD is the HARVESTER so with this in mind... no name calling allowed. 
THEY WILL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR LOVE!
Love,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 11/24/2004 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
[size=3][font=Book Antiqua][quote]Originally posted by Selah
John,
To me, this behavior is not just representing a "conservative presence" it's more like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
My, how loving and kind of you to say. 
So now I'm not even a Christian. This is what I've come to expect from your ilk. How enlightened.
Hey everybody, John's a "wolf in sheep's clothing!" Beware! He DARES challenge the liberal hegemony on the CVM board! (Selah crossing herself and chanting "the Our Father").
John - the "wolf in sheeps clothing" comment was in reference to the way your "behavior" has changed online - NOT anything else. In the past, your posts were softer, not as coarse, and somewhat reserved. In THAT way you appeared to be LIKE A SHEEP. Lately your posts have been harder, more defensive, and uncompromising. In THAT way you appeared to be acting LIKE a wolf.
Anyway, I wasn't using "sheep" metaphorically to replace the word Christian. The figure of speech "wolf in sheeps clothing" is often used to describe someone who APPEARS to be one way, but is REVEALED to be another. That is how I was using it. And I sure didn't mean to give the impression that I thought you weren't a Christian. I know God knows your heart (and mine) - perhaps we should rest in that and move on?
Trosie, you know me better than that so I don't think I'll
respond to your post (unless you think it's necessary).
ok Blessings to both and happy thanksgiving to all,
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 11/26/2004 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah wrote:
quote:
John - the "wolf in sheeps clothing" comment was in reference to the way your "behavior" has changed online - NOT anything else.
Selah, what about your behavior? As I pointed out in my previous post, John used the term "liberal," to which you responded "conservative warmonger," thus engaging in the name-calling you said that you abhored.
But, then again, I know that that attitude and mindset is part and parcel of being a liberal.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from a woman who spoke of being stalked because she had a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker, and having liberal friends who thought it was funny:
quote:
In fact, I would bet there are plenty of liberals who will stumble across this column and truly believe that I deserved to be scared out of my wits that night, that a little intimidation is the least of the karmic retribution I had coming for the sins of my conservative forbears.
Why did I deserve it? Because I’m conservative, and to my liberal acquaintances, “conservative” is interchangeable with any number of fun words, like racist, homophobe, warmonger, and bigot.
For anyone with a truly open mind and a sense of curiosity about the type of behavior that Selah is demonstrating, have a look at the column at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ham20041125.shtml
BTW, John, you might want to have a look at Ann Coulter's new book, How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Absolutely Have To.
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 11/26/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah wrote:
quote:
Pelajus, if you're going to quote me, please quote where I did this name-calling verbatim. It would be nice if you could also quote where John used the word "liberal" and then I responded "conservative warmonger". Thanks. I look forward to your response.
Been there, done that.
But since you apparently missed it the first time, (and have apparently convenientlhy forgotten your escalation of name-calling), go to page three of this thread. (I am assuming that this message board appears the same on all computers). Look for your response to JEE's post, in which he called you a liberal. On my computer, your post is the 6th one down, in the thread. It is dated
quote:
Posted - 11/04/2004 : 7:00:05 PM
It's the post where you cite JEE's quote about few things being more obnoxious than a self-righteous liberal, and you responded with the warmonger who can't hear babies crying.
The second post under yours is my post, in which I give the direct quotes from JEE and from you, found in the above post.
See for yourself.
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 11/26/2004 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah wrote:
quote:
About the article - ya yep uh huh you sure have me pegged... sounds just like me.
Well, that's why I wrote it. After all, you are the one who wrote of JEE,
quote:
Well, there's one thing as obnoxious... a self-righteous conservative warmonger who's become so hardened she/he no longer hears the cries of the 2 year old hiding under the bed paralyzed in fear everytime a bomb drops...
What's next, calling him a baby-killer?
This from someone who can write the above and then write the following without blushing:
quote:
I honestly believe it's better to err on the side of trying to be loving/non-judmental then to bejudgmental. As you know, we're all in process.
Yes, and I don't like the direction of the process you seem to be displaying, which seems to be a degredation into the standard liberal tactics of trying to paint those who disagree with you as immoral monsters while holding yourself up as a pillar of right-thinking, right-feeling moral rectitude.
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|