Poll: Who will win Tomorrow's Election?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Mar Gewargis
100.00%
11 100.00%
Mar Yukhanan
0%
0 0%
Total 11 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who will win tomorrow?
#16
Dear Friend,

I'm sorry that my letter was read so negatively. It was not my intention to attack you or your political affiliation. The previous discourse raised two concerns, that I was trying to address: 1] The meaning of Bin Laden's statements seem to have been unintentionally distorted. It is vital for Christians to base their position on Truth, to the best of our humble ability. 2] Disciples of the Moshiach are not subjects to the world of sin, but are servants of another Kingdom. The nature of this Kingdom is outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, but its essense is illustrated most clearly by Yeshua himself rejecting the way of the sword and taking on the vocation of the cross to redeem all mankind.

I want to answer your questions, to the best of my ability:
gbausc Wrote:"In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

To what "state[s]" does "Kerry" or "Bush" have relevance ? To whom does he refer when he says "you" and "your" , if not The United States ?

All the way through, he speaks of George W. Bush. Which "state[s]" would he have in mind ? Which "state" would he fear ? Which "state" took out his government in Afghanistan ? Which state destroyed his Al Kaida network and confiscated his funds?
Are these questions rhetorical? The video transcript presents a very unified communication: UBL claims that his initiative to attack America came about due to his horror & outrage over American military involvement in aggression against Palestine & Lebanon, which he experienced as a threat to the autonomy and security of Muslim nations. In the statement you quoted, he is saying in essense that he doesn't care who we choose for our leader; he claims that nations can protect themselves best by not involving themselves in aggression against Muslim countries.
gbausc Wrote:Your post intimates that you believe we should be concerned with Bin Ladin's interests and freedoms . Your post intimates that we should love Bin Ladin and negotiate. If that is what you think, you are a fool and an apologist for the Devil.
I regret that our conversation has fallen into name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. What I said in my post is that we are our brother's keepers. A conviction that underscores this is that uplifted and secure people do not choose violence. People choose violence only when they perceive a threat to their interests and they have exhausted their invetory of options (granted, many are not aware that creative alternatives to violence exist, and exhaust their options more quickly). I think that we agree that Bin Laden's network is a threat to our interests; for this reason, it is vital for us to uplift and secure the people who support him, removing their incentive to support violent extremism; if UBL's support disappears, so will he. Therefore, I do think that it is important to understand and address the interests and freedoms of the people that Bin Laden concerns himself with.

Negotiate? If that means inviting him to the White House for a barbeque and giving him a ribbon, the answer is no. We need a wise agreement that improves the relationship of all parties in the long term, for a security without war, terror, or surrender of freedom. I strongly recommend the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury (Harvard Negotiation Project); check it out. Tell me what you think. See also < <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie4.cfm">http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie4.cfm</a><!-- m --> >
gbausc Wrote:The USA has never oppressed any nation.
It is not within my present power to list all of the nations eradicated on this continent by US policy through forced migration and genocide. Chattel slavery supported by US policy contributed to the forced migration and enslavement of inland Africans captured by the coastal kingdoms. Does Polk's military conquest of the Mexican empire for "manifest destiny" count? What about the numerous interventions in other nations for economic gain, placing or supporting so many ruthlessly brutal dictators.
Dr. King Wrote:They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support.
If our allegiance is to God, we must insist that the history of our country be told objectively. To be certain, our country stands on revolutionary and noble principles, but we must be eternally vigilant that those pronciples are reflected in the present life of our society.

gbausc Wrote:50 million in Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated and are establishing free governments.
I have a friend presently stationed in Iraq, and he says that the people prefer security to freedom. Saddam gave them security. Most Iraqi's are not willing to participate in the upcoming elections because they are afraid that it will make them the targets of insurgents. If it is not safe to vote, then it is not safe to call it a democracy.
gbausc Wrote:Our country and theirs were liberated by war.
And Canada was "liberated" through negotiation. India was liberated in nonviolent revolution. And South Africa. And Philipines. And others. What's the upshot here? Well, it proves that just agreements can be reached without war or violence, even in the under the threat of annihilation. That countries have been "liberated" through violence only shows that we are not being faithful to the Sermon on the Mount, and not exercising the creativity that it demands.
gbausc Wrote:Do not preach love to us. Preach it to Bin Ladin and the terrorists!
Are we not under the covenant of Love? I do not think that Bin Laden claims to be under such a covenant, but for those who have taken Yeshua for their teacher, Love is the greatest commandment.

