What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?[/quote]
Yes, but a “Kuhdorf” is only a very small village.
I’m using it in the Numbers 21 sense, translated as “that which is accursed or devoted to destruction.” In Joshua, it’s used to describe the Canaanites.
Yes, ‘qital’ is fighting, and ‘jihad’ is struggle, but it means ‘struggle’ in the sense of physical warfare most of the time, which is precisely what we saw out of Mohammed himself during his Medinan period. All 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence see it this way, and we see it on television quite a bit.
anyone live in a pretty cow-town
up so floating many bells down…
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
PRCalDude wrote
Fortunately, we have the New Testament, which obligates us to cherem (holy war) of a spiritual type. We also don’t have to sacrifice goats and sheep anymore, nor bring in a tenth of our grain, nor worship at a temple in Jerusalem, thanks to Jesus. It’s great, isn’t it?
What is this cherem? There is a similar Hebrew work, חרם
, but that is a Jewish shunning, as was done to the philosopher Spinoza.
How is this cherem different from jihad, which is also a sort of warfare of a spiritual sort?
Cherem is a Hebrew word.
Lesser jihad is not of a spiritual sort. It’s purely “warfare for the spread of religion,” as the Sunni Islamic Law manual, the 'Umdat al-Salik, states (and spends the overwhelming majority of its time discussing).
Yes cherem is a Hebrew word, he-resh-mem, but to quite Inigo Montoya, ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.’ Cherem is to a Jew what ex-communication is to a Catholic. It is linguistically linked to the arabic ‘harem’, which are the ‘off limits’ wives of a ruler.
With respect to Jihad, it is not warfare. Warfare/fighting is given by the word qital. Jihad is to struggle as in to giving one’s all to reach a goal, like Jacob struggling with God in Genesis.
[/quote]
Here, read this:
[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?
Yes, but a “Kuhdorf” is only a very small village.
[/quote]
So your relatives had a very little amount of cows, then?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?
Yes, but a “Kuhdorf” is only a very small village.
So your relatives had a very little amount of cows, then?[/quote]
According to RJ, they would be considered to be pets in Texas.
Since they all seem to be very averse to paying taxes and run a milk/cattle farm, a butchery and a restaurant they somehow manage to get by in spite of the small numbers.
I seriously wonder how they manage to do that.
[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?
Yes, but a “Kuhdorf” is only a very small village.
So your relatives had a very little amount of cows, then?
According to RJ, they would be considered to be pets in Texas.
Since they all seem to be very averse to paying taxes and run a milk/cattle farm, a butchery and a restaurant they somehow manage to get by in spite of the small numbers.
I seriously wonder how they manage to do that.
[/quote]
Low expectations and hard work, I have relatives like that too, smoking salmon.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
What if you are called a Kuhdorfbewohner? Didn’t your relatives actually have cows?
Yes, but a “Kuhdorf” is only a very small village.
So your relatives had a very little amount of cows, then?
According to RJ, they would be considered to be pets in Texas.
Since they all seem to be very averse to paying taxes and run a milk/cattle farm, a butchery and a restaurant they somehow manage to get by in spite of the small numbers.
I seriously wonder how they manage to do that.
Low expectations and hard work, I have relatives like that too, smoking salmon.[/quote]
That was actually sarcasm.
They raise, butcher and sell the meat in one chain, which can in no way, shape or form be proven by our tax authorities.
Whenever one of them dies some serious money turns up somewhere.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is calling someone a villager supposed to be an insult in Austria?
That’s unnecessarily redundant, given that Austria IS little more than a village. [/quote]
Small government by default.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yes cherem is a Hebrew word, he-resh-mem, but to quite Inigo Montoya, ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.’ Cherem is to a Jew what ex-communication is to a Catholic. It is linguistically linked to the arabic ‘harem’, which are the ‘off limits’ wives of a ruler.
I’m using it in the Numbers 21 sense, translated as “that which is accursed or devoted to destruction.” In Joshua, it’s used to describe the Canaanites.
With respect to Jihad, it is not warfare. Warfare/fighting is given by the word qital. Jihad is to struggle as in to giving one’s all to reach a goal, like Jacob struggling with God in Genesis.
Yes, ‘qital’ is fighting, and ‘jihad’ is struggle, but it means ‘struggle’ in the sense of physical warfare most of the time, which is precisely what we saw out of Mohammed himself during his Medinan period. All 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence see it this way, and we see it on television quite a bit. [/quote]
How does one equate ‘holy war’ with ‘that which is accursed’, unless you want to take the view that Holy War is an oxymoron and that warfare is inherently unholy? Personally, I think that this is an accurate assessment of warfare, but I don’t think that the conservatives on this post will agree with that.
I would like to return this thread to the question of War and Christianity. Is there anyone on this forum that can produce a coherent argument that Jesus would have been in favor of the Second Gulf War? Is there anyone here that will produce a coherent argument that entering this war was a just response to 9/11? Is there anyone here that will defend how we have conducted the war?
I believe that this war was
- in strong contradiction with the teaching of Jesus and does not even meet the criteria of a ‘Just War’, which is itself a theory of dubious ties to the teaching of Christ.
- the invasion of Iraq was obviously unwise at the time of invasion. We, or at least a majority of Americans, were indulging in fantasies of American Empire, as outlines in the PNAC documents (see Prediksi168 | Main Slot Online Bareng dan Pasti Gacor Disini ! and google for more)
- the Bush administration engaged in manipulations of intelligence and in outright misinformation in order to justify an invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, while ignoring clear links to Saudi Arabia
- while our operations have often been marked by some tactical successes and more recently by occasional strategic success, this has been entirely the result of troops on the ground and Iraqis working to rebuild a nation. Our national leadership has consistently underestimated the magnitude of the task, which has resulted in a quagmire.
