Any evangelical christians on this message board?

[mich]

Originally Posted by Alistriwen

So you're saying that Israel is the bad guy....

first of all i am not a palestinian arab or an israeli jew, so i can't say that one side is wrong and the other side is right in this israel/plaestine conflict. if we go by this logic that the israeli government is on the side of right, and the palestinians are followers of evil, we might as well use the same logic and say that nelson mandela and the african national congress were wrong for trying to end the apartheid system. By this logic we can also say that the british were right for occupying India and mahatma gandhi and followers were a bunch of anarchists trying to overthrow a government.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by mich

we might as well use the same logic and say that nelson mandela and the african national congress were wrong for trying to end the apartheid system. By this logic we can also say that the british were right for occupying India and mahatma gandhi and followers were a bunch of anarchists trying to overthrow a government.

Strange, I don't remember either of those places voting in a government with a policy of terrorism.

[Amled]

Originally Posted by sappersgt

Didnt Hitler win his election to Chancellor?

Actually he didn’t,
His party (the NSDP) was the largest party in the then Reichstag, but didn’t have a clear majority.
Hindenburg being Head of State and having a deep loathing of Hitler did try to form several minority governments, but the NSDP kept blocking these moves, until Hindenburg was forced to put Hitler’s name forward as Chancellor.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by sappersgt

Didnt Hitler win his election to Chancellor?

there were reasons that the German people voted him in at that time and there were reasons that Hamas got voted in this time. Governments like that and people like that only get voted in when the country situation is really really bad.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by Amled

Actually he didn’t,
His party (the NSDP) was the largest party in the then Reichstag, but didn’t have a clear majority.
Hindenburg being Head of State and having a deep loathing of Hitler did try to form several minority governments, but the NSDP kept blocking these moves, until Hindenburg was forced to put Hitler’s name forward as Chancellor.

True, same deal though.

Originally Posted by tphuang

there were reasons that the German people voted him in at that time and there were reasons that Hamas got voted in this time. Governments like that and people like that only get voted in when the country situation is really really bad.

And they only serve to make things worse.

[smilingassassin]

Originally Posted by tphuang

there were reasons that the German people voted him in at that time and there were reasons that Hamas got voted in this time. Governments like that and people like that only get voted in when the country situation is really really bad.

...and we saw where that got Germany didn't we?

[mich]

Originally Posted by Confed999

Strange, I don't remember either of those places voting in a government with a policy of terrorism.

during the 60s and 70s the african national congress committed acts of terrorism against the apartheid government.at that time, nelson mandela(sitting in jail) was the leader of the ANC. now everyone in the world sees mandela and members of the ANC as respectable people who took part in a historic struggle and not as former terrorists. on the other hand, looking at India during the early part of the 20th century,Gandhi may have been a nice little man who advocated non-violent civil disobedience, but there were paople within indias independence movement who engaged in acts of terrorism against the british. two individuals who committed terrorist acts were Bhagat Singh, and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. i think these two lived during the 1920s or 30s. I don't think most people in modern India see them as terrorists, but as great patriots(just like Ghandi) who took part in the struggle to free India from British rule.

[mich]

Originally Posted by Bluesman

... moral standards... . What you seem to be saying is both sides are equal or equivalent or the same, when that is so very, very clearly false.....
.

this is what I am understanding from your statement: Israel and the western world have moral standards because they follow judeo/christian values. but on the other side of the coin,for most palestinians(excluding the fanatic suicide bombers), their Islamic faith is what gives them their moral standard(some palestinians are also christians). yes, I will say that Israelis and palestinians have equal moral standards. to suggest that one nations(peoples) moral standards are lower(or higher) than some other nations of this planet is outright arrogance. If someone suggested to me that India(a nation with a civilization that goes back to more than 5,000 years of human history, and the country my family came from) have moral standards that are not on the same level as some other nations, i would argue with that individual until I prove them wrong.

[Ray]

To understand why Germany went they way it did, it is interesting to read EH Carr's "International Relations Between the Two World Wars 1919 -1939".

There are some good reasons for the same.

The book is in four parts i.e. the period of the Versailles Treaty and its enforcement, ending in the fiasco of Reparations and the Ruhr Invasion; the period of pacification and optimism following the Locarno Treaty, during which the League of Nations attaing the summit of its prestige; the period of crisis beginning with the economic breakdown and culminating in the Japanese adventure in Manchuria and the failure of the Disarmament Conference; the period of the Versailles Treaty and the Covenant, leading up to the renewal of war.

