If Americans Knew - U.S. Aid & the Israel/Palestine Conflict

[kaufmannphillips]

For what it is worth, our former pastor, now retired, visited Israel. Then he went again, leading a group of tourists. He was pro-Israel until he went a third time, to visit a chidren's school in Ramallah that is run by a missionary. While there, he travelled around with Palistinians and was appalled at how they (and he, because he was with them) were treated by the Isralis.

When I went to Israel in 1995, our guides were Palestinians. I returned with a more pro-Palestinian outlook than I left with.

But then again, most of us are unfamiliar with what it's like to be Israeli. Israeli society comes from hard roots - from Jews who learned in the midst of death and suffering that nobody else could be counted upon to stand up for them or to provide for them, and that every possible advantage might later make the difference between survival or demise. And Israeli society has, since its inception, lived under an existential threat. If Americans had achieved national independence only sixty years ago, after many centuries of recurring slaughter and oppression, and if Americans had spent the last six decades under unremitting existential threat, then more Americans might better understand the Israelis.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Thy money? Whose image and superscription hath it?

RND wrote:
Caesar's. But everything belongs to God. If it came from the earth it's His.

Hmmmm... Is that really the point of the synoptic pericope?

RND wrote:
The FRS pledges my labor and yours as surety against the national debt. Therefore, technically, it's still my money. A "note" simply defines "transfer" of ownership.

The FRS does not pledge my labor or yours. Neither of us are compelled to work.

RND wrote:
Pro 29:8 Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise [men] turn away wrath.

It is better to give than to receive.

(a) Epigrams are better suited to inform ethics than to define them. A frequent cost of pithiness is a multiplication of exceptions.

(b) To "turn away wrath" is not always the highest ethical concern.

(c) "Let your alms sweat into your hand, until you are knowing to whom you are giving."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Does loving one's enemies mean never letting them suffer or fail? Or never causing them to suffer or to fail?

RND wrote:
Not in my eyes it doesn't.

So we agree on something.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I'll be better poised to respond when you confirm whether you mean "principals" or "principles."

RND wrote:
You know what I meant. Spelling errors do occur.

Of course they do. But verification is preferable to supposition.

RND wrote:
Um, aren't we the one's that are supposedly a "Christian" nation? If we're gonna whip out that moniker then the least we could do is act like it.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
<< cough >> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

RND wrote:
Of which era? 1100's? 1500's? 1600's?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Take your pick.

RND wrote:
So when the "Christians" of Rome used force in the 1500's to coerce confessions out of people that simply believed differently from the hierarchy the hierarchy was acting in a "Christian" manner?

When the "Christians" of New England used force in the 1600's against women that may have acted differently from others the hierarchy was acting in a "Christian" manner when it burned them at the stake?

The actions of a "Christian" nation are the actions of a "Christian" nation. [a] = [a]

RND wrote:
See Revelation 13:11 - Image of the Beast. They got a house of Jupiter, we got a house of Jupiter. They got a Pantheon, we got a Pantheon....

kaufmannphillips wrote:
It's a good thing the New Testament is free of classical referents. Oh, wait....

RND wrote:
No answer is better than an incoherent one.

I know - you only like abstruse comments when you're in the catbird seat.

The New Testament is not without example of making use of classical culture.

RND wrote:
I would expect a "balanced" response from those that see such a huge disparity in spending policy for one country over another to be shortsighted. Is it any wonder why the US is so despised around the world? "They hate us for our freedoms?" Hardly.

They hate us because of the huge duplicity we engage in on a regular and constant basis.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So, then - when you give to charity, RND, do you donate to every party equally? Or do you favor some parties over others?

When you invest, do you divide your money into every business concern equally? Or do you favor some business concerns over others?

When you purchase landscaping materials, do you patronize every supplier equally? Or do you favor certain suppliers over others?

When you buy Girl Scout cookies, do you buy a comparable number of boxes from every scout in San Bernardino County? Or do you favor certain individuals over others?

RND wrote:
Using your logic KP if government decided one day to eliminate all the blondes in the country they should be allowed to because, well, it's the government. In using that logic then it's government's decision so then there really shouldn't have been any uproar when the Germans were busy exterminating various religious and ethnic groups like Jews, Seventh-day Adventist's (some of the first to go!) and gypsies because, well, it's government and they know best.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Could you explain how you are using my logic here? (As derived from my posting, please.)

