Journalist: Well then... given all this, was it really as difficult as people say it was to decide what approach to take with Saddam? Was it really a toss up, either full-out war or no war at all could have been the ethical thing to do?
If the American government assigned equal respect and right to survive and liberty for all people as proclaimed in their constitution as ordained by God onto all people; If the people of the American government were anything like the men and women who created the great USA just a few centuries ago, is there any doubt in our minds that many thousands of innocent people the world over who have had to endure brutal deaths and heartbreaking losses, would still be alive and well now?
The Power of Nightmares
-
MKFaizi
Can't get into the dialogue thing.
I appreciate Avidaloca's comments. I am somewhat amazed -- too strong a word -- that nothing is being made of this.
I know that the cops thought he was a terrorist. I know that they were afraid that he was about to detonate a bomb or something.
I also know the meaning of "trigger happy" and the meaning of "gung-ho." I know what it means to chase an innocent man down in the streets.
If the same shit happened in Compton, I reckon there would be a riot.
I thought the US was supposed to be the assholes.
Faizi
I appreciate Avidaloca's comments. I am somewhat amazed -- too strong a word -- that nothing is being made of this.
I know that the cops thought he was a terrorist. I know that they were afraid that he was about to detonate a bomb or something.
I also know the meaning of "trigger happy" and the meaning of "gung-ho." I know what it means to chase an innocent man down in the streets.
If the same shit happened in Compton, I reckon there would be a riot.
I thought the US was supposed to be the assholes.
Faizi
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: interview
Lennyrizzo,
Your points are well made. The West is indeed disgustingly immoral. But I don't know anywhere on earth that isn't.
The thing about the West is that you really do have freedom to choose. You can choose whom you want to marry, which religion you want to follow, if any. You can choose whom you vote for, or even if you want to vote at all. You can choose how you dress, and, more or less, you can choose what you think.
All of this freedom invariably leads to immorality. But while there is freedom of choice there is always a chance of morality.
When people lack these freedoms there is no chance of morality.
Your points are well made. The West is indeed disgustingly immoral. But I don't know anywhere on earth that isn't.
The thing about the West is that you really do have freedom to choose. You can choose whom you want to marry, which religion you want to follow, if any. You can choose whom you vote for, or even if you want to vote at all. You can choose how you dress, and, more or less, you can choose what you think.
All of this freedom invariably leads to immorality. But while there is freedom of choice there is always a chance of morality.
When people lack these freedoms there is no chance of morality.
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
interview
Journalist: Yes, thank you Mr Solway for joining the discussion. Finally some one speaking up in defense of the west. What do you think of that, people?
Terrorist sympathizer: Sounds sweet but not really true. I don't need any of those freedoms to become moral, no one can control my mind but me, they may try and i may pretend to agree with them, but in the end I'm as moral as my thoughts are, and those will always be free. Sure others may try to influence my thoughts, and I may find it unbearable where i am, but the mere presence of the western option is all i need, I don't need that ideology rammed down my throat Bush-style. There are many who have migrated, and unless you haven't got the freedom of movement itself, unless someone ties you down, you can do likewise, go someplace else to think along different lines. We don't do that here in my homeland, we don't tie people down. We don't object to all Anglo-saxon ideas and directions, we only object when we see the consequences of their lifestyle and compare it to the consequences of ours and find their's to be more immoral and less Godly.
In particular we object to the loss of power of the male, how the head of the man's family is some strange corrupt judge and not the man himself, and remember that if the children are widely infected then the whole society is doomed. Whether our choice of freedoms or that of the west ultimately result in the best ethics may be debateable, but we are resisting the Bushalikes, for they aim to replace our fathers in the same way they have in America, by allowing women the freedom to lead families and make the most important decisions about the children and even the nation. And knowing what we know about women, we simply cannot stand for that. We are ok with that experiment happening over there, but it seems to be failing badly and until that changes we will resist it with every breath in our bodies.
Journalist: Humm...anyone else?
Terrorist sympathizer: Sounds sweet but not really true. I don't need any of those freedoms to become moral, no one can control my mind but me, they may try and i may pretend to agree with them, but in the end I'm as moral as my thoughts are, and those will always be free. Sure others may try to influence my thoughts, and I may find it unbearable where i am, but the mere presence of the western option is all i need, I don't need that ideology rammed down my throat Bush-style. There are many who have migrated, and unless you haven't got the freedom of movement itself, unless someone ties you down, you can do likewise, go someplace else to think along different lines. We don't do that here in my homeland, we don't tie people down. We don't object to all Anglo-saxon ideas and directions, we only object when we see the consequences of their lifestyle and compare it to the consequences of ours and find their's to be more immoral and less Godly.
