Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Ghost wrote:I am kind of curious, Dan, since we've been agreeing so long...exactly what sort of teaching, support, ministry, and counseling does your church provide to homosexuals? I'm mostly interested in the counseling part.
Us disagreeing was inevitable. But I still like you.
Nothing in particular, it's not like we have classes or anything. We just try to treat everyone the same. A friend of mine's wife left him for another woman and stopped coming, but that's more from the whole divorce aspect rather than being gay. The times she's come back for kid's programs or that sort of thing everyone has treated her like they did before. The situation is more sad for her two daughters losing a mom and dad at home than the lifestyle she chose, IMO.
Honestly, I've been a member of my church for over 10 years and in all that time I can't recall single sermon or lesson about homosexuality. It's just not a big deal on the radar for mainstream Christian churches; the main focus is and always has been what we can do for others and working on our own personal relationships with Christ.
OK, I can respect that while disagreeing with the specifics of the stance. Very cool. It sounds like you have a good group of people around you. That's good.
It also begs the question of how far back we should go. If we look back 20 years, why not 40? If 80 why not 100?
I think the furthest back we can look is the start of the modern conflict, which I would peg at May 14, 1948. This is not in any way to say that Israel is to blame; in fact, I would say the opposite. But, history before that point doesn't have any bearing aside from the fact that there was a lot of tension already.
It also begs the question of how far back we should go. If we look back 20 years, why not 40? If 80 why not 100?
I think the furthest back we can look is the start of the modern conflict, which I would peg at May 14, 1948. This is not in any way to say that Israel is to blame; in fact, I would say the opposite. But, history before that point doesn't have any bearing aside from the fact that there was a lot of tension already.
Even that overlooks a few things, though. If Churchill had partitioned the Ottoman Empire differently, would we have the same geopolitical situation we have now?
In a sense many of the problems we face now in a geopolitical sense stem back to World War I and actions taken after it. Had sanctions not been so onerous toward Germany after the First World War, would the Nazis have risen to power? If the Ottoman Empire hadn't been sliced and diced like a Thanksgiving turkey, resulting in certain artificial nations having great oil wealth whereas others just have desert, would we have the same tensions and pressures? Israel like the US is all to often a convenient foil for deeper issues IMO.
Nodack wrote:That's a great idea Indy and I have thought about that as well except for one thing, oil. If we completely pulled out of that part of the world what would happen? Our presence there is what is holding back a lot of bad things from happening.
Here is a bunch of good articles asking the same questions and supplying answers.
I would love to be able to up and leave, but I'm not comfortable with the idea at all. First, isolationism in the face of such a huge threat to the region has huge potential to backfire on us, like it did when we refused to join the League of Nations after WWI, and waited around while Hitler conquered most of Europe until Japan got stupid and attacked us. It's not Godwining the thread to compare ISIS to Nazis. Leaving altogether would create a massive problem in the region, and while Israel certainly has the power to defend itself, the region would fall into complete chaos (even worse than the chaos we created with our failed interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq). Whether we need their oil or not, this would most definitely affect us in a major way. Short of removing ourselves entirely from the world economy, which is not even worth considering in 2015 and on, we would still get hurt, and in the event ISIS or a comparable group were to gain greater power in the region, they would remain a threat. The BEST case is that the entire region would descend into complete anarchy and be so busy fighting each other that they would forget about us. But I don't think this would happen.
We would also be talking about catastrophic levels of human casualties. Human rights violations that we have not seen in decades. And again, that's the best case. In the worst case, we have all that and then wind up with one much more powerful terrorist nation that would not have forgotten about us. Granted, it's a lot harder for them to kill Americans if we are all over here, but we know they would find ways. Complete isolationism would mean we also butt out when they try to make deals with our "allies" in China and Saudi Arabia...only the Saudis would probably no longer be called allies, and China has been iffy at best. Oh, and the newly-forming USSR would be happy to give us the finger and provide arms, if just to spite us in the name of stabilizing the region. So, eventually, when they do get around to hitting us at home, we have no choice but to go back and face a much stronger foe.
Staying there fires them up and gives the terrorists propaganda to use in forming new terrorists out of their young. Leaving completely provides a vacuum for them to gain more power. It's a catch 22 and I don't know what the way out is.
The only main differences I see are that they aren't pretending to be democratic and they aren't exactly led by a charismatic leader (although I don't know who leads them, and it may well be that the Muslims we want to reach out to will find him so). "Rather alarming" is quite an understatement.
On that point, this article is kind of interesting. Apparently, nobody knows that much about him. But he seems pretty smart, tactical, charismatic in a way, and totally, completely ruthless.
Ghost wrote:I think the furthest back we can look is the start of the modern conflict, which I would peg at May 14, 1948. This is not in any way to say that Israel is to blame; in fact, I would say the opposite. But, history before that point doesn't have any bearing aside from the fact that there was a lot of tension already.
Even that overlooks a few things, though. If Churchill had partitioned the Ottoman Empire differently, would we have the same geopolitical situation we have now?
I was talking specifically about the nature of the modern conflict between Muslim nations and the West. Yes, you are correct...a lot of things could have changed where we are now. But it was the formation of Israel after WWII that triggered the war we are in now
Yeah, she's threatening to sue Fox over some of the facts laid out in the article I just posted. I think they may have exaggerated a bit but French government websites are talking about the no-go zones, it's not like the stuff got made up. Weird.
Yeah, she's threatening to sue Fox over some of the facts laid out in the article I just posted. I think they may have exaggerated a bit but French government websites are talking about the no-go zones, it's not like the stuff got made up. Weird.
The zones exist. The only parts that are made up are the "no-go" part and the idea that they have anything to do with Muslims. But yes, there is a French government website that marks zones on a map, which totally justifies this nonsense.
Dan H wrote:Yeah, she's threatening to sue Fox over some of the facts laid out in the article I just posted. I think they may have exaggerated a bit but French government websites are talking about the no-go zones, it's not like the stuff got made up. Weird.
In the absence of actual proof, it does indeed look probable that the stuff got made up.
Dan H wrote:Yeah, she's threatening to sue Fox over some of the facts laid out in the article I just posted. I think they may have exaggerated a bit but French government websites are talking about the no-go zones, it's not like the stuff got made up. Weird.
In the absence of actual proof, it does indeed look probable that the stuff got made up.
Hard to argue with video.
More here . . . from '02 and '05, as well as something from the not-right-leaning New Republic.