RND wrote:
I read from your retort "government can do whatever it wants because well, it's government." That somehow it's "governments money" and just like no one should tell me whether I should buy Thin Mints or Peanut Butter Patties no one should tell them how to spend their money.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You read my writ no better than you read scripture. Try again and attempt to derive from the text. Or if you can't bring yourself to do that, consult your interpretive spirit.

RND wrote:
I'll stand by what I read your retort was saying. How does your idea that it's "governments money and they can do with it what they want" differ from it's "governments desire and they can do with it what they want?"

<<sigh>>

My point is neither "[it's] government[']s money and they can do with it what they want" nor "[it's] government[']s desire and they can do with it what they want." If that were my point, then I could have settled for one question (e.g., "Don't you spend your money the way you want, RND?"). If I were merely being effusive, I could have posed questions about arbitrary preference (e.g., "Do you buy tickets for every movie RND, or just the ones you're interested in?"; or "Do you favor Thin Mints over Peanut Butter Patties, RND?").

The questions I did ask serve to engage different types of motives in allocation of funds and sensible prosecution of their fulfillment. Let me walk you through them:

So, then - when you give to charity, RND, do you donate to every party equally? Or do you favor some parties over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one recipient over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you invest, do you divide your money into every business concern equally? Or do you favor some business concerns over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one investment over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you purchase landscaping materials, do you patronize every supplier equally? Or do you favor certain suppliers over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one supplier over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you buy Girl Scout cookies, do you buy a comparable number of boxes from every scout in San Bernardino County? Or do you favor certain individuals over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one individual [n.b., not cookie] over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

RND wrote:
Many times I hear people misquoting Romans 13 it makes me sick.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I didn't quote Romans 13, so please puke in some other direction.

RND wrote:
Whoa, simply "uncalled" for. Don't like being compared to the truth unfavorably?

How should I know? You're too busy here taking on a straw man and bewailing the theology of other people to deal with me.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
People frequently have an appreciation of "fairness" that is both simplistic and subjective. But that doesn't keep them from feeling righteous in advocating it.

RND wrote:
No doubt. But not in this case.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Yes doubt in this case. You wrote: "It is estimated Paidon that Israel has well over 250 nuclear warheads and at least as many delivery systems, i.e. missiles, while her neighbors have -zero- while at the same time it doesn't seem as if the money the US has doled out has been proportionate." A simplistic observation that seems to take little account of the great impracticality of using even a single one of these putative warheads, especially against an aggressive neighboring state with "zero" nuclear capacity (but significant resources for conventional and/or biological warfare), or against an aggressive non-governmental entity with nuclear technology. Beyond this, from the recent major actions in Gaza and southern Lebanon, we can see the limitations of even a well-funded and well-equipped Israeli military; can we imagine the situation if Israel's neighbors were funded and supplied by the United States at a "proportionate" level?

RND wrote:
Doubt? Doubt is pondering all the numerous the guarantees that Israel won't one day use it's nuke's on it's neighbors.

And, pray tell, why would Israel do so?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Then again, how are you gauging proportionality? Based upon population and economic advantage? Pray tell.

RND wrote:
Both.

And no other factors?

[RND]

Hmmmm... Is that really the point of the synoptic pericope?

Most assuredly. If a man thinks he owns something even though it really doesn't belong to him (Caesar) who is greater in this knowledge? The one that knows the truth or the one that doesn't?

The FRS does not pledge my labor or yours. Neither of us are compelled to work.

Ah, that explains why the government feels compelled to pay people for not working.

(a) Epigrams are better suited to inform ethics than to define them. A frequent cost of pithiness is a multiplication of exceptions.

(b) To "turn away wrath" is not always the highest ethical concern.

(c) "Let your alms sweat into your hand, until you are knowing to whom you are giving."

Nothing there negates the truth of Psalms 29:8, in fact, it confirms it.

So we agree on something.

Why ask then?

Of course they do. But verification is preferable to supposition.

It's anal retentive.

The actions of a "Christian" nation are the actions of a "Christian" nation. [a] = [a]

So when Bill Clinton bombs people indiscriminately or Gdub does then that's a reflection of my "Christian" beliefs or that of others?

You must be joking.

I know - you only like abstruse comments when you're in the catbird seat.

The New Testament is not without example of making use of classical culture.

I'd imagine we are more "enlightened" than those pagans of the past.