In particular we object to the loss of power of the male, how the head of the man's family is some strange corrupt judge and not the man himself, and remember that if the children are widely infected then the whole society is doomed. Whether our choice of freedoms or that of the west ultimately result in the best ethics may be debateable, but we are resisting the Bushalikes, for they aim to replace our fathers in the same way they have in America, by allowing women the freedom to lead families and make the most important decisions about the children and even the nation. And knowing what we know about women, we simply cannot stand for that. We are ok with that experiment happening over there, but it seems to be failing badly and until that changes we will resist it with every breath in our bodies.
Journalist: Humm...anyone else?
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Round 792,642,212.3
Don't make me slap you, Lennyrizzo. I am having trouble distinguishing the wisdom from your emotionalism.
Tell me, what are the qualities of your ideal head of the family? Give me an example of one of the decisions that would need to be made. What does your notion of "Godly" look like?
Tell me, what are the qualities of your ideal head of the family? Give me an example of one of the decisions that would need to be made. What does your notion of "Godly" look like?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: interview
If a terrorist kills you they will be controlling your mind.Lennyrizzo wrote:Terrorist sympathizer: . . . no one can control my mind but me
If men cede their power to women, that is their choice.In particular we object to the loss of power of the male
And you can't force them to do otherwise than they choose.
That's the biggest problem with democracy: when the majority of people are a "mob" then democracy is essentially no more than mob-rule.We are ok with that experiment happening over there, but it seems to be failing badly and until that changes we will resist it with every breath in our bodies.
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
interview
Journalist: Thank you there in the back, the woman there holding hands with her girlfriend, feel free to jump in anytime, anyone.
American: I think Mr Solway's points went right over our resident terrorist's head. We as Americans are very proud of our freedoms, we live and would die for freedom, and though at times an undesireable effect may arise, all-in-all a free society is far and away the best culture for mankind. Restrictions should be the exception and not the rule, and only legislated and enforced once experience shows it to be prudent.
Terrorist Sympathizer: There, do you see what I mean about the disrespectful attitudes of American lesbians? It lives in them like a disease. We wouldnt stand for that in our culture, we would do whatever necessary to save her from her undisciplined demons. But in most cases it's probably hopeless, without a devoted masculine presence in the early years women become vile creatures, forever afirming their equality and condemning anyone who disagrees, forever longing for the man they never had, should have had, the man quite often that their selfish femminist mothers so foolishly dismissed and crucified. In our country we don't even respond to trash like this, but if she promises to behave and to stop speaking so rudely, perhaps i will show her mercy as well as her mistake.
You want a decision? How about this- A father who decides to teach his children the better path of a normal sexual relationship, a normal family, a normal lifestyle, and to condemn your homosexual perversion. How about that! Do western father's have the option and right to teach their children that homosexuality is abnormal, that those people are mentally ill, emotionally ill, just plain fucked up? Does an American father have that freedom there in that wonderful nation of liberty? Would he be spared persecution and shunning and penalty to his family if he openly condemning that lifestyle, if he told his children to never consider that as they would never consider screwing their own dogs and cats, to not be tricked by the philosopy that assets such lifestyles are acceptable and normal and do not suggest emotional problems? What would happen to that father if he chose to exercise the freedom to raise his childen in a fashion that he considered far more edifying? What price would he and his family pay in that sweet free society, where a person is supposedly encouraged to believe and to be as they wish to be? What would happen to his non-religious 16 year old son if he wrote letters in the school newspaper expressing utter disgust for people who stick their dicks up men's asses, if he chose-mr Solway- to exercise the freedom to hate the presence of these types in his society and attempted to exercise the freedom to have them removed or chased away? Would it make it to print? What would your heavenly-free society think of that?
Would they say he's entitled to his opinion, that his loving father is entitled to protect his own children from whatever HE- despite what his weak conforming mother may fear- and many millions of others believe, is bad for them? Are your men really so powerful, or are they merely strong and aggressive and obedient to Woman?
And would they legislate laws to protect averse behaviour? To say essentially- to give the message to young people- that anyone objecting is screwed up and far worse than the queer himself? Why isn't he free to hate these types, we certainly do, hate them as we hate other criminal minds for their mental defects and possible consequence to our world. Free to consider them sick, disgusting, poor role models, to be sent back out of sight where they won't influence tender minds. Why are only some free in your society and others not? Why are some so terribly persecuted for exercising their freedoms and others not? Why is the freedom to restrict and condemn certain freedoms not free of consequence in your society, even at the government level?
