Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bush: Iraq invasion fueled by biblical prophecy.....
Sabiancym
Member UncommonPosts: 3,150
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22698.htm
Bush, God, Iraq and Gog
By Clive Hamilton
May 23, 2009 "Counterpunch" -- The revelation this month in GQ magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?
The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.
In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.
In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:
“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:
“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.
The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elysée Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Römer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Römer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.
The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.
In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.
There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.
Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam.
There is a curious coda to this story. While a senior at Yale University George W. Bush was a member of the exclusive and secretive Skull & Bones society. His father, George H.W. Bush had also been a “Bonesman”, as indeed had his father. Skull & Bones’ initiates are assigned or take on nicknames. And what was George Bush Senior’s nickname? “Magog”.
I thought this was fake at first. Turns out to be true.
So thousands of Americans and innocent Iraqis have died due to a religious nut getting into office. Some God....
Comments
If anyone can possibily defend this I think they have their right to be taken seriously revoked.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Yep heard about some of this a few years ago makes you warm and fuzzy inside that 'God' is on Bushes side.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I am a christian but I would never use the bible to promote violence or war. If you read the bible and know about Jesus you would know jesus was a liberal. Try telling a conservative that.
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.
I think we know what they would do.
The Official God FAQ
Lol so true
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.
I'm not surprised. It was only a matter of time before the conservatives would vote such a person in office.
A leader making decisions based on his religious faith: This is the conservative dream.
Fortunately, that dream was rejected this time.
Ditto.
And although I believe what I personally believe about "end times" is my own biblical belief, I do not believe the President should actively be trying to influence bible prophecy he may believe by invading countries and stopping this or that.
I may believe that one day all the countries of the world may march on Israel from the East culminating in the Battle of Megiddo. But you know what? The bible says at that time, NO COUNTRY on earth can save Israel from world attack; it clearly says that God and God ALONE will save Israel. Not the United States and George Bush, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. What arrogance to think a man can assume God's role as deliverer of Israel. Where does that hubris stem from? What manner of being whispers that into a ruler's ear to be implemented in Jesus' name?
What is willed is willed by God alone according to the Bible. He even told Pharoah that so I have NO idea why certain evangelists keep thinking they can influence biblical prophecy and stop the spread of "Satan's influence" and issuing biblical laws. After all, it HAS to happen in order for Jesus to intervene and I have no idea how they keep missing that plain fact.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I don't see any memos.
Ditto.
And although I believe what I personally believe about "end times" is my own biblical belief, I do not believe the President should actively be trying to influence bible prophecy he may believe by invading countries and stopping this or that.
I may believe that one day all the countries of the world may march on Israel from the East culminating in the Battle of Megiddo. But you know what? The bible says at that time, NO COUNTRY on earth can save Israel from world attack; it clearly says that God and God ALONE will save Israel. Not the United States and George Bush, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. What arrogance to think a man can assume God's role as deliverer of Israel. Where does that hubris stem from? What manner of being whispers that into a ruler's ear to be implemented in Jesus' name?
What is willed is willed by God alone according to the Bible. He even told Pharoah that so I have NO idea why certain evangelists keep thinking they can influence biblical prophecy and stop the spread of "Satan's influence" and issuing biblical laws. After all, it HAS to happen in order for Jesus to intervene and I have no idea how they keep missing that plain fact.
There are many theories as to who will join in this future invasion of Israel. Before going through a list of the individual nations, I'll list some of the more common theories you'll hear when studying the prophecies from Ezekiel 38.
Ezekiel 38:1-6 The word of the Lord came to me; Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops - the many nations with you.'
1. Hashemite Kingdom Theory: The Islamic Nations will come against Israel either by an Iraqi-led, Jordanian led, or Turkish led coalition. The enemy from the north refers to the areas of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. These Islamic nations make up the lands occupied by Magog, Gomer, Togarmah, Meshech and Tubal.
2. Caucus Theory: Gog and Magog are the Arab nations in an alliance with the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. This theory leaves out most of Russia, and includes only the southern part.
3. All Europe theory: Gog and Magog are the sons of Japeth thus the originators of the European races. Gog and Magog therefore indicates all of Europe. This is not a widely held theory and I could find little support for it.
4. Russian Theory: The Hebrew word 'rosh' in verse 3 is identified with Russia, 'Tubal' with Tiblisi or Tobolsk and 'Meshech' with Moscow, therefore Gog and Magog refers to Russia. This is one of the most commonly held views and is based on a different interpretation of the Hebrew word Rosh (used as a noun rather than adjective), similarities in the pronunciation of words, and the Greek translation of Rosh referring to a tribe of people found in what is now Russia.
5. Indo-European Theory: Gog and Magog include the nations descending from Japheth: Russia, the Caucasus(Turkey), Iraq, and the Islamic republics of Central Asia. The coalition is an alliance of Arab nations, Muslim republics, Georgia, southern Russia and the Black sea area.