<<sigh>>

My point is neither "[it's] government[']s money and they can do with it what they want" nor "[it's] government[']s desire and they can do with it what they want." If that were my point, then I could have settled for one question (e.g., "Don't you spend your money the way you want, RND?"). If I were merely being effusive, I could have posed questions about arbitrary preference (e.g., "Do you buy tickets for every movie RND, or just the ones you're interested in?"; or "Do you favor Thin Mints over Peanut Butter Patties, RND?").

And what do any

of these comparisons have to do with the ethics of government spending money unfairly and without discrimination, which was my initial point?

If the government reversed course and decided to spend the money currently it donates to Israel on the Palestinians you'd have no problem with that then right? I mean, after all, it's "their" money and "their" choice.

How should I know? You're too busy here taking on a straw man and bewailing the theology of other people to deal with me.

You're over sensitive.

And, pray tell, why would Israel do so?

The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind.

And no other factors?

Did you give me more than two choices?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Hmmmm... Is that really the point of the synoptic pericope?

RND wrote:
Most assuredly. If a man thinks he owns something even though it really doesn't belong to him (Caesar) who is greater in this knowledge? The one that knows the truth or the one that doesn't?

(a) So is it the way of things to pay taxes, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?

(b) The passage is more subtle than mere issues of ownership. By way of the genitive case - and quite cleverly, I may add - it contrasts "the things of Caesar" with "the things of G-d." Which you would know if you could be bothered to learn to read your scripture in its language. Give to Caesar the things of Caesar, and give to G-d the things of G-d.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) Epigrams are better suited to inform ethics than to define them. A frequent cost of pithiness is a multiplication of exceptions.

(b) To "turn away wrath" is not always the highest ethical concern.

(c) "Let your alms sweat into your hand, until you are knowing to whom you are giving."

RND wrote:
Nothing there negates the truth of Psalms 29:8, in fact, it confirms it.

What does Psalm 29:8 have to do with it?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
[V]erification is preferable to supposition.

RND wrote:
It's anal retentive.

A bit more anal retention might remedy your sloppiness.

The actions of a "Christian" nation are the actions of a "Christian" nation. [a] = [a]

So when Bill Clinton bombs people indiscriminately or Gdub does then that's a reflection of my "Christian" beliefs or that of others?

You must be joking.

(a) Indiscriminate bombing is why we have cratered Brasilia.

(b) Your beliefs are irrelevant. We are talking about the demonstrated conduct of "Christian" nations.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The questions I did ask serve to engage different types of motives in allocation of funds and sensible prosecution of their fulfillment. Let me walk you through them:

So, then - when you give to charity, RND, do you donate to every party equally? Or do you favor some parties over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one recipient over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you invest, do you divide your money into every business concern equally? Or do you favor some business concerns over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one investment over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you purchase landscaping materials, do you patronize every supplier equally? Or do you favor certain suppliers over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one supplier over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

When you buy Girl Scout cookies, do you buy a comparable number of boxes from every scout in San Bernardino County? Or do you favor certain individuals over others?

You have already indicated that "[you] favor one over the other." So then, what are the various reasons that you favor one individual [n.b., not cookie] over another? Aren't some of those reasons sensible, responsible, and/or unobjectionable? And don't those reasons serve to illuminate why US federal foreign support might vary from recipient to recipient?

RND wrote:
And what do any of these comparisons have to do with the ethics of government spending money unfairly and without discrimination, which was my initial point?

The issue is not that the government spends money without discrimination - it's that you don't like the way the government discriminates.

My comparisons might serve to sensitize you to relevant premises for government discrimination. Though I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath. I could walk you through it, if you would deign to answer the questions.

RND wrote:
If the government reversed course and decided to spend the money currently it donates to Israel on the Palestinians you'd have no problem with that then right? I mean, after all, it's "their" money and "their" choice.

Oh Scarecrow, I've missed you most of all!

kaufmannphillips wrote:
How should I know? You're too busy here taking on a straw man and bewailing the theology of other people to deal with me.

RND wrote:
You're over sensitive.

That's my usual problem - excessive tenderness.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And, pray tell, why would Israel do so?

RND wrote:
The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind.

Are you alluding to "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? If so, would you explain the methodological rationale for gauging twenty-first-century Israeli realpolitik by first-century Christian homiletic?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Then again, how are you gauging proportionality? Based upon population and economic advantage? Pray tell.

RND wrote:
Both.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And no other factors?

RND wrote:
Did you give me more than two choices?

I didn't limit you to two choices.

Any other factors?

[RND]

(a) So is it the way of things to pay taxes, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?

They think it's there's, give it to them.