Please, don't make me sick, woman. Just go you silently with your queer girlfriend and go please back to your loveshack with your mirrors and love toys and exercise your freedom to live as hedonistically as humanly possible!
American: I think Mr Solway's points went right over our resident terrorist's head. We as Americans are very proud of our freedoms, we live and would die for freedom, and though at times an undesireable effect may arise, all-in-all a free society is far and away the best culture for mankind. Restrictions should be the exception and not the rule, and only legislated and enforced once experience shows it to be prudent.
Terrorist Sympathizer: There, do you see what I mean about the disrespectful attitudes of American lesbians? It lives in them like a disease. We wouldnt stand for that in our culture, we would do whatever necessary to save her from her undisciplined demons. But in most cases it's probably hopeless, without a devoted masculine presence in the early years women become vile creatures, forever afirming their equality and condemning anyone who disagrees, forever longing for the man they never had, should have had, the man quite often that their selfish femminist mothers so foolishly dismissed and crucified. In our country we don't even respond to trash like this, but if she promises to behave and to stop speaking so rudely, perhaps i will show her mercy as well as her mistake.
You want a decision? How about this- A father who decides to teach his children the better path of a normal sexual relationship, a normal family, a normal lifestyle, and to condemn your homosexual perversion. How about that! Do western father's have the option and right to teach their children that homosexuality is abnormal, that those people are mentally ill, emotionally ill, just plain fucked up? Does an American father have that freedom there in that wonderful nation of liberty? Would he be spared persecution and shunning and penalty to his family if he openly condemning that lifestyle, if he told his children to never consider that as they would never consider screwing their own dogs and cats, to not be tricked by the philosopy that assets such lifestyles are acceptable and normal and do not suggest emotional problems? What would happen to that father if he chose to exercise the freedom to raise his childen in a fashion that he considered far more edifying? What price would he and his family pay in that sweet free society, where a person is supposedly encouraged to believe and to be as they wish to be? What would happen to his non-religious 16 year old son if he wrote letters in the school newspaper expressing utter disgust for people who stick their dicks up men's asses, if he chose-mr Solway- to exercise the freedom to hate the presence of these types in his society and attempted to exercise the freedom to have them removed or chased away? Would it make it to print? What would your heavenly-free society think of that?
Would they say he's entitled to his opinion, that his loving father is entitled to protect his own children from whatever HE- despite what his weak conforming mother may fear- and many millions of others believe, is bad for them? Are your men really so powerful, or are they merely strong and aggressive and obedient to Woman?
And would they legislate laws to protect averse behaviour? To say essentially- to give the message to young people- that anyone objecting is screwed up and far worse than the queer himself? Why isn't he free to hate these types, we certainly do, hate them as we hate other criminal minds for their mental defects and possible consequence to our world. Free to consider them sick, disgusting, poor role models, to be sent back out of sight where they won't influence tender minds. Why are only some free in your society and others not? Why are some so terribly persecuted for exercising their freedoms and others not? Why is the freedom to restrict and condemn certain freedoms not free of consequence in your society, even at the government level?
Please, don't make me sick, woman. Just go you silently with your queer girlfriend and go please back to your loveshack with your mirrors and love toys and exercise your freedom to live as hedonistically as humanly possible!
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
FUCKING
You idiot. Your prejudice poisons your mind and cripples your eyesight. I am celibate. Let me assure you that if I were to engage in sex, it would be with a man. But there are very little men left. Most have become women, such as yourself: and I am no lesbian. Who’s fucked up now? Yes, terrorist pimpathizer, there is more Godliness in my little finger than in the entire substance that buffers your thick skull.
As far as your example of an important fatherly decision: I teach my children about the folly of sex altogether – I teach them true Godliness. There are no false Gods in my home; and I am more of a father than you could ever be.
What does your notion of “Godly†look like?
As far as your example of an important fatherly decision: I teach my children about the folly of sex altogether – I teach them true Godliness. There are no false Gods in my home; and I am more of a father than you could ever be.
What does your notion of “Godly†look like?
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
interview
Journalist: Oh, well, then we owe you an apology Ms Shen. For now on we'll assume you are sex fee until such time as the right man comes along. Do let us know if and when that happens.
Why don't you enlighten us as to why you discourage your children from sexual relations. Aren't you concerned they may grow up only to have intimacy problems with the opposite sex?
