Armageddon Approaches
“An Israeli attack on Iran would create a disaster.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski
“The entire lake will become a killing field…the Gulf will run red with American blood.” — Military specialist Mark Gaffney.
Bombing Iran could be the final nail in the coffin of America—a decaying and morally bankrupt superpower where torture has been normalized and where the President is now free to kill anyone he chooses, anywhere in the world, who he happens to suspect is a terrorist.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/02/armageddon-approaches/
“An Israeli attack on Iran
"An Iranian attack on Israel would create a disaster." -- Iron Mike
You think a nuclear Iran attacking Israel is preferable? Peace through superior Israeli firepower you jackass!
For a more serious academic
For a more serious academic review of the issue, here are some excellent unbiased resources. Nice collection of articles that examine the tactical and strategic issues associated with an Israeli first strike on Iran.
The Iran Debate: To Strike or Not to Strike
This will become a more pressing issue as we get closer to the US elections. An Obama re-election virtually guarantees a lack of support for Israel and could likely be the trigger for a strike. They know they cannot count on Washington and must fend for themselves.
I really like the way that
I really like the way that Obama is handling the situation with Iran. He at least looks like he's trying to avoid a war with Iran. Even "looking" so, thankfully someone is able and willing to play the part. This has a calming affect which could help avoid an escalation.
It's thoughtful, intelligent, a sign of strength and maturity to think ahead, to consider other opinions- opinions you disagree with and probably reactions before you do something. You can't know everything but at least you tried to worst possible outcome. Of course the radical Republican, militant Christians would see trying to avoid war as a sign of weakness.
The thought of having someone like Santorum/Bush/Palin in office right now or a person who would feel like they had to answer to that radical base is scary. Eight years of Bush/Palin/Santorum is what got us into this mess. We, along with the rest of the world, would kick our ass if we did that again.
I really like the way that
I'm sure Chamberlain would agree.
That's right. I've got to
That's right. I've got to keep that Armageddon title in mind when I post on this thread. Lots of people thinking we're living in the end times right now. If Republicans continue with their public 'our' religion only for votes, I think someone has got to ask about their thoughts on Armageddon. I am concerned about these people in power and self fulfilling prophecies.
If politicians insist on using religion in their campaign: why not talk about the need for tolerance of different beliefs? you know as a human rights issue.I like that. It's good for everyone.
I haven't checked the other thread yet. I'm sure that if I did, I would have to reply. This is something I am trying to avoid. I'm sure that eventually I'll look but not today.
Lots of people thinking we're
So what's new? Christians have been thinking we're living in end time for over 2,000 years. Iran is hoping to hasten end times and the return of the 12th Mahdi. Eventually, everyone figures out that until end times actually happen, we gotta deal with the present.
When we start talking about tolerance of different beliefs, be sure to start with tolerance of those protected by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. How about starting with the first one....Freedom of Religion? I like that because as you said, it's a human rights issue and that's good for everyone.
"Freedom of Religion Requires
delightfully well written!
Yes, I agree--very well
Yes, I agree--very well written. I'm just surprised that YOU agree with it since it undermines the positions you've taken on the state forcing religious organizations to violate their conscience.
I appreciate your change of heart.
lol whatever spin doctor!
lol whatever spin doctor!
Maybe if someone else shows
Maybe if someone else shows up on the social conservative thread, I might go there but meh. I'm feeling done with it. Getting honest feedback is appreciated. Its why I take time out of my day that I don't have to do this. Not to answer to versions of I know you are but what am I which is also another way of saying, "I'm not tellin" So I am going to try to take a cue from the many ongoing pointless battles I've read here and wonder why they don't just choose to ignore or not reply. The only way I can do that is to not look.
I thought it was interesting when I mentioned the majority of Catholics didn't support Santorum, a Catholic, and that evangelicals were supporting him, the reply I received was something like real Catholics had more in common with Protestant evangelicals (gee thats not too general) who are *surprise* voting for Santorum, than the majority "cafeteria" Catholics who aren't. How quickly judgements and alliances are made in the name of seeking power.
