Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Jewish and Athiest/Agnostic Support Obama The Most.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    I'm always a bit perplexed on this religious polls. We're supposed to be a country of seperation of church and state and yet religious support or lack of support is still way huge. So for what it's worth here it is ...

    [​IMG]

    So I have a few questions for the membership at large:

    ~ Is Romney wasting his time?

    ~ Does this mean an Athiest/Agnostic Could emerge in the future?

    ~ Would we be better off with an Athiest/Agnostic in the Oval Office?

    ` Would the Christian right leave the country if the above happened?
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    This came up in another thread earlier in the day, and most of the founding fathers were deists.. a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.

    This group include Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine, Washington... so a lot of what we were taught is a myth.. they believed in god, but did not have a formal religion.

    My fave quote about the church/state.. by Diderot.

  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    Good stuff there ... somewhere along the way we got lossed.
    I grew up Catholic - prefer to call my self Christian and I hate the mixing of politics and religion.
  4. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,448
    Likes Received:
    68
    Ratings:
    +91 / 1 / -2

    #24 Jersey

    Not quite sure why Jewish support for Obama is so high. The guy is trying to appease Muslim countries that flat out hate and, in some cases want to see Israel leveled and destroyed (according to their leaders anyway). Maybe it's because of Rahm? :confused:
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    These are secular Jews, "cultural" Jews, like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Barbra Streisand, Madelyn Murray O'Hare, etc. A high percentage of such folks are atheist/agnostic. They're pissed at God and Christians for the Holocaust. Therefore they hate God and Christian ideas in the schools and public places. They must like Obama's "preacher", Rev Wright, for his incendiary rants against America, and Obama's tutors, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.


    //
  6. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Your first part is probably true, but than you go so far out there with the next point, that I even find it offensive.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    As did I, did not have a choice after a divorce.. they do not want me.. I too am probably more of a christian, than anything else...
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    What are the first and second parts?? Sorry, don't follow what you're saying. How else can you explain the fact that the ACLU and their allies have just about ethnically cleansed all faith from the public square all throughout America?


    //
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Another f.. ing hijack, every day on every thread..
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    To translate to the American football-watching idiom,

    "Man will never be free until Peter King is strangled with the guts of Priest Holmes."
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Do you even understand the parts of speech? How can you "ethnically cleanse" all faith?

    EVEN if you think that ALL faiths are ethnic groups, based on the fact that SOME faiths are by accident of history also ethnic groups, you cannot "ETHNICALLY cleanse" "all faith."

    Ethnic cleansing is the act of setting up ethnically pure regions, coined for the actions of the Serbs in the 1990s.

    You can't "ethnically cleanse" an area of Baptists, for example, except -- arguably -- if by long tradition Baptists are all of one distinct ethnic group (I know of nowhere in the world where this is the case, but such a situation it is not unimaginable). There can be a religious persecution, but it's not an ethnic cleansing.

    You can much less make the argument that one can "ethnically cleanse" SYMBOLS -- words and icons representing religious IDEAS -- from the public square or anywhere else.

    What ethnicity is a cross from, or a stone tablet? Can you tell them by the texture of their hair or skin color? Perhaps the length and thickness of their fingers, as in the case of Tutsis and Hutus? Are there plastic nativity scene figures living in the forest now, since they are "ethnically cleansed" from the public square, scratching out a meager survival, giving birth to wandering tribes of displaced nativity figures, teaching them the ways of the nativity figure people?

    Words mean something. Learn some.

    PFnV
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Well, if the bar charts represented prevalence of each group in the population, then an atheist/agnostic or Jew would be the best choice for a party's candidate. But that's not what they represent.

    They represent the proportion within each group that supports Obama.

    Is Romney wasting his time? I think if he got the nod, he might lose the election but he would succeed in forcing most wackjob theocratic right-wingers to declare Mormons at least "sort of" Christian. It would be interesting to watch the civil war on that one. I do not know whether he could get elected, but his fate would be tied to that of the GOP, so in that sense, I don't think the GOP is in good shape to win in '12.