UKer: I'd like to know that to. These days you don't find many folk teaching their kids that, more often than not they are left to arrive at their own conclusions about sex, which personally I think is the most honest approach. Parents can be overly controlling and tend to underestimate their impact on the kids. Sure they mean well, but at times their teaching is the result of life problems like failed relationships. How can that amount to anything good?
Terrorist sympathizer: Nothing has gone over my head. Both mr Solway and Shen are out of touch with reality. For one, I never said anything in objection to dictators like Saddam getting the boot, many of my people hated that maniac and were happy to see him go. But the western armies remained, and for much too long, handing candy to our impressionable children like sneaky pedophiles. When will they get it, that we don't want their variety of decadance spreading over here!
Both the west and east have some form of free society, but it is ours that is superior to theirs, and you have merely to open your eyes and mind to understand this. Our culture is tested and ancient, also evolving, but look at what has happened in just two hundred years in American culture, that country is like a growing inoperable tumour! The people are so incredibly dense and hypocritical. The country is caving in headed for destruction, and is nothing like the fairly honorable nation it once was. The terrorists are simply hastening the inevitable, and ought to be appreciated for that, in my opinion.
No, we have seen all we need to see to determine without hesitation or doubt that we want none of that over here. But Bushalikes keep throwing their weight around, keep pushing their poisonous ideas on our people. Some of ours, sadly, have fallen for it. To these there is no choice but to cut their defective heads from their bodies. This isn't a savage tactic but a message to those at risk.
It will never happen, the east will never be entirely westernized, we simply will not allow it. We will bring fire upon the entire planet before that happens. No earthly life at all is better than a purely decadant existence.
Don't be deceived, this indeed is the plan of western governments, and when hell comes to earth, don't blame me, and don't blame the terrorists, not even muslims; blame instead your Godless leaders, who were foolish enough to obey the most materialistic, fearful, and selfish among you.
What is godly? I already said, immorality.
Why don't you enlighten us as to why you discourage your children from sexual relations. Aren't you concerned they may grow up only to have intimacy problems with the opposite sex?
UKer: I'd like to know that to. These days you don't find many folk teaching their kids that, more often than not they are left to arrive at their own conclusions about sex, which personally I think is the most honest approach. Parents can be overly controlling and tend to underestimate their impact on the kids. Sure they mean well, but at times their teaching is the result of life problems like failed relationships. How can that amount to anything good?
Terrorist sympathizer: Nothing has gone over my head. Both mr Solway and Shen are out of touch with reality. For one, I never said anything in objection to dictators like Saddam getting the boot, many of my people hated that maniac and were happy to see him go. But the western armies remained, and for much too long, handing candy to our impressionable children like sneaky pedophiles. When will they get it, that we don't want their variety of decadance spreading over here!
Both the west and east have some form of free society, but it is ours that is superior to theirs, and you have merely to open your eyes and mind to understand this. Our culture is tested and ancient, also evolving, but look at what has happened in just two hundred years in American culture, that country is like a growing inoperable tumour! The people are so incredibly dense and hypocritical. The country is caving in headed for destruction, and is nothing like the fairly honorable nation it once was. The terrorists are simply hastening the inevitable, and ought to be appreciated for that, in my opinion.
No, we have seen all we need to see to determine without hesitation or doubt that we want none of that over here. But Bushalikes keep throwing their weight around, keep pushing their poisonous ideas on our people. Some of ours, sadly, have fallen for it. To these there is no choice but to cut their defective heads from their bodies. This isn't a savage tactic but a message to those at risk.
It will never happen, the east will never be entirely westernized, we simply will not allow it. We will bring fire upon the entire planet before that happens. No earthly life at all is better than a purely decadant existence.
Don't be deceived, this indeed is the plan of western governments, and when hell comes to earth, don't blame me, and don't blame the terrorists, not even muslims; blame instead your Godless leaders, who were foolish enough to obey the most materialistic, fearful, and selfish among you.
What is godly? I already said, immorality.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
LULLABIES OF LOVE
Funny man. I don't think your personalities are keeping track of their own conversations very well. Seems a couple of lines are getting crossed -- particularly on the subject of Saddam. Nonetheless, I have more to say at a more reasonable hour.
And what am I to make of this -- Freudian slip?
And what am I to make of this -- Freudian slip?
What is godly? I already said, immorality.
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
interview
Journalist: Ok. looks like we're all back from break. I don't know about anyone else here, but as for myself, certainly my eyes have been opened to a new and more complete explanation of this universal human war that has seized our planet. The presidents were spot on to point out it's a battle of ideologies. But is it being fought fairly?
