"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today."
...or maybe not. Indians, after all.
Posted on 06/08/2009 11:04:36 AM PDT by ventanax5
OK. Groovy. Since your whole life information amounts to nothing then it doesn't matter what information I pass to you or you pass to me. There's no point in carrying on the conversation, or indeed having this conversation in the first place. Not much point to it.
Scripture doesn't offer a mechanism to obtain rationalism where it was previously impossible to have it. Man already has a soul, a mind, the ability to reason in his perception of logic and thinking. That, we already possess and might exercise to different degrees of consistency.
Faith is something different. If one places faith upon anything but Christ, that is the same thing as 'missing the target', or also called 'sin', a term used in archery practice by Greek archers when they missed their target. Believing or not believing in anything other than Christ as the object of faith, also fails to render any mechanism by which one may have fellowship with God with a regenerated human spirit.
Rationality is as far removed from faith as is physicality, but God still made man with body, soul, and spirit, and all three are usable in fellowship with Him, but without faith, we remain outside of fellowship.
I don’t know many; but the willful ignorance and arrogance is pretty amazing.
Reminds me of the “black knight from Monty Python.”
"Faith is something different."
Let's see, The Greek word is πιστευω, and it's translated variously (KJ):
"believe"--John 1:12, 3:16, Rom. 10:9&10, Acts 11:31.
"faith"--Eph. 2:8, Gal. 3:22, Heb. 11:1, 6.
"commit"--John 2:24, Luke 16:11.
The problem with your argument is, the differences are all the result of translations of the same word. Theologians may say there is a difference in meaning, but there is no basis for that at all in Scripture. The Bible writers make no distinction about how they use the word πιστευω.
I do not accept the authority of the Bible in such matters, but even if I did, it is quite clear that the Bible teaches that knowledge comes by means of reason, even so-called saving knowledge. Read the book of Acts and notice how many times it says Paul "reasoned" with them out of the Scriptures. If reason is not needed for belief, or Faith, why does your God say, "Come let us reason together..."
What you are describing as faith is "superstition," which is plainly condemned in the Bible.
Hank
Actually, “arrogant” was probably the wrong description.
Narcissistic is more accurate.
Well, the exaggeration and hyperbole of the Arab peoples may very well stem from the flowery and ornate language of classical Arabic.
But, then again, the Iraqis beat back the American Invasion of Baghdad, Jenin was a virtual Stalingrad, Hizbollah repulsed the Israelis, and Hamas won a ‘moral’ victory.
When your standards are low, everything is a victory.
Feh, Hitler was lying.
Would you believe him ;>
What chutzpah Herr Schicklgruber had.
“Don’t know if you’ve talked with many atheists,
but every one of them is as you describe, arrogant and closed minded. It’s a requirement of atheism.”
Hmm. I do not call myself and atheist, but since I do not believe in a God, I suppose you would call me one. Please read my article defending Christianity. It’s not my only one.
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article80.php
Just want to see if Christians are honest enough to respond to something they may not like to admit. While I do not believe in God, I have no objection to other’s believing in God, and have no interest in changing their views and wish them well in following their beliefs. To bad so many Christians do not have the same tolerance for atheists.
Hank
You should read the article posted today about Christians oppressing atheists.
I'm so sorry that you're oppressed by Christians...
“I’m so sorry that you’re oppressed by Christians”
I’m not oppressed by anyone and have no idea what you are talking about. I knew you wouldn’t read the article; it’s oppression of Christians I’m against.
Thanks for proving my point, though!
Hank
You “have no idea” what I’m referring to when I QUOTED YOUR STATEMENT about Christians not having “tolerance for atheists”?
...
OK, have a blessed day.
I have no desire to impose my views on others.
I have no desire to impose my views on others.
Okay. Judeo-Christianity is hypothetically vanquished.
Just wait until atheism, with no creed, goes up against islam awash with their theology.
Atheists, homosexuals and other “perverts” might tattoo their throats, “Cut Here”, and only hope that Abdul with his sword is merciful.
Why Couldn’t Obama’s Speechwriters Find a “Peace” Quote from the Koran?
Thursday, June 4, 2009, 10:39 AM
David P. Goldman
Of many strange moments in President Obama’s Cairo speech, perhaps the strangest is the conclusion:
The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
What does the idea of gender and tribe distinction have to do with peace? The answer is nothing, except that Obama’s speechwriters felt compelled to drag out some Koranic quotation that sounded vaguely like the biblical and rabbinic concept of peace. The fact that this was the best they could do speaks volumes.