    Atheists/Agnostics are growing as a portion of the population, so that answer may one day be yes. One day. Not now.

    Would we be better off with an Atheist/Agnostic?

    My personal point of view is it is unlikely there will be a Jew as president anytime soon; nor is that necessarily who I'd vote for just on the strength of identity politics. But failing that, it makes no difference to me if a candidate is a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist, a moonie, whatever, so long as his or her policies and viewpoints are sound, and so long as he or she is fairly qualified (I'd vote for a Senator from a large state, for example, but not for a plumber or a 1/2 term governor of a small state. That's just me.)

    I've never had the chance to vote along religious lines, whereas Christians in America do so routinely. I don't think I'd do it, but watch all the people who cry and complain that others practice "identity politics" if and when a non-Christian is nominated.

    Will the Christian right leave the country? You, sir, are an optimist. They'd probably start a War for Peace or something equally logical, storm the white house and the Capitol, and replace the Lincoln Memorial with the Jesus Seat.

    PFnV
  13. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    While Obama has faults - not unlike any other politicians I find him rather good on the religious scale. He seems to have used religion in past political relationships more than he does now. He seems to be making or rather taking extra steps to keep religion out of his policies which is no easy task in this day and age.

    Bush wasn't bad overtly but he did use the Christian right to gain office and he did pander to them whenever possible. I don't see where Obama is pandering to any religion which is how it should be for our President.

    I think a President who can worship as he/she chooses and otherwise use the "no comment" clause regarding religion would be at the top of my list in that category. I think an athiest for does not wear that title on their sleeve could win a future election ... I don't see why not. He/she would have to be single as i think a married athiest would draw scorn from the electorate. It would not matter to me but the press would be all over a person who chooses to raise their kids as athiests. IMO.
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Pretty much agree there. In some ways this country has been bible-belted into the stone age.
  15. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    You have a problem with metaphor, don't you.

    Try harder; this ain't gubmint work, you know.


    //
  16. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    You need to do more homework , i wish you Good Luck.
    Should i explain you how positive effect was the Obama election on the WHOLE Middle East area or not ?
    The good versus the evil , peace versus war ;)

    You have a lot of catch up to do ,i will give you a hint:
    start reading how Obama election made the mollahs of Iran look stupid because they don't have no more boggyman to make their own people rally behind them .
    We didn't use a single bullet ....:D
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  17. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Hope you're right. Let's pray.


    //
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Sometimes, Foggy, when the battle's lost and there's no hope of victory it's far far better to shut the hell up and let people wonder if you're really that big of a fool than it is to continue opening your mouth until you've dispelled all doubt.

    "Ethnic cleansing" is no more a metaphor for the act of removing religious icons from public places than flying to Chicago is a metaphor for a Tampa Bay/Patriots football game or Catholic Charities is a metaphor for Indonesian barbeque parties.

    A metaphor is a symbol - and as such it needs to be presented and carried out in a way which continues the symbolism. As MrPFnV pointed out, and pointed out quite clearly and precisely, a ethnicity is not and cannot be a symbol for a religion.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    In his predictably anti-semitic rant above, foggy "explains" by insisting that Obama's support is not among Jews he believes you and he imagine, but among the "fake" Jews who are actually the majority, i.e., reform, reconstructionist, any tradition other than the imagined tradition fog wants Jews to be.

    However, the Orthodox Jews in my family are quite politically liberal. And while political liberalism would probably be more characteristic of reform Jews than orthodox, my bet is that orthodox Jews are more politically liberal than their evangelical counterparts.

    In addition, Jews practice inclusivity. The orthodox might think reform Jews (or any other branch) might not be getting it right, but the talmudic doctrine is "once a Jew always a Jew." Even Protestants, before the schism, had over a thousand years of papal authority in their background; their new churches for the most part adopted the hierarchic structure of the Catholics. So there is a great deal more leeway in saying of another Christian (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or smaller sect,) "You're not REALLY a Christian!"