European: I tend to doubt it, war is never fair, even massacres are common and even profitable, and no reasonable person doubts that anything goes for anyone in war, that anyone will stoop to as low as necessary to win, and that we will never see an end to war crimes, no matter what the UN tries or threatens, no matter how persistently bereaved survivors remind us. I think people are becoming weary of this "My, how could they stoop so low; the beasts!" attitude. Lets face it, if we feel very strongly about something, to the point of being willing to die to achieve it, then no atrocity is too extreme. Besides, extremism is nothing new, all the greatest changes in history would not have been possible without extremists, extreme wills and extreme determination. We actually praise extremism when it suits us. So lets drop this tiring western appeal, it acomplishes little to vilify the opponent, not at this point in this wasteful game. Are you paying attention Mr Blair?
Terrorist sympathizer: Well I think he does it to keep the public favor, you need to at least sound like you're a saint to appease the ladies, they don't want to admit to themselves they support a beastly man with no feelings capable of ordering the deaths of innocent people to get their way, so at least he must sound sensitive. Objecting to things like suicide bombings accomplishes that, even if you're killing plenty of women and kids yourself.
Journalist: So what do you think we'll be seeing next, what will happen in the near future, have any idea? It appears that terrorist cells are indeed being trampled in several countries. It's beginning to appear as though we may in fact be able to reduce terrorism to manageable levels some day.
Londoner: I don't know. It has gotten to the point that even non-criminal types are joining the ranks, young law abiding men with futures. This is a disturbing trend, however expected it may be. This is certainly no sign of victory over terrorism, just the opposite i'd say. Even if we take away their bombs there is no way we are going to stop this trend without changing our tactics and attitude. Terrorists don't even need bombs to disturb the world, there are an endless number of ways to terrorize and disturb people. a trained man armed with standard automatic weapons can take out more people than many suicide bombers have. And then there's the chemical, biological solution, dirty bombs and nukes.
Terrorist sympathizer: The reason terrorists have not yet employed much of this is NOT because they cannot manage it. People need to realize and admit that things could be much more horrific than they presently are. Blair is either stupid or dishonest to suggest terrorist are determined to kill and maime as many people as possible. Rather it's true that terrorists want to create the maximum impact, and that is not always by way of more deaths. Who you take out and how you do it are effective factors too.
American: It all seems fairly hopeless, I regret to say. Many believe they are even now planning the Mother of all attacks. That will make 9/11 seem like childs play. Would it be a great surprise to any thinking person?
European: I tend to doubt it, war is never fair, even massacres are common and even profitable, and no reasonable person doubts that anything goes for anyone in war, that anyone will stoop to as low as necessary to win, and that we will never see an end to war crimes, no matter what the UN tries or threatens, no matter how persistently bereaved survivors remind us. I think people are becoming weary of this "My, how could they stoop so low; the beasts!" attitude. Lets face it, if we feel very strongly about something, to the point of being willing to die to achieve it, then no atrocity is too extreme. Besides, extremism is nothing new, all the greatest changes in history would not have been possible without extremists, extreme wills and extreme determination. We actually praise extremism when it suits us. So lets drop this tiring western appeal, it acomplishes little to vilify the opponent, not at this point in this wasteful game. Are you paying attention Mr Blair?
Terrorist sympathizer: Well I think he does it to keep the public favor, you need to at least sound like you're a saint to appease the ladies, they don't want to admit to themselves they support a beastly man with no feelings capable of ordering the deaths of innocent people to get their way, so at least he must sound sensitive. Objecting to things like suicide bombings accomplishes that, even if you're killing plenty of women and kids yourself.
Journalist: So what do you think we'll be seeing next, what will happen in the near future, have any idea? It appears that terrorist cells are indeed being trampled in several countries. It's beginning to appear as though we may in fact be able to reduce terrorism to manageable levels some day.
Londoner: I don't know. It has gotten to the point that even non-criminal types are joining the ranks, young law abiding men with futures. This is a disturbing trend, however expected it may be. This is certainly no sign of victory over terrorism, just the opposite i'd say. Even if we take away their bombs there is no way we are going to stop this trend without changing our tactics and attitude. Terrorists don't even need bombs to disturb the world, there are an endless number of ways to terrorize and disturb people. a trained man armed with standard automatic weapons can take out more people than many suicide bombers have. And then there's the chemical, biological solution, dirty bombs and nukes.
Terrorist sympathizer: The reason terrorists have not yet employed much of this is NOT because they cannot manage it. People need to realize and admit that things could be much more horrific than they presently are. Blair is either stupid or dishonest to suggest terrorist are determined to kill and maime as many people as possible. Rather it's true that terrorists want to create the maximum impact, and that is not always by way of more deaths. Who you take out and how you do it are effective factors too.