(b) The passage is more subtle than mere issues of ownership. By way of the genitive case - and quite cleverly, I may add - it contrasts "the things of Caesar" with "the things of G-d." Which you would know if you could be bothered to learn to read your scripture in its language. Give to Caesar the things of Caesar, and give to G-d the things of G-d.

That's just it, nothing belongs to Caesar, it all belongs to God. You'd have known this had you bothered to inquire of the Spirit!

What does Psalm 29:8 have to do with it?

Proverbs. Psalm was a typo.

Pro 29:8 Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise [men] turn away wrath.

A bit more anal retention might remedy your sloppiness.

Glad to see you've at least admitted your problem.

(a) Indiscriminate bombing is why we have cratered Brasilia.

I haven't cratered Brasilia, have you?

(b) Your beliefs are irrelevant. We are talking about the demonstrated conduct of "Christian" nations.

That's just it. Is it more "Christian" to stand-up against indiscriminate bombing of innocent people in the name of lofty man-made notions? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out is not the hallmark of a "Christian" nation.

The issue is not that the government spends money without discrimination - it's that you don't like the way the government discriminates.

No, the point is that a "Christian" nation should not be in the position to discriminate.

My comparisons might serve to sensitize you to relevant premises for government discrimination. Though I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath. I could walk you through it, if you would deign to answer the questions.

You'd be wasting your time. The "creed" of the United States was firmly set by president and yet just as quickly as it was established it was trampled. The hollow words and promises of man don't negate the truths of God.

Oh Scarecrow, I've missed you most of all!

Yes, I figured it would be a question you'd do anything to avoid answering. Would you be so "philosophical" if the roles were reversed? Hardly, yo'd scream like a stuck pig. As long as it is not you scared ox being gored your OK. But reverse the trend, or even note it and it's all of a sudden a "strawman." Yikes.

That's my usual problem - excessive tenderness.

Except for poor and disenfranchised Palestinians.

Are you alluding to "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? If so, would you explain the methodological rationale for gauging twenty-first-century Israeli realpolitik by first-century Christian homiletic?

Is that "the devil made me do it" argument? What do Christians have to do how Israel acts? Do they need a cattle prod to honorably give part of the largess they have received from others (coerced by threat at the end of a gun barrel) to it neighbors in a gesture of good will and brotherly love.

I used to tell my kids that if they could play nice I'd take away the toys. If you are suggesting this is what the "Christian" nation of the US of A should do with it's obstinate child Israel cause they won't "share" then, yea, I'm in favor.

I didn't limit you to two choices.

Any other factors?

"...Based upon population and economic advantage?"

Both.

Palestinians are at a slight numeric advantage and, thanks to the largess of the US of A towards Israel, at a huge "economic" disadvantage. Must explain why such horrible and absolutely mind numbing tactics such as "human bombs" could be used. Of course, the Palestinians will at least have enough rocks to throw at US armed Israeli soldiers thanks to the US bombs dropped on Palestinian and their cities from US planes sold to Israel.

So, when do we start acting like a "Christian" nation?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So is it the way of things to pay taxes, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?

RND wrote:
They think it's there's, give it to them.

I think your landscape design business is mine. See you Monday at 8am sharp, or don't bother to use me for a reference. Oh, and don't forget the checkbook.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The passage is more subtle than mere issues of ownership. By way of the genitive case - and quite cleverly, I may add - it contrasts "the things of Caesar" with "the things of G-d." Which you would know if you could be bothered to learn to read your scripture in its language. Give to Caesar the things of Caesar, and give to G-d the things of G-d.

RND wrote:
That's just it, nothing belongs to Caesar, it all belongs to God.

The semantic range of the genitive (rendered "of") is broader than "belonging to." Alternate possibilities would include "deriving from" or "having to do with."

RND wrote:
You'd have known this had you bothered to inquire of the Spirit!

And we are joined by the prophet from Victorville.

So then, how does your spirit correlate "nothing belongs to Caesar, it all belongs to God" with "Thou shalt not steal"? If nothing belongs to Caesar, then can he be thieved from? Likewise "Thou shalt not covet...?" If nothing belongs to Caesar, then can he be coveted against? Doesn't your scripture say that thieves and covetors will not inherit the kingdom of G-d? What need for such a warning?

kaufmannphillips:
A bit more anal retention might remedy your sloppiness.

RND wrote:
Glad to see you've at least admitted your problem.