Andr?? Trocm?? (1901-1971) is famous for his role in saving thousands of Jews from the Nazis, as pastor of the French village of Le Chambon. But his bold deeds did not spring from a void. They were rooted in his understanding of Jesus??? way of nonviolence and the social implications of Jesus??? proclamation of the Kingdom of God on earth. The following is excerpted from his book Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution.
Andre Trocme Wrote:Jesus??? new commandment demands that we translate the rulership of God into everyday language through our bodies: Love your neighbor, serve him, heal him, even if this means breaking traditions or laws. Give in to him rather than offend him and turn him away from God. Whatever you do, don???t make yourself an obstacle on his way to God. One???s neighbor???s physical well-being is as important as his spiritual life; the healing of the body and the healing of the soul are joined in a single operation. Christ???s revolution is total, or it is nothing.

The immediacy and simplicity of this new commandment liberate us from fears, from plans, from complicated orders issued by the state, whether in peacetime or in wartime, and from all that divides people from one another. Freed from all casuistry, one can joyfully serve others as well as refuse with the same joy any attempt on humanity???s existence. We no longer need to be impressed by great principles quoted to us, or with great historical moments that call for bloodshed. It is so simple. Any endeavor to serve the needs of others, especially those that benefit children, the persecuted, prisoners, the exploited, the aged, the infirm, will advance God???s kingdom, even if only minutely.

The Christian objector to war or military service is thus not a purist who, on the day he receives orders to kill his neighbor, wakes from his dream to say no. He is a servant with experienced hands, who is so busy helping his neighbor that to interrupt his activity to undertake the task of killing is unthinkable to him.

Perhaps it is true that certain violent remedies employed against tyrants have put an end to certain forms of evil, but they have not eliminated evil. Evil itself will take root elsewhere, as we have seen through history. The fertilizer that stimulates its growth is yesterday???s violence. Even ???just wars??? and ???legitimate defense??? bring vengeance in their train. Fresh crimes invariably ensue.

But the future of the person who turns to God is not determined by the past, and therefore neither is the future of humanity. God???s forgiveness creates the possibility of an entirely new future. The cross breaks the cycle of violence. The sacrifice of Jesus opens an un-expected way to possibilities that are constantly renewed.
What I suggest is not passive surrender to the world of sin, but unwavering devotion to the covenant of Love.
--
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://beardedbaby.net/">http://beardedbaby.net/</a><!-- m -->
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Who will win tomorrow? - by Paul Younan - 11-01-2004, 09:30 PM
Re: Who will win tomorrow? - by oozeaddai - 11-02-2004, 02:46 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 11-02-2004, 05:20 PM
[No subject] - by se7en - 11-02-2004, 05:37 PM
Delerious - by Zechariah14 - 11-03-2004, 12:41 AM
wowq - by se7en - 11-03-2004, 01:29 PM
[No subject] - by bar_khela - 11-03-2004, 05:09 PM
[No subject] - by peshitta_enthusiast - 11-03-2004, 09:59 PM
okay so Bush won... - by se7en - 11-04-2004, 12:23 AM
Bin Ladin & Kerry - by gbausc - 11-04-2004, 05:02 PM
hmmm - by se7en - 11-06-2004, 02:02 AM
Bin Ladin -Pro Kerry - by gbausc - 11-06-2004, 06:29 PM
still disagree - by se7en - 11-06-2004, 11:17 PM
Re: Bin Ladin & Kerry - by John Stephens - 11-14-2004, 04:13 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 11-14-2004, 09:26 PM
[No subject] - by John Stephens - 11-15-2004, 06:46 AM
[No subject] - by gbausc - 11-15-2004, 03:32 PM
[No subject] - by John Stephens - 11-15-2004, 08:20 PM
To dear John Stephens - by se7en - 11-15-2004, 09:49 PM
Gentle Jesus Meek & Mild ? - by gbausc - 11-16-2004, 06:19 PM
Re: Gentle Jesus Meek & Mild ? - by Paul Younan - 11-16-2004, 06:44 PM
Re: To dear John Stephens - by John Stephens - 11-17-2004, 12:04 AM
... - by se7en - 11-17-2004, 12:50 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)