26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN, but especially Florida.”
Hebrews 12:25-29 (NASB) I cant believe I just posted that!!!
I don't believe God gave him this idea. I pray, and I cannot picture God telling me this in order to get the planned Mosque moved away from "ground zero". That is my opinion. However, I didn't even know that he was making some kind of stand to get the "powers that be" to move the planned Mosque. Now, being that today he has changed his mind; it seems this may have been all for the purpose to get the attention of those planning to build this Center near ground zero. Well, he got all kinds of attention for sure. And, it seems he accomplished more in a few days to at least get some kind of consideration to move the Mosque more than our President every could Pretty ironic. Eventhough, the muslim leaders deny they made such an agreement, and they say they only agreed to meet in NY with the Pastor on 9/11 anniversary. But, still....his antics seemed to have accomplished something. I still believe it was his idea and not God's. As a human, tho, he took a stand...Maybe his execution was not apporpriate. But, maybe he was never really planning to burn the Quran at all...
I am a Christian and believe very stronly in my faith. I will say that I would never disrespect anyone of the Muslim faith to desecrate their book. If I love others as Jesus loved others when He walked on this earth, and now included; then I would not use a violent act to get their attention. We are Christians by example, so I am not thinking that is the right example. However, we are meant to stand up for what is right in God's eyes, and we are not people pleasers; but God pleasers. Yet I still believe such an act as the Pastor proposed is hurting the souls of others, and not helping them.
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
Caveatemptor: So are you now acceting that Israel was NOT attacked by Arab states and that it issued what a so called 'pre-emptive strike' in 1967?
Certainly they did attack first if one considers massing chanting 'we will destroy you' and such. As well as committing acts of war in the Suez and Tiran designed to provoke just an action from an Israel on a high unsustainable alert which only left one conclusion - attack if they did not.
So you have a problem with Israel being forced to attack, maybe you might blame those who made the aggression in the first place.
Caveatemptor: The web site to which you direct me is very good although the authors are in the main Israeli's (very little comes from the many noted Arabic authors and historians) however much of the information is also mirrored by Churchill in some of his later writings. That said Churchill went to his grave with serious concerns about the plight of Palastine.
Actually I doubt there was any Arabic authorship in that article however, it's meaningless as the article pretty much is in tune with what I know. As for Churchill, I'm sure he went to the grave with concerns about Russia as well whatever that has to do with this discussion.
Caveatemptor: You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
Golly, you trot this out on two threads yet have yet to post the second principal. Why is that? Could it be that every Arab country up until Jordan and Egypt recognized Israel did not even give this portion of the res a fleeting thought?
Here is the consistently and conspicuously missing portion;
"the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
Seems Israel has done that but nobody except Egypt and Jordan reciprocated. So, given that there is still a self declared war on Israel with no sign of abatement why would a tiny country such as Israel risk annihilation by giving up land won with blood and tears that it needs to use as a buffer against nations that still have every intent on destroying her?
Caveatemptor: They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
Well duh, for the same reason that the UN doesn't march into Damascus and level the entire country for being in 'direct contravention of a UN resolution!'
Because they are not. The res says 'should.' Not 'must or else.'
I KNOW IM WAY LATE ON THIS BUT JUST WANT TO COMMENT ANYWAYS-WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE THINK IT SHOULD OR SHOULDNT BE DONE IS NOT RELEVENT-IF IT WERE BIBLES OR US FLAGS THO, LIBERALS WOULD NOT ONLY SUPPORT IT, THEY WOULD ENCOURAGE IT (FIRST AMMENDMENT). NO MATTER WHAT HE WANTS TO BURN ITS HIS RIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY. I DONT LIKE IT WHEN LIBERALS BURN OUR US FLAG, BUT I WONT PROTEST IT. IF THATS WHAT YOU WANNA DO, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I JUST KNOW I WOULDNT, AND THATS WHAT COUNTS FOR ME.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Ignorance is not bliss sir unless you choose to deny the true facts of history that are out there. Insallah!! Shaalom!! Peace!!