    Jews can say that if they want, but it carries no theological weight. This makes it much more difficult to apply a litmus test and be taken seriously. Even a politically conservative orthodox Jew is hard-pressed to come up with an argument that I (for example) am not a Jew, because of my politics.

    All that to say, the theological blackmail gig is significantly weaker among Jews.

    Example: abortion, one signature issue of the culture wars, has different standing in Judaism (even orthodox Judaism,) than among Christians. Even orthodox Judaism maintains that it is not only your right but your obligation to end a pregnancy when the mother's life is in danger.

    So while culture warriors may be able to drag along a few orthodox Jews with them, the preconceived (heh, pun intended) notion that a fetus is a person does not pertain in Judaism, undercutting one of the great guilt truncheons of the religious right, which typically works very well against their "flocks."

    A final thought: Jews are a minority. Christians are a majority. Jews have faced real persecution over the ages, and continue to. Christians have not seen true persecution in America or in the modern age, despite their cries that when their agenda is not the national agenda, that defines discrimination.

    Left-of-center politics focuses on the well-being of all, young, old, rich, poor, black, white, and enlisting the help of the state in persuing said goal.

    Right-of-center politics vilifies the poor and minority groups, a fact known by all but the few who still adhere to right-of-center politics. The explanation they prefer is that the status quo is always not just fair ENOUGH, it is TOO fair, giving alllllll our precious resources to women, minorities, immigrants, blah blah blah. Whether you think this premise is true or not, minorities know hateful bigotry when they see it, particularly if they've seen it recently. Jews know that the Rabid right will turn on them in a heartbeat, as the rightist fringe has always done.

    When I point out these differences it is not to say that each attitude is held by each Jew or each Christian. It is to say the two groups have different histories and different concerns, not to mention differences in the doctrines that to an extent unite each group. There are liberal churches which accept abortion, and there are probably orthodox Jews who think it should not be practiced. But by and large, the characteristics that would distinguish the two groups are represented in greater proportion for the tendencies I have ascribed as "predominant" Jewish tendencies, among Jews (and likewise for "Christian" tendencies among Christians.)

    PFnV
  20. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,261
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Perhaps Jews who care about Israel prefer the forward thinking, reality-based leadership of Shimon Peres and the late Yitzhak Rabin to the bumbling, Bush-like, loud dark ages approach of Netanyahu, Sharon and Shamir.

    Obama doesn't dislike Israel. He dislikes the blind,chest beating, backwards oriented leadership of Benyamin Netanyahu. I'm an ardently pro-Israel Jew, yet that doesn't make me automatically support the illegal building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

    Netanyahu is merely appeasing the second fastest growing population in the Israeli electorate; the ultra religious Charedim, who, by the way, do not pay taxes and do not serve in the armed forces - - yet dictate much of the Government policy.

    So, yes, I FULLY support Barack Obama's hard line against Netanyahu as being a pro-Israeli policy - - much as I fully supported the American people turning its back on George W. Bush as an action to finally SAVE our nation from further catastrophe.
  21. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    OK, so you don't (want to) get it. Fine. I'll just put you down then as "Undecided". :D


    //
  22. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    There's nothing to "get" foggy. You just made an ass of yourself by posting in either haste or ignorance, either not knowing or not caring what ethnic cleansing really is... just using it as a cheap throwaway phrase for "something not on my side."

    Words mean something. Learn them.

    PFnV
  23. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Very well articulated... unfortunately these comments will be once again like pearls to swine.
  24. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    A key element of Judaism, as I have seen it practiced in my 62 years, that distinguishes it from Christianity is that Jews seldom witness their faith to others who are not Jewish ... and making no distinction here as to Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed or any other. Christians, on the other hand, have grown and prospered over the centuries precisely BECAUSE they have witnessed to their faith and have joyfully proclaimed Jesus the Christ as God's sinless Son, thus giving hope to literally billions over the years.

    A side bar on your point re Jewish suffering: you are correct in your assessment of the great suffering of Jews throughout their history, from the times in Egypt until today. Yet, you seem inured to the suffering of Christians and others during this same time period.