The first human vision of universal speech came from Isaiah, and all classic Jewish sources repeat this theme, as do Christian sources. The Koran, however, contains numerous warnings not to make peace with non-Muslims, but not a single statement comparable to those in Jewish and Christian sources. This may be verified by searching for the word, “peace,” in any of the several online versions of the Koran, including this one from the University of Michigan. There are 49 instances of the word in the Koran, most warning against false peace, e.g.
And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.
or
O you who believe! when you go to war in Allah’s way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world’s life! But with Allah there are abundant gains.
Not a single Koranic mention of the word “peace” corresponds to the biblical vision of divinely-ordered peace.
This confused and contradictory conclusion befits the dumbest utterance on foreign policy ever to escape the lips of a senior American official. Howlers abound. A personal favorite is this:
In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”
Adams’ attempt to appease the Barbary Pirates preceded the Barbary Coast War of 1801-1805 which ended in the reduction of Tripoli by the American fleet in 1805, an event commemorated in the Marines’ Hymn. Arabs remember, even if Obama doesn’t.
Or this one:
American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.
Nobel Prizes? Apart from the Peace Prize, which even Yassir Arafat got, Muslims have won only three Nobel prizes since the they were first awarded, or one for every 450 million Muslims alive today. By contrast, 169 Jews have been Nobel Laureates (excluding the Peace Prize), or about one for every 89,000 Jews alive today. That is, a Jew was 5,000 times more likely to win the Nobel than a Muslim.
Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk is the last Muslim to win the Nobel. He is an atheist, and lives in virtual exile in New York. Only one Muslim writer today is mentioned as a frontrunner for the literature prize today: the Syrian poet Adonis (the pen-name of Ali Ahmad Sa’id), whom I profiled (Are the Arabs already extinct? Asia Times Online, May 8, 2007).
But the silliest statement of the lot is this:
The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
To which “traditions of Islam” is modernity and globalization hostile? Obama was giving this speech in a country where nine out of ten women undergo clitorectomies. The Egyptian parliament last year passed legislation making genital mutilation legal. Genital mutilation is not mandated by classic Islamic sources, but it is condoned or prescribed by a wide range of Islamic authorities. Is that what the President was thinking when he said, “And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health?”
Obama mentioned in passing, “ Today I’m announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio.” Polio has reappeared in Nigeria and other West African nations because Muslim religious authorities oppose vaccination as a Western plot against Islam.
To blame Muslim backwardness on colonialism and the Cold War is idiotic — I wish there were a more elegant way to put the matter. Placating Muslims by apologizing for non-existent past mistreatment fools nobody.
The only significant policy content of Obama’s speech was to demand one-sided concessions on the part of Israel, America’s closest ally in the region:
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Obama is lying about “previous agreements.” Bush administration National Security Council official Elliot Abrams reported in an April 8 Washington Post op-ed that Israel’s agreement to the 2003 “road map” included an understanding about ”natural growth” inside existing Israeli settlements. The Israeli government has asked the US to respect pre-existing understandings, and Obama has gone back on them.
Embracing backward societies with no clear path forward while breaking faith with allies is a prescription for declining American influence in the world. If Obama had set out with malice aforethought to lower America’s standing in the world, he could not have done more damage.
>>Thankfully, brave Christian soldier forced the imperialistic Japanese to see the “truth”.
Dude, it’s better not to type things and leave no doubt in peoples minds.
You better be thankful that the Indian Hindu and Muslim soldiers fought for the King and Empire (Battle of Imphal, for one), otherwise instead British India, you would have had Nippon India.
If the Indians had not held the line at the Burmese border, not only Calcutta, but New Delhi, Kabul and even Teheran would have been under the banner of the Rising Sun!
BanZai! Methinks you need some more facts and knowledge.
I know we’re in America, where feeeeeeeelings are paramount, but try looking at facts for a change.
Mytwocoppercoin’s post about the Burmese front may edify you. Prolly not, methinks, but one should always be an optimist.
"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today."
...or maybe not. Indians, after all.
Moving picture. That is beautiful country.
A book by Ronald Spector, In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and the Battle for Postwar Asia
addresses the immediate aftermath of the war in places like the Dutch colony of Indonesia, the French colony of Nam, and how in the former, Indian troops were being used by the British in conjunction, no kidding, in some cases with Japanese commanders to put down an indigenous rebellion against restoring Dutch rule. And lots of attention to events in the realms of tumultous China.
Relatively few books about postwar Asia compared to Europe...and this one is chockful of forgotten history...if that’s your cuppatea.
Just FYI, 'wilful' is spelt right. The Australian English comes out sometimes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.