American: It all seems fairly hopeless, I regret to say. Many believe they are even now planning the Mother of all attacks. That will make 9/11 seem like childs play. Would it be a great surprise to any thinking person?
The Two Brothers
The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
Genesis 16
10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
17
18. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
This is sibling rivalry going on for thousands of years. Do you and your kindred not see the ancient prophesy? You cannot kick Isaac out of his rightful inheritance as he is family and a son of Abraham. He is your brother - hello.
"and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Isaac and Ishmael have survived from ancient times unlike all the other powerful nations because you are equally important in the role of fullfilment. You cannot separate yourself from him as you are seeing a mirror of your own calling.
Make peace with your kindred and there will be no need for anymore bloodshed. Isaac is your blood brother - when will these two brothers embrace as family once again?
Ah- the enigma for the world, a working model of the war in mans heart.
The Temple Mount, sacred to both brothers, it must be united in reckognition of the one true bloodline. The bloodline of God.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Number 13 of Imam, Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths.
Genesis 16
10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
17
18. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
This is sibling rivalry going on for thousands of years. Do you and your kindred not see the ancient prophesy? You cannot kick Isaac out of his rightful inheritance as he is family and a son of Abraham. He is your brother - hello.
"and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Isaac and Ishmael have survived from ancient times unlike all the other powerful nations because you are equally important in the role of fullfilment. You cannot separate yourself from him as you are seeing a mirror of your own calling.
Make peace with your kindred and there will be no need for anymore bloodshed. Isaac is your blood brother - when will these two brothers embrace as family once again?
Ah- the enigma for the world, a working model of the war in mans heart.
The Temple Mount, sacred to both brothers, it must be united in reckognition of the one true bloodline. The bloodline of God.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Number 13 of Imam, Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths.
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
Children of Isaac, seek Wisdom
You are misinformed, my friend.
<
Genesis 16
10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. >
- The first, Ishmael, a wild, crazy, unstable son, will hate as he is hated, and live not in the light of God but in the world of mortals. None will he hate more than Isaac.
<17
18. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. >
- A second son, Isaac, God will adopt as His own, for his heart, unlike that of his brother, seeks union with God. Whereas God's gift to Isaac is spiritual, that to the first is merely material, in gratitude to Abraham, who loves his first unlike he loves his second, though the love of God is in Isaac alone.
Ge 17:18-19 , And Abraham said to God, "Oh!, that Ishmael might live before You!" God replied, "NO! Sarah will bear you another son, and HE shall be called Isaac, and with HIM I will establish My covenant."
<
This is sibling rivalry going on for thousands of years. Do you and your kindred not see the ancient prophesy? You cannot kick Isaac out of his rightful inheritance as he is family and a son of Abraham. He is your brother - hello.
"and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." >NO.
- Though Ishmael may dwell among men in the place of his earthly father, the second will seek after the Kingdom of God.
No place on earth compares, no city or land will suffice, rather a clinging to these will make for contention and spilt blood.
"Allow unto man what is man's (material), but give unto God what is God's (spiritual)."
God's advice was evidentally not heeded.
<
Genesis 16
10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. >
- The first, Ishmael, a wild, crazy, unstable son, will hate as he is hated, and live not in the light of God but in the world of mortals. None will he hate more than Isaac.
<17
18. And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. >
- A second son, Isaac, God will adopt as His own, for his heart, unlike that of his brother, seeks union with God. Whereas God's gift to Isaac is spiritual, that to the first is merely material, in gratitude to Abraham, who loves his first unlike he loves his second, though the love of God is in Isaac alone.
Ge 17:18-19 , And Abraham said to God, "Oh!, that Ishmael might live before You!" God replied, "NO! Sarah will bear you another son, and HE shall be called Isaac, and with HIM I will establish My covenant."
<
This is sibling rivalry going on for thousands of years. Do you and your kindred not see the ancient prophesy? You cannot kick Isaac out of his rightful inheritance as he is family and a son of Abraham. He is your brother - hello.
"and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." >NO.
- Though Ishmael may dwell among men in the place of his earthly father, the second will seek after the Kingdom of God.
No place on earth compares, no city or land will suffice, rather a clinging to these will make for contention and spilt blood.
"Allow unto man what is man's (material), but give unto God what is God's (spiritual)."
God's advice was evidentally not heeded.
