Yahzi

Perhaps the fact that we backed him while he was oppressing his people imputes some moral duty to us to help them gain their freedom?

For once, instead of just paying off the biggest thug to keep the corporate climate warm, we are going in and actually constructing a real democracy. This is a total reversal of Kissinger's real-politik and Reagan's "We are not in the business of nation building." And yet it's the liberals who object. Go figure.

1. Opium production went on under the Taliban. They just said they would curb it, and naive presidents believed them.

2. Reducing opium production does not justify savage brutal oppression. Otherwise we could just nuke the place and reduce production to zero.

3. Another shocking statistic: school enrollment by girls is up by approximately 10,000 percent. From virtually zero to about 1/3 of all girls.

And what have they ever given us in return?!
The inabilty to tell us from the Roman empire does not make a good argument.

The people of Afghanistan are used to war, death, and deprivation. What is new is the possiblity of freedom, democracy, education. Ronald Reagan armed that nation to the teeth and encouraged them to destroy their country so that the Russians couldn't hold it, and now that they have done our bidding, you are bitching about the few soldiers we have lost?

We owe Afghanistan. Our government was quite prepared to ignore that debt, right up until Islamic terrorists got the attention of the American people. And now the American people are going to do the right thing and bring freedom and democracy to these poor suffering people, our alleged allies, who suffered so much to protect us from the Commie threat, and it's liberals that bitch.

I just don't get it.

Yahzi

So he's not a bigot. He's just a moral coward, another in the long line of preachers who kissed the ass of the rulers of the earth.

He was once in a position to shape the world, to stand up for the cause of righteousness, and he didn't.

What, exactly, is the value of being a Christian, a famous preacher, if you still suck up to mere presidents?

sharon45

I've got one right here.

newtype_alpha

Under subtext, yes. This is a non-Christian reading the Bible for what it is, not for what a Christian wants it to be.
Surprise surprise

Oh and I like you're new dodge, by the way. "This isn't a salvation issue so I won't get into it." Did you just think of that or are you dusting off an old classic?

newtype_alpha

Maybe you should be more specific.

Or

Doesn't this go to the heart of the "false prophet" arc of this conversation?

The religion of the Jews must be replaced by the religion of the gentiles (Christianity). See, it's not that people like Billy Graham has any real problem with Jews; actually, they're just the world's oldest class of infidel. I can totally understand why Christians would be irritated by them -- they held out through the destruction of Jerusalem, they survived persecution by the early Church, they braved slander and propaganda, they survived massacres by the Muslims AND the crusaders in the 11th and 12th century, they survived the inquisitions and the Lutheran mania, they even survived the holocost. Billy's just upset because, try as they might, the world just can't seem to get rid of those pesky Jews. They take a lickin and keep on tickin. :Cheeky:

But in all seriousness, the clincher of this comes in Romans 11 when he explains that Christians don't have any problem with the Jews as a people, it's only their religion (unbelief) that causes God to forsake them. So they've been "cut off" the tree and the gentiles grafted into their place to "make them jealous." Pay close attention to this, kids: this is the part where Paul explains to us that Christianity is the only true religion and Judaism -- without Jesus at the center of it -- is worthless. :thumbs:

JesusLovesYou

Of course you aren't. It would kind of ruin your day if you found out your imaginary friend was a false prophet according to the OT.

Deuteronomy 13, is talking about idolitry, and other gods. He is plainly telling them if a prophet comes and says let go after other gods they are a false prophet. Jesus didn't lead them after other gods, but to His father. So no He wasn't a false prophet.

JesusLovesYou

It says more then that, and if you remember everything you said 30 years ago you are really great. If anyone here believes they know everything they said and did 30 yrs. ago, well you know what you are.

sharon45

Of course without details, I was explaining that one can read the bible to find out about the anti-Semitism contained within and they can use about any version they choose.

Christians insist that one can't just use quotes out of context to make their points, (even though christians do this plenty themselves). One has to read the NT as a metanarrative, but most importantly, one has to really read the whole bible.

sharon45

Deuteronomy 13 is talking about false prophets that god himself sends to test his people's strength and sincerity to really obey god and his Laws. Jesus fits easily into this whether you want to admit it or not. You can try to use the exuse that you just don't interpret it like that, but you would only be fooling yourself.

No, it is about putting blinders on while only merely believing that a "holy spirit" is helping you really understand the bible's supposed true message. Again only merely believing that one being not of the belief would never really understand the bible's supposed true message because of course they don't have some "holy spirit" helping them, so they remain hopelessly lost in the text.

The thing is, I don't really use my own interpretation, no, I use christian versions, and these do not agree with each other or even back up the text. So you can look the other way and pretend that Deuteronomy 13 and 18 are talking about someone else besides jesus, but that would be really ignoring the consistency of the text.

sharon45

He didn't say anything that unusual that thousands of others haven't already said themselves because it's a classic myth, much like christianity itself.