Looking for some input I found this discussion:
http://vox-nova.com/2012/02/21/santorum-is-the-one-with-the-phony-theology/
Fair game? Reading this reminded me of a few things I remembered my parents talking about. (they both were Catholic but left the church in the sixties due to rgua: http://catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Ecumenical_Councils/Vatican2.htm)
In trying to find a discussion about this here, I should consider that some people might feel that attempting to manipulate the god fearing public for votes is just part of a time honored tradition of political theater for politicians and the wealthy. But its really troubling to those of us who have to live with the mess they make to try to win--just like it would be in the Middle East. Also calling environmentalism a phony theology reminds me of when terrrorists called democracy a fake religion.
But maybe its that some Republicans belong to one of the many underground radical religious movements in this country and won't admit to it because the majority of Americans wouldn't vote for religious extremism in government. who knows? I'm not going to find out. For now religion is just a decoration on the Republican table to get their people motivated to vote that we're not supposed to talk about or we're against God.
So I didn't know to what extent there were so many different views on Armageddon. I wonder what mix you end up with when you get a Catholic evangelical. It always has something to do with Israel, sure. When I think of a Armageddon scenario I think of war, pervasive ignorance, environmental disasters and people that are starving or physically suffering in some way unable to get help. These are all situations that the current Republican extremist movement encourages. Trying to avoid that is something they refer to as evil, of "another theology" mentally challenged or socialist. They can kiss it AND lose again!
well since I can't start a
well since I can't start a thread, I'll post this here
Judeo Christian Morals?
Calling American morals Judeo-Christian indicates that morals of people who aren't Jewish or Christian would be considered unAmerican so the act of separating morals by religious beliefs is in fact against the unity of this country and should end.
In addition to that you couldn't possibly give such an absolute generic reference to a specific religious combo equals true American morals when there are so many disagreements within the Jewish and Christian world about right and wrong. Any argument trying to support this is supporting moral relativism. Insisting on this creates an environment for injustice in this country and beyond our borders in the name of divine reasoning.
by supporting this Judeo-Christian title you have to accept the ugly choices made in history as supposedly an equivalent for American morals we should all embrace and be proud of. This is a definite step backwards: You'll have learning from mistakes an equivalent to shaming god=shaming the nation=shaming Americans individuals which has a tendency to create hyper-aggressive defensive behavior.
American values are what people of all faiths and no faith can agree on. right and wrong.. the definition of justice should never be based on a religious popularity contest because its wrong and due to the division it creates no matter how much republican weirdos want it to be.
Calling American morals
No offense intended but that is the most historically ignorant thing you've written in a long time. It completely ignores the underlying founding philosophy of this country which no one with access to Google could possibly dispute. It creates a moral equivalency to all faiths and lack of faith without regard to the consequences to national unity as a whole.
By supporting ALL morality, you support NO morality. And you have to accept ALL ugly choices (ugly being a moral judgment that you are no longer entitled to make) as equivalent to American morals, including female genital mutilation, honor killing, human sacrifice, cannibalism, or any other behavior since they are all the same from a moral perspective.
While you condemn the "ugly" choices made in history, don't forget the "beautiful" choices also made by those with Judeo-Christian morality, such as those that ended slavery and changed the constitution.
Whenever politicians start
Whenever politicians start talking about their belief in God in the decision making and definitely to get elected, then you know this person is planting a justification for absolute authority to make changes that would be considered regressive and unpopular to the majority. too often what everyone can agree is good in a religion is used to justify what is usually some form of oppression in a religion
I am curious what morals people think come from Jews and Christians that are not present with people who aren't Jewish or Christian. If they are currently controversial can you defend them without claiming divinely inspired authority?
If not controversial, do you think these morals never existed before these religions? What about the existence and influence of other belief systems (religion cultural and government) upon this false claim of absolute Judeo-Christian morals? And what about religions that were influenced by Jews and Christians? To be fair they all deserve some credit.
If people insist on claiming that this nation was founded on any religious morals, attempting to give their team the ultimate authority in governent: to be fair and accurate they would have a long list of belief systems to recite.
If people insist on claiming
What a load of crap.
It is a historical FACT not a "claim" that our declaration of independence, founding documents, law and founding philosophy are predicated upon Judeo-Christian morality.
But it is NOT a fact that it gives, "their team the ultimate authority in government." The ultimate authority in the US government is the US Constitution. All we ask citizens to do is respect and obey it or lawfully work to change it. But to deny the origin of our national values in Judeo-Christian morality is to deny history itself.
Calling American morals
There is a moral equivalency to all faiths and lack of faith in the territory that this personal choice resides in. Spiritual freedom is essential for peace.