The Two Brothers
The hatred for Isaac is because when the prophet arrived at Medinah his life was threatened by Isaac as well as Christians. They could not see the value of turning his kindred away from polytheistic idol worship without their pet dogmas.- The first, Ishmael, a wild, crazy, unstable son, will hate as he is hated, and live not in the light of God but in the world of mortals. None will he hate more than Isaac.
You can continue to see yourself as a mere lowly servant of God, only able to fullfil the will of God - or you could see yourself as part of the family and a son of God, one in whom God fellowships with and regards as an heir.
Ishmael is unstable because he cannot see himself as part of the family of God and therefore is a mere son of Adam in strife and contention.
I say to you bury Abraham and embrace the brother that has been lost.
Genesis 25:8 Then Abraham gave up the Ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
9. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;
It is time for you to enter the family of God as a joint-heir and equal. The Jewish prophet Isaiah could see and did hear the proclamation of the Most High concerning Ishmael invited into the family of the Kingdom of God.
Isaiah 19:24. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
21:11. The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?
12. The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will inquire, inquire ye: return, come.
13. The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.
Do you not see the love of God that abides in your own soul? How can you count yourself out of the inheritance and then strive with Isaac over his?Whereas God's gift to Isaac is spiritual, that to the first is merely material, in gratitude to Abraham, who loves his first unlike he loves his second, though the love of God is in Isaac alone.
Well said my friend - well said.No place on earth compares, no city or land will suffice, rather a clinging to these will make for contention and spilt blood.
"The gates of Paradise will be opened on Mondays and on Thursdays, and every servant [of Allah] who associates nothing with Allah will be forgiven, except for the man who has a grudge against his brother. [About them] it will be said: Delay these two until they are reconciled; delay these two until they are reconciled.""Allow unto man what is man's (material), but give unto God what is God's (spiritual)."
God's advice was evidentally not heeded.
--Hadith Qudsi 20
God`s advice goes unheeded
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
The Two Brothers
I AM as one born out of season thanks be to the faith of Abraham. I am the 14th born of an unbroken line of Christian ministers. My last name means minister as passed down from my heritage. I am the last in my lineage as I have no children.I AM of Isaac, also a son of God. Wherefromith comeith thou?
I am the last of the Church Age you might say. I am one who walks with The Most High.
Your posts were misleading as I did sense a son of Isaac behind the words but the substance was based in charges of legitamacy of terrorist action.
True, as the reflection of the chosen so goeth the world.But my people have forsaken God, and instead fight their brother for a much lesser inheritance.
This is the perspective of judgment that keeps the world locked in mortal conflict. Ishmael is not inferior(tho he believes he is), he has a different call and purpose. Isaac was chosen to be a working model for the world, Ishmael was chosen to represent the striving of misconception i.e. I am human and flawed and am alone in the universe.Ishmael was inferior to his half-brother; for this reason he hated him and God loved him; and he burned with jealousy.
Both brothers must embrace before peace on Earth and goodwill can be achieved.
Maybe its just chance that Ishmael sits on 70% of the worlds oil reserves.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
STATS
Excuse me, I need to ask Lennyrizzo a question. Are you married, Lenny? Children?
Re: STATS
Leyla Shen wrote:Excuse me, I need to ask Lennyrizzo a question. Are you married, Lenny? Children?
Hey - don`t interrupt while I am butting in ;) - JK
It may sound and look strange the points I am making. I can assure you any Arab or Jew will understand me Leyla.
-
MKFaizi
But that is the crux of the situation. I have written about this many times before -- the tale of Ishmael and Issac.
Personally, I think it is time for everyone to get over it. Yes, it sucks that Ishmael and Hagaar were sent out into the desert; that Abraham cast them out there to appease his wife -- when it was his wife who urged him to have a child with Hagaar.
The tribes are spit over this bullshit. The "descendents" of Ishmael are Muslim. The sons of Issac are Jews and, by conscript, Christians.
My feeling is that this bullshit will go on for a few more years and come to a head. The terrorist thing will die down -- like Communism.
Then, there will be another enemy. You always have to have an enemy.
Faizi
Personally, I think it is time for everyone to get over it. Yes, it sucks that Ishmael and Hagaar were sent out into the desert; that Abraham cast them out there to appease his wife -- when it was his wife who urged him to have a child with Hagaar.
The tribes are spit over this bullshit. The "descendents" of Ishmael are Muslim. The sons of Issac are Jews and, by conscript, Christians.
My feeling is that this bullshit will go on for a few more years and come to a head. The terrorist thing will die down -- like Communism.
Then, there will be another enemy. You always have to have an enemy.
Faizi
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
Yes, his inferiority was evident even to himself.