You say "problem"; I say "no more 'oopsies' on the carpet."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Indiscriminate bombing is why we have cratered Brasilia.

RND wrote:
I haven't cratered Brasilia, have you?

Not to my knowledge. Nor has the US government, so far as I am aware, at least by way of a bombing campaign.

Now, is that a result of indiscriminate bombing, or discriminate bombing?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Your beliefs are irrelevant. We are talking about the demonstrated conduct of "Christian" nations.

RND wrote:
That's just it. Is it more "Christian" to stand-up against indiscriminate bombing of innocent people in the name of lofty man-made notions? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out is not the hallmark of a "Christian" nation.

We are not talking about what "Christian" nations should do. We are talking about what "Christian" nations did do. My comment was "Historically speaking, we are acting like one." History is about "did"s.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The issue is not that the government spends money without discrimination - it's that you don't like the way the government discriminates.

RND wrote:
No, the point is that a "Christian" nation should not be in the position to discriminate.

Please, then - explain the position of the "Christian" nation that has no need to discriminate.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
My comparisons might serve to sensitize you to relevant premises for government discrimination. Though I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath. I could walk you through it, if you would deign to answer the questions.

RND wrote:
You'd be wasting your time.

So it might seem.

RND wrote:
If the government reversed course and decided to spend the money currently it donates to Israel on the Palestinians you'd have no problem with that then right? I mean, after all, it's "their" money and "their" choice.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Oh Scarecrow, I've missed you most of all!

RND wrote:
Yes, I figured it would be a question you'd do anything to avoid answering. Would you be so "philosophical" if the roles were reversed? Hardly, yo'd scream like a stuck pig. As long as it is not you scared ox being gored your OK. But reverse the trend, or even note it and it's all of a sudden a "strawman." Yikes.

Sorry I neglected the question in your first sentence. I was addressing the recurring straw man in your second sentence. You keep hammering on that point, but it is one that you articulated and attributed to me, not one that I articulated. Such is a classic "straw man" tactic.

So you can keep shoving your treyf in my mouth, and yelp that I'm not kosher. But don't expect me to swallow.

As for your question - if roles were reversed, I would support my favored party, as I do now. But I wouldn't argue that nations are beholden to support both my party and its adversaries indiscriminately.

RND wrote:
You're over sensitive.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
That's my usual problem - excessive tenderness.

RND wrote:
Except for poor and disenfranchised Palestinians.

I also like poignant movies and long walks on the beach.

RND wrote:
Doubt? Doubt is pondering all the numerous the guarantees that Israel won't one day use it's nuke's on it's neighbors.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And, pray tell, why would Israel do so?

RND wrote:
The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Are you alluding to "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? If so, would you explain the methodological rationale for gauging twenty-first-century Israeli realpolitik by first-century Christian homiletic?

RND wrote:
Is that "the devil made me do it" argument? What do Christians have to do how Israel acts? Do they need a cattle prod to honorably give part of the largess they have received from others (coerced by threat at the end of a gun barrel) to it neighbors in a gesture of good will and brotherly love.

I used to tell my kids that if they could play nice I'd take away the toys. If you are suggesting this is what the "Christian" nation of the US of A should do with it's obstinate child Israel cause they won't "share" then, yea, I'm in favor.

Did I err in picking out your allusion in the Sermon?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Then again, how are you gauging proportionality? Based upon population and economic advantage? Pray tell.

RND wrote:
Both.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And no other factors?

RND wrote:
Did you give me more than two choices?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I didn't limit you to two choices.

Any other factors?

RND wrote:
"...Based upon population and economic advantage?"

Both.

I didn't limit you to those choices.

No other factors enter the picture for you?

RND wrote:
Palestinians are at a slight numeric advantage and, thanks to the largess of the US of A towards Israel, at a huge "economic" disadvantage. Must explain why such horrible and absolutely mind numbing tactics such as "human bombs" could be used. Of course, the Palestinians will at least have enough rocks to throw at US armed Israeli soldiers thanks to the US bombs dropped on Palestinian and their cities from US planes sold to Israel.

Palestinian conduct has had nothing, of course, to do with their economic situation or their being bombed.

RND wrote:
So, when do we start acting like a "Christian" nation?

<<cough>> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

[RND]

I think your landscape design business is mine. See you Monday at 8am sharp, or don't bother to use me for a reference. Oh, and don't forget the checkbook.

Get in line. Haven't you heard? The gov't hates competition.