The one thing that is pretty much agreed on even by most evangelical interpreters of Revealation/endtime philosphy, is that there is nowhere were they really can trace any nation such as the United States assisting Israel in its time of trouble when the world marches on it.
That means one of four things to me:
1) Either most endtime prophecy scholars have been misinterpreting the Bible and the United States plays a bigger role but we cannot see where it is biblically-
2) The United States/Israel relationship sours is unwilling to help Israel in its "time of trouble"-
3) The United States is reduced to such a lesser importance on world events and influence that all the countries marching on Israel put the U.S. in a position to "sit down and shut up or else". Either they will hold some economic or military advantages over us-
4) God does not want the United States involved and sees that we are left out of those events altogether.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You know the people that discuss Harry Potter lore and how none of it matter because it's all fantasy? That is how I feel about the above two posts.
The Official God FAQ
Hehe, I feel the same when I see people talking about zombies rising up and they go on/on about what type of slug ammo or gun is best for a zombie, can zombies run, what type of food to store and how to build your bunker
"TO MICHAEL!"
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No new perspective at this moment, but when the presidental campaigns started between Al Gore and George bush in 2000, I first saw a bush at a friends house. The very first words out of my mouth, was to say that bush was the Anti-christ, not that I follow that line of belief, but nevertheless I said it. And I have kept saying it, all the years he was in office.
And if you put the least little thought into his 'accomplishments' than you have to realize that no other president in the entirety of American history has done more to damage the world at large and the US. He's ruined foriegn relations, he's deeply unsettled the middle east, he ruined not only our economy but severely damaged the world enconomy through his mismanagement and neglect. He increased the debt through unncessary wars and unprecdented military spending, and he has put the world on the edge of not one but several nuclear disasters.
The fact that he thought himself a holy crusader only reinforces my earlier statement, because it would be a religious zealot that would bring the world close to it's end. Because only they can so DILLUDE themselves into thinking that they have a divine mandate to save humanity from itself while blindly closing their eyes against anything that resembles the truth.
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.
The worst part of all of this is that the sane people of the world are having this "end time" mass delusion forced upon them.
Ever hear of a self fulfilling prophecy? If you spend your life reinforcing the belief that the apocalypse/ rapture are going to happen sometime soon... guess what?? (this is extra worrisome when the delusional folks have nuclear weapons)
They are just as delusional the people that keep telling themselves that mass murder/ suicide gets you 72 virgins in the afterlife.
If so many people are hot for the rapture/ apocalypse/ virgins etc... maybe they could all go somewhere and fight it out? Mass suicide maybe? In any case, leave us out of it.
At least people like the "heaven's gate" cult have the decency to keep the end of the world to themselves.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Because everyone knows that there is only one qualifying position to determine if someone is a liberal.
Just like the only way you can be a conservative is if Jesus tells you to kill brown people.
The Official God FAQ
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Because everyone knows that there is only one qualifying position to determine if someone is a liberal.
Just like the only way you can be a conservative is if Jesus tells you to kill brown people.
No but in order to be a liberal, you have to believe in the most fundamental tenet of liberalism: using the state to "do good," that is, redistribution of wealth.
Jesus, by everything we can see in scriptures, would have been against using government for that. Therefore he was not a liberal.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't really think the story is too true. We had plenty of reasons to go into Iraq including the possibility of WMDs. I doubt it was because of religion and smiting gods enemies. When you think that this is from the old testament, that testament is the same for Juedism, Christianity, and Islam. Also Bush is a Baptist.
I'm pretty sure he is a Methodist, not that it's a big deal either way.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
I think Jesus going up to you and telling you to give your possessions to the poor is not really charity. Charity is asking if you wish to donate. If Jesus comes up to you and tells you to give your stuff to the poor are you gonna tell him.. emm nah i dont feel charitable today.
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.
Jesus never advocated taking the income from one person by force to give to another person by force -- therefore he was not a liberal in the modern sense of the word.
He wasn't a conservative either though.
Your wrong, there are sections in the new testiment where it spoke of jesus telling the rich to give all their worldly possessions to the poor.
That's advocating charity, not liberalism. He does not advocate people forcing one another to give away their possessions.
I think Jesus going up to you and telling you to give your possessions to the poor is not really charity. Charity is asking if you wish to donate. If Jesus comes up to you and tells you to give your stuff to the poor are you gonna tell him.. emm nah i dont feel charitable today.
Jesus telling you to give up your possessions is the very definition of charity. He is telling you to do something from the heart, NOT use government to force others to do the same.
Charity is voluntary; government is not.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Fisher you are really hung up on splitting hairs and defining words.
This definition of liberalism is pretty close to my take.
"Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."
Alright, now you can tell me why I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)