In short, the war was immoral and foolish.
Rather than criticizing individual statements, I would like to see someone else put forward an argument explaining how this war can be justified from either the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul. Alternatively, the arguments could be based upon more recent teaching of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant theologians.
No references to Ann Rand, Karl Marx or other atheists are relevant.
References to libertarian views could be relevant if they are tied to the arguments presented by Vance in the talks on the original post.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
I would like to return this thread to the question of War and Christianity. Is there anyone on this forum that can produce a coherent argument that Jesus would have been in favor of the Second Gulf War? Is there anyone here that will produce a coherent argument that entering this war was a just response to 9/11? Is there anyone here that will defend how we have conducted the war?
I believe that this war was
- in strong contradiction with the teaching of Jesus and does not even meet the criteria of a ‘Just War’, which is itself a theory of dubious ties to the teaching of Christ.
- the invasion of Iraq was obviously unwise at the time of invasion. We, or at least a majority of Americans, were indulging in fantasies of American Empire, as outlines in the PNAC documents (see Prediksi168 | Main Slot Online Bareng dan Pasti Gacor Disini ! and google for more)
- the Bush administration engaged in manipulations of intelligence and in outright misinformation in order to justify an invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, while ignoring clear links to Saudi Arabia
- while our operations have often been marked by some tactical successes and more recently by occasional strategic success, this has been entirely the result of troops on the ground and Iraqis working to rebuild a nation. Our national leadership has consistently underestimated the magnitude of the task, which has resulted in a quagmire.
In short, the war was immoral and foolish.
Rather than criticizing individual statements, I would like to see someone else put forward an argument explaining how this war can be justified from either the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul. Alternatively, the arguments could be based upon more recent teaching of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant theologians.
No references to Ann Rand, Karl Marx or other atheists are relevant.
References to libertarian views could be relevant if they are tied to the arguments presented by Vance in the talks on the original post.[/quote]
Mass murder and the invasion of Kuwait. That’s basically it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mass murder and the invasion of Kuwait. That’s basically it.[/quote]
Dude, we are talking about the Second Gulf War. The First Gulf War was the response to the invasion of Kuwait. Even the gassing of the Kurds was before the First Gulf War.
The justification for the Second Gulf war was the bs about yellow cake uranium and mushroom clouds over American cities. If we are indeed concerned about mushroom clouds over US cities, perhaps we should have focused on A.Q. Khan (Pakistan) and the Taliban (Pakistan/Afghanistan) and Al-Qaeda (Afghanistan/Saudia Arabia/Egypt).
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mass murder and the invasion of Kuwait. That’s basically it.
Dude, we are talking about the Second Gulf War. The First Gulf War was the response to the invasion of Kuwait. Even the gassing of the Kurds was before the First Gulf War.
The justification for the Second Gulf war was the bs about yellow cake uranium and mushroom clouds over American cities. If we are indeed concerned about mushroom clouds over US cities, perhaps we should have focused on A.Q. Khan (Pakistan) and the Taliban (Pakistan/Afghanistan) and Al-Qaeda (Afghanistan/Saudia Arabia/Egypt).
[/quote]
You asked for a Christian justification. And, the second war followed the first. Saddam not following stipulations set against him.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mass murder and the invasion of Kuwait. That’s basically it.
Dude, we are talking about the Second Gulf War. The First Gulf War was the response to the invasion of Kuwait. Even the gassing of the Kurds was before the First Gulf War.
The justification for the Second Gulf war was the bs about yellow cake uranium and mushroom clouds over American cities. If we are indeed concerned about mushroom clouds over US cities, perhaps we should have focused on A.Q. Khan (Pakistan) and the Taliban (Pakistan/Afghanistan) and Al-Qaeda (Afghanistan/Saudia Arabia/Egypt).
You asked for a Christian justification. And, the second war followed the first. Saddam not following stipulations set against him.[/quote]
I was hoping for something that tied back to the teaching of Jesus. Where did he say that we should overthrow tyrants? He didn’t ally himself with Barabbas, who was an insurrectionist opposing a foreign occupier, so I don’t see how he would advocate taking up the sword by invading a foreign land.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t employ the classic argumentative tactic of misdirection. The WMD, terrorist harboring/promoting, and brutality of the Hussein regime reasons were all ancillary ones for Phase 2 of the war.
Quit promulgating the tired argument that conservatives wanted a war with Iraq strictly as retaliation for 9/11. It just doesn’t jive with the historical facts, historical facts that are relatively recent but deliberately obscured nonetheless.
[/quote]
I am trying hard not to misdirect. I will ask you if you will please provide an argument in favor of this war based upon the New Testament or upon the work of Christian theology.
On a side note:
I don’t believe that conservatives wanted the war with Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. First, I don’t think that the Bush administration is accurately described as conservative, but rather ‘disaster capitalists’ as defined by Naomi Klein. Barry Goldwater was accurately described a conservative. Gen. Eisenhower was also a conservative. Libertarians are certainly conservatives.
I think that the PNAC documents that I reference clearly show that the plans to invade Iraq predated 9/11. I do think that the Bush administration engaged in deliberate misdirection to use 9/11 in order to facilitate the desires of some neo-cons to invade Iraq.
But, none of the issues raised in this side note address the central point. So once again, can someone provide an argument, based upon the New Testament or established Christian theology, that the occupation of Iraq is morally justified?