    For example, in the 20th century when some 6 million Jews were exterminated under the Hitlerian decree of the "final solution", there were some 100 to 200 -- and some have estimated as many as 300 -- Million people of all religious backgrounds (or none) who were exterminated by the communist "solution" of removing all "counter-revolutionaries". From the Baltics to Korea, and everywhere in-between, these many millions suffered merely because they did not freely accept what the communist party demanded of them.

    We hear all about Hitler but we don't hear as much about the much LARGER destruction unleashed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Ilsung, Ho, Pol Pot, Castro, et. al., nearly as much.

    And lest there be any doubt whatsoever: the root of this mass extermination by communist believers is that "those people were not even humans, and are unworthy to live because they do not support the Marxist revolution."

    And what was the "religion" of these communist exterminators?? It was none other than atheism, a militant form of atheism that would not allow any vestige of God to interfere one iota in the "great communist cultural revolution".

    If we say Satan is the great enemy of God, then we must say that those who attack believers in God are working for Satan. Thus, it is a problem when a certain group that is supposed to be of God's elect, some Jewish people, takes the same side as those who wish to literally exterminate all reference to God, as the communist does. A very serious problem, one that needs to be fixed before more people suffer needlessly.

    The fact that such people constitute a majority of the backers of Barack Obama gives most serious pause as to the direction Obama wants to take America. Most serious pause. To argue that Christians or other believers in God "have not suffered in America" is patently untrue; with every single erosion of the Judeo-Christian ethic of the family as the bed-rock of society, every single American suffers as much as those sent to Siberia or to Auscwitz because without the family foundation the society is doomed to implode under a hail of violence and finally self-destruction. Look around America today.

    //
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  25. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    I'm leaving alone the numerical exercise of adding up anyone a commie killed and blessing the Nazis/minimizing the holocaust by comparison. That's a very broad point, and I don't feel like being in the position of minimizing the suffering of any such large cohorts; democide isn't genocide, but if you're dead you're dead. Your penchant for numerical inflation is in full flower in your above post, but it's certainly likely that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, just for example. He was not "persecuting Christians" at the time, as you have said. He was persecuting "enemies of the state." I do not support that characterizations or his actions, and I do not condone them. I do however draw a distinction of such murder based on religio-ethnic identity versus what is by and large political terrorism, when we talk about Stalin. Mao's case is even more bizarre; Stalinism all over again, but with a heavy dose of local prerogative, which calls into more question exactly how much was "ordered" from the center as opposed to condoned and encouraged. Again, the distinction is moot from the point of view of whether Mao was a mass-murderer; he was. Pol went even farther, at one point executing everybody wearing eyeglasses as enemies of the peasantry. Now, while Christians may wear glasses, it is not an anti-Christian persecution to kill everybody wearing glasses. I am not inured to human suffering, regardless of who it is suffering; but to characterize these actions as instances of Christian suffering is to make meaningless the idea that one can be persecuted on said religio-ethnic grounds (as in the case of the Jewish people.)

    Beyond that, there is no prize for suffering the most. I certainly don't want it.

    But the end of the post is the oddest part:

    But we don't say that. Shaitan means "the opponent." If the Christian Satan is the devil, all vile and corrupt and evil and making little girls turn their heads around 360 degrees and puke pea soup, the Jewish Satan is more of a literary device, providing interactions to move the story along. For example, what if we wrote the expulsion from Eden without anybody to say "Oh go ahead eat the fruit?" It falls apart. Of course neither Adam nor Eve had eaten the fruit, so they couldn't very well do it of their own free will just yet. God couldn't tell them to do it; that would make him far too transparently play both sides of chessboard. So we have to have an independent actor who isn't God and isn't man... voila! The "devil's advocate," more than the devil. Similarly in the story of Job, God isn't very interesting if he's saying TO HIMSELF "gee I wonder if Job will curse me to my face." Makes him look like a bored kid playing w/toys (in addition to seriously calling into question later codified concepts like omniscience.) Voila! There's Satan to make a bet with him.

    So you have the horns/pitchforks Satan; we have the one who shows up with bad ideas.