Well that's really ridiculous.I don't see the subject of morals being a religious issue, anyway. I know it is for some.
I'm arguing against any religion being put in front of American morals because its a statement against religious freedom. Its also inaccurate and stupid. It creates divisions amongst the people who have choices. As we know Jews don't agree with all Jews. Christians don't agree with all Christians. Some Christians really hate Jews, etc.
Claiming one morality for any group of people due to a different religious belief (which could also be a different denomination amongst the several hundred in Christianity) is offensive on many levels. Its making an argument against personal responsibility. It supports prejudice and that supports hate and violence. It also undermines our legal system --all of this destabilizes neighborhoods and eventually the nation.
You mean progressive choices, don't you?
There is a moral equivalency
Absolute crap! You may choose to respect moral equivalency of all Faith, but the law does not. The law makes a distinction between the lawful and unlawful acts of any Faith. The law prohibits genital mutilation, honor killing, and human sacrifice despite personal choice. Or perhaps you can explain how the "spiritual freedom" to express your faith with an AK-47 facilitates peace? Good luck!
Mike, Do you consider all
Mike,
Do you consider all religions that aren't Jewish or Christian as cannibalism genital mutilating AK-47 group worship threatening Christian Jewish purity?
We have laws against what is allowed in the bible too, you know. Do you want that changed? Do I need to post a list for what I think is morally reprehensible about Judaism or Christianity or any religion? Wouldn't that would be rude.You put other religions on trial or lack of, yours gets to go there to. Right? No one needs that.
what I said: "There is a moral equivalency to all faiths and lack of faith in the territory that this personal choice resides in. Spiritual freedom is necessary for peace" You don't respect that choice? That is what the government has to consider. YOU look at the history books. What do you think freedom of religion means?
We are a nation of immigrants different culture and different beliefs. Freedom of religion, follow the laws! Believe it or not people that aren't Jewish or Christian are able to do that here
Do you consider all religions
Hey, it's not me creating the moral equivalence, it's you! If you embrace them all, then you accept the consequences. If you embrace all morality, then you have no morality. There are no lines that can be crossed. Welcome to anarchy or LA...whichever you prefer.
Believe it or not, there are also people who are NOT able to do that here. A few of them flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9/11 if you might recall. Many more have attempted terrorist acts and have been thwarted. Still others do NOT follow the law and insist those of faith not follow it either. We call them Democrats.
It is a historical FACT not a
What about our Greek heritage?
On the religious side there should give some credit to Iran for Zoroastrianism. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15283-zoroastrianism
As for you historical revisionism, Chris Rodda is one person that comes to mind who has taken the time to go through all of that.
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/
I cite the original writings
I cite the original writings of Washington and Jefferson--two of our founding fathers.
And you cite some contemporary moron on "liarsforjesus.com"...
Gosh...that's a really tough choice! I'm not sure WHICH one is more credible. :-)
What about our Greek
And yet, who is that I see above the US Supreme Court building?
Could that actually be "Moses" seated in the center with all the others standing and looking to the center toward him? And what might those be in his hands...the sacred scriptures of the Greeks or Zoroastrianism?
...Or the Ten Commandments sacred to Jewish and Christians alike?
I can see how you might be confused! :-P
And yet, you persist in denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of our law and Constitution?
Wow. I guess Denial really is more than a river in Egypt!
you're an idiot and a liar
you're an idiot and a liar with lots of power, but I knew that.
I'll just take my very insignificant self and go away from the guy with the horns.. really go hover over someone else if you can find anyone.
Resorting to ad hominem now?
Resorting to ad hominem now? Taking your toys and going home? That's disappointing. I'm sorry you feel that way. It was just getting interesting.
You're not insignificant--you're just wrong and stubbornly wrong when I even post a picture worth a thousand words that STILL proves you wrong about the undeniable foundation of our law and constitution in Judeo-Christian morality, which is inseparable from Judeo-Christian religion! You might be able to argue that it is no longer relevant, but you can't argue that it never existed. That's just revisionist history.
I really wanted your explanation for the founder quotes and architectural evidence. And yes, I really do want to know your opinion, even if I think it's a load of crap. Too bad you chose to throw in the towel.
Curious comment you made about my "power"...which is no more than anyone else here---the power of the keyboard and computter to research and articulate a point of view. I guess you could say that "my power" (if any) is in the factual evidence that I present which withers lesser argments.
Post new comment