The semantic range of the genitive (rendered "of") is broader than "belonging to." Alternate possibilities would include "deriving from" or "having to do with."

What about "unto?"

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

And we are joined by the prophet from Victorville.

Just a Christian.

So then, how does your spirit correlate "nothing belongs to Caesar, it all belongs to God" with "Thou shalt not steal"?

Would you be OK with someone stealing something from one of your children? Would you be OK with that "some" being one of your children stealing from another of your children?

Put yourself in God's shoes for just one second.....

If nothing belongs to Caesar, then can he be thieved from?

Wow, what a stretch. Nothing in in the Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus is saying "don't steal from Caesar." It's really no different than the admonition to go the extra mile. If Caesar thinks something belongs to him, even when you know it doesn't and it belongs to God, let him have it.

Likewise "Thou shalt not covet...?" If nothing belongs to Caesar, then can he be coveted against? Doesn't your scripture say that thieves and covetors will not inherit the kingdom of G-d? What need for such a warning?

See above.

We are not talking about what "Christian" nations should do. We are talking about what "Christian" nations did do. My comment was "Historically speaking, we are acting like one." History is about "did"s.

So does being considered a Christian nation just involve the claim or the actions? Since 2003 the US has been directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqi's. Very "Christian."

Please, then - explain the position of the "Christian" nation that has no need to discriminate.

See Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

Sorry I neglected the question in your first sentence. I was addressing the recurring straw man in your second sentence. You keep hammering on that point, but it is one that you articulated and attributed to me, not one that I articulated. Such is a classic "straw man" tactic.

So you can keep shoving your treyf in my mouth, and yelp that I'm not kosher. But don't expect me to swallow.

As for your question - if roles were reversed, I would support my favored party, as I do now. But I wouldn't argue that nations are beholden to support both my party and its adversaries indiscriminately.

That's really no answer. My "party" right or wrong? I do notice that whenever anything is asked of you that requires you to make a concrete stand on anything you run in the kitchen an make waffles.

I also like poignant movies and long walks on the beach.

And disenfranchised Palestinians. Preferably dead?

Did I err in picking out your allusion in the Sermon?

Of course....no Spirit of discernment.

Palestinian conduct has had nothing, of course, to do with their economic situation or their being bombed.

The old "which came first" argument. To a "Christian" nation this type of argument should be pointless.

<<cough>> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.

No, sorry. One can say "Christian" nation all day long, gotta act like one to be called one. Just because history is re-pleat with examples of nations or temporal political powers calling themselves Christian doesn't mean they were, the actions defined the character.

Did you know KP that as a result the failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler he was emboldened and saw his survival as a "divine" sign regarding his extermination campaign. He actually thought he was doing God's work.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Also, on that note I'll have to let you have the last word.

[steve7150]

It is estimated Paidon that Israel has well over 250 nuclear warheads and at least as many delivery systems, i.e. missiles, while her neighbors have -zero- while at the same time it doesn't seem as if the money the US has doled out has been proportionate. Just my take.





Good thing Israel has it otherwise it's enemies who openly announce their intention to destroy Israel regularly may just combine their armies and march right in.
Despite constant missle attacks, despite constant threats to destroy it, with only a sliver of land, few natural resources, Israel perserveres. It looks like it may be divine intervention.

[RND]

Good thing Israel has it otherwise it's enemies who openly announce their intention to destroy Israel regularly may just combine their armies and march right in.

If it wasn't for the Balfour document and Zionism the Palestinians wouldn't feel a need to fight for what is presumably theirs Steve. Remember to the victor goes the history books.

Despite constant missle attacks, despite constant threats to destroy it, with only a sliver of land, few natural resources, Israel perserveres. It looks like it may be divine intervention.

Does God play favorites? Is He a respecter of persons? Does He just hate Palestinians?

[steve7150]

If it wasn't for the Balfour document and Zionism the Palestinians wouldn't feel a need to fight for what is presumably theirs Steve. Remember to the victor goes the history books.


Despite constant missle attacks, despite constant threats to destroy it, with only a sliver of land, few natural resources, Israel perserveres. It looks like it may be divine intervention.


Does God play favorites? Is He a respecter of persons? Does He just hate Palestinians?






Presumably theirs? The UN voted Israel into existence , the Brits controlled it before that and the turks before them. The jews occupied it until 70AD. Palistinians did'nt exist until Arafat created the terminology changing them from Jordanians to Palistinians in a blink of an eye..

Does God hate Palistianians? I have no idea where you get that from, not a clue.