Leading to contention with others, and an attitude of scorn and contempt for his brother.
This is clear as a bell.
Moreover, had he the heart of his brother or father, a heart after God's own, his father would have certainly kept him safe as he kept his brother, however separate as required. No woman could change this for the father obeyed only God, but his first son did not know God.
Those who don't know God inherit the earth, those who do inherit The Kingdom.
Their Messiah came, but they did not know him or his Father.
Their attention turned toward holy places, not holiness.
Now they are all the same, jostling for scraps while oblivious to the greatest treasure.
God's blessing is no longer upon them, but on anyone who would seek Him.
Leading to contention with others, and an attitude of scorn and contempt for his brother.
This is clear as a bell.
Moreover, had he the heart of his brother or father, a heart after God's own, his father would have certainly kept him safe as he kept his brother, however separate as required. No woman could change this for the father obeyed only God, but his first son did not know God.
Those who don't know God inherit the earth, those who do inherit The Kingdom.
Their Messiah came, but they did not know him or his Father.
Their attention turned toward holy places, not holiness.
Now they are all the same, jostling for scraps while oblivious to the greatest treasure.
God's blessing is no longer upon them, but on anyone who would seek Him.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
MKFaizi
The Being dude is correct in stating that any Arab or Jew would understand the contention of Issac and Ishmael.
I am not Arabic. I understand, in part, because I have been Muslim. The ancient tale of childlessness and slavery and pegnancy in slavery -- encouraged by the wife -- and the casting out of the son born from a slave -- is archetypal; ingrained into Judeao-Christian society and Islamic eastern society. It is a source of hatred; the source of Kipling's "east is east and west is west" homily.
Ishmael is always painted as the hateful, ugly bastard son. Islam is the hateful, bastard son. But I do not believe that the so called legitimate son is more beautiful or just.
He is just the face "we" know, the face of Christianity 'nee Judaism that we trust. Of course, Issac is said to be the beautiful one. He is the legitimate son of Abraham.
Ishmael is no less the son of Abraham. Muslims are no less the children of God.
If the Jews -- also Christians -- are the chosen people, then, how could God not also choose the tribe of Ishmael?
Is God a moralist? Is God womanly, as Abraham's wife?
I think the whole thing is a crock. A goddamn tale told by an idiot.
I do think -- optimist that I am -- the human race will get past this religionist bullcrap. The shit has already hit the fan.
Praise Allah.
Faizi
I am not Arabic. I understand, in part, because I have been Muslim. The ancient tale of childlessness and slavery and pegnancy in slavery -- encouraged by the wife -- and the casting out of the son born from a slave -- is archetypal; ingrained into Judeao-Christian society and Islamic eastern society. It is a source of hatred; the source of Kipling's "east is east and west is west" homily.
Ishmael is always painted as the hateful, ugly bastard son. Islam is the hateful, bastard son. But I do not believe that the so called legitimate son is more beautiful or just.
He is just the face "we" know, the face of Christianity 'nee Judaism that we trust. Of course, Issac is said to be the beautiful one. He is the legitimate son of Abraham.
Ishmael is no less the son of Abraham. Muslims are no less the children of God.
If the Jews -- also Christians -- are the chosen people, then, how could God not also choose the tribe of Ishmael?
Is God a moralist? Is God womanly, as Abraham's wife?
I think the whole thing is a crock. A goddamn tale told by an idiot.
I do think -- optimist that I am -- the human race will get past this religionist bullcrap. The shit has already hit the fan.
Praise Allah.
Faizi
-- KiplingOh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgement Seat:
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
MKFaizi,
Obviously not - it is individual singularity of consciousness that enthralls God`s and creation`s attention.But I do not believe that the so called legitimate son is more beautiful or just.
That is the point that needs to be made for peace to transpire.Ishmael is no less the son of Abraham. Muslims are no less the children of God.
Is God a moralist? Is God womanly, as Abraham's wife?
Well said.
There is more emperical evidence and proof for the scripture than you might think. I have devoted many years to this study and even the most gifted historical and archaelogical critics agree that the OT is at least 70 percent accurate with regards to its absolute historical accuracy.I think the whole thing is a crock.
The remaining 30 percent has never been overturned with a single find out of thousands, just discounted simply because the only proof is the scripture.
This ain`t the Hatfields and McKoys - LOLMy feeling is that this bullshit will go on for a few more years and come to a head. The terrorist thing will die down -- like Communism.
This has been going on for nearly four thousand years.
Lennyrizzo,
-- the BuddhaRely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching.
Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.
Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am