    First of all they don't make commies like they use to, foggy. Secondly outbursts of clergy-popping, while still murder, aren't the same thing as mass-murders of congregations. Thirdly, nobody is taking Stalin's side.

    Your phrasing is self-evidently infected by the rhetoric of your ideological allies, as you speak of "fixing" a "problem" defined by the existence and political freedom of the Jewish people.

    Finally, there is nobody "taking the side" of the communists. There are, however, people who are opposed to the fascistic rhetoric and repeated putsch threats of the fringe rightists.

    Jews tend to vote left of the American political center. That is a good thing in my estimation, and a bad thing in your estimation. We're not huddled around campfires chanting "hail Satan, return Papa Joe, hail Satan, arise Mao Zedung..."

    Get "Satan" out of what we'll loosely call your consciousness, and you'll have a much clearer view of the political landscape.

    The so-called "fact" that "such people" constitute a majority of the backers of Obama gives me no such pause. If you mean Jews, then he'd never be elected if Jews were a majority of his backers. If you mean communists, the categories available are Catholic, Protestant, Atheist/Agnotic, Jews, and Mormons. By the obvious fact that Catholics and Protestants polled near or over 50% for Obama makes it clear that "such people" in this poll means "Americans."

    This is the difference between actual suffering and rubbing vicks under your eyes so you cry.

    If a couple of gay guys get married a thousand miles away from you, you do not suffer like a 5-year-old child ripped from his parents, stuffed into a stinking cattle car, and murdered summarily and painfully, for no act he did himself, and for no reason in Heaven Hell or Earth. It's a couple of gay guys getting married, not "suffering."

    When you lose (as you seem destined to do) yet another mindless "culture war" against the rights of others, you have not been crucified. You have simply been beaten, and not even in the physical sense of the word.

    PFnV
  26. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Read your entire screed, but, honestly, you lost me right there at the top. No "blessing", no "minimizing" of anything. Murder is murder, mass murder is mass murder. All bad, none of it God's will. None. Take it or leave, that's my stand.

    Having said that, there are some people -- some very particular persons -- who have special roles to fulfill, roles that impact on EVERY single person alive now and those who will come in the future. And if the special person of the special role is not accepted, it does and WILL have consequences for ALL people.

    That's all I'm going to say tonight. It's late, I've spent way too much time trying to explain things to people who don't seem to want to hear it, so ... have a good evening and I'll see you again when I see you.


    //
  27. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Really? Is that so?

    Who's will is it going to be when this very threatening little prophecy comes to pass:

    So from this time of peak every people or every organization that goes against the Unification Church will gradually come down or drastically come down and die. Many people will die - those who go against our movement.
    Sun Myung Moon
  28. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    That's very sweet of you, foggy, but just treat me like anybody else on the board.

    Thanks though,

    PFnV
  29. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    You're not familiar with the Old Testament, it seems, the parts where God expresses his covenant with the Jewish people under Moses' -- then Joshua's -- leadership. Let's take a look at just the issue of the Amalakites:

    The Amalekites were fierce warriors. They attempted to stop the Israelites when they marched through their territory (Deuteronomy 25.18), attacking them at Rephidim (Exodus 17.8-13; cf. Deuteronomy 25.17 and 1 Samuel 15.2). Later they attacked at Hormah (Numbers 14.45). Because the Israelites did not wipe them out, we find them in league with the Moabites in Judges 3.13 and with the Midianites in Judges 6.3. Saul desolated their territory and weakened them (1 Samuel 14.48; 15.3), and David recovered booty from them (1 Samuel 30.18-20). Babylonian inscriptions reference them as Sute, in those of Egypt Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets include them under the general name of Khabbati, or "plunderers." Mary Craig Ministries - Amalekites: Testing God's Covenant Love

    Yet, in the end, God commanded the Hebrews to slay ALL of the Amalakites, leaving NOT ONE alive.

    "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."

    //
  30. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    :rofl:........... :nono:

    Chutzpah defined.


    As you were.

    //

Share This Page