The issue is not quite so black and white an affair.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Originally Posted by mich

evangelical christian supporters of israel are a recent phenomenon in the United States. everyone from falwell to pat robertson are fierce supporters of israel. this is not a problem,they are in their right to support israel all they want. the problem seems to be a lack of 'christian compassion' when it comes to the palestianian issue. even pope john paul 2nd and the current pope did not take such a one sided view when it comes to th israel/palestine conflict. rather than backing one side on this conflict, shouldn't evagelical christians take a neutral stand just like the Roman catholic church and try to work towards achieving a solution this conflict..
P.S-if there are any evangelical christian supporters of israel on this message board, i would like to hear your reason for your support of israel.

There is or more likely was a fellow by the name of ilovelife who posted the 'is there an afterlife?' thread. He has an avatar of a photoshopped picture of a lamb standing next to a lion. I dont know that he was evangelical but he was definately into pretty deep if not radical Christianity. I think confed and I scared him off the forum. I wound up challenging God to a fight if he/she sends people to hell based on their beliefs, I dont think he would have been impressed.

[smilingassassin]

We have a fairly evangelical fellow at work. We scare him off when we put the words sex and woman in the same sentance.....

Hell if we challenged god to a fight if he/she sends people to hell based on their beliefs in front of him he'd likely have a heart attack.

My personal belief is that God likely thinks we are retarded for making up all these different religions with intrepritations of what should be a preaty simple concept....

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

We have a fairly evangelical fellow at work. We scare him off when we put the words sex and woman in the same sentance.....

Hell if we challenged god to a fight if he/she sends people to hell based on their beliefs in front of him he'd likely have a heart attack.

My personal belief is that God likely thinks we are retarded for making up all these different religions with intrepritations of what should be a preaty simple concept....

LOL if you're right then I'll fight God to try to teach him/her some respect.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by mich

to suggest that one nations(peoples) moral standards are lower(or higher) than some other nations of this planet is outright arrogance.

Really? So honor killings are a good thing? Women should have little or, better yet, no rights? If a person listens to music, or watches TV, they should be killed? People should be attacked for the name they call God? People should be executed for who they say I love you to? People should be oppressed and enslaved for the profit of others? There are places where some/all of those things are morally correct, and it is in no way arrogant to say places/peoples who's moral code says those things are wrong have a higher moral standard.

[Confed999]

Originally Posted by mich

during the 60s and 70s the african national congress committed acts of terrorism against the apartheid government.at that time, nelson mandela(sitting in jail) was the leader of the ANC. now everyone in the world sees mandela and members of the ANC as respectable people who took part in a historic struggle and not as former terrorists. on the other hand, looking at India during the early part of the 20th century,Gandhi may have been a nice little man who advocated non-violent civil disobedience, but there were paople within indias independence movement who engaged in acts of terrorism against the british. two individuals who committed terrorist acts were Bhagat Singh, and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. i think these two lived during the 1920s or 30s. I don't think most people in modern India see them as terrorists, but as great patriots(just like Ghandi) who took part in the struggle to free India from British rule.

That's not quite the point of my post. "A government with a policy of terrorism" is the key, there will always be terrorists. The comparisons made were to Palestine. Neither of the comparisons made had a policy of terrorism.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

...and we saw where that got Germany didn't we?

well, who do you blame in those circumstances? It's in everyone's best interest to not kick a state to the point where the people of that state feel that they have to choose the extremist. A neighbouring state can say that "I did nothing wrong". And that's probably true, but it's probably better for you if you did something previously that was out of your realm of duty to make sure that state does not descend to that stage.

And here, I'm not talking about dictators that forced themselves on the people and led the country into a pothole like North Korea.

Really? So honor killings are a good thing? Women should have little or, better yet, no rights? If a person listens to music, or watches TV, they should be killed? People should be attacked for the name they call God? People should be executed for who they say I love you to? People should be oppressed and enslaved for the profit of others? There are places where some/all of those things are morally correct, and it is in no way arrogant to say places/peoples who's moral code says those things are wrong have a higher moral standard.

When I go visit China, I find a lot of what people in china do to be distastful and try to tell them about it. But then they tell me what right I have to tell them those things.