Comments on: “Bush vs. God on Israel ? guess who’ll win?”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:17:29 +0000

By: Bistroist

Bistroist — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:26:09 +0000

The Book of Daniel, which most non-crazy scholars agree was probably written during the rule of Antiochus Epifanes.

By: watchman

watchman — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:50:21 +0000

Bistroist, Yep, I sure enough butchered the spelling, but you’re right, it was the “madman” that I was referring to.
Be it Alexander, or Seleucus, or Antiochus, divided or renamed it’s still the same. Talk about being prescient, the book of Daniel (chapters 8-11) tells the whole story a mere two and a half centuries before Alexander was even born.

By: Bistroist

Bistroist — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:57:19 +0000

Bistroist, not even close. Alexander dies, Generals take power, one of whom is Antiacus who “ignores” the jews by slaughtering priests and desecrating temple with sow sacrifice.

Ooo-kay. It’s just, when you referred to the Greeks, I thought you meant the, you know, Greeks. I assume you’re referring to the incident from Maccabees with the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes? So you’re saying that the Hellenistic empire crumbled because of an incident that occured almost two frickin centuries after Alexanders death? How very prescient of them.

The Greeks, in fact, didn’t give a whit about the Jews. I don’t think there’s a single reference to them in Greek literature until Theophrast in the 3. BCE, although Herodotos does mention Palestine a few times, if I’m not mistaken.

By: watchman

watchman — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:45:26 +0000

If when you say “historic Christianity” you’re referring to those brightly colored fellows in Rome, I can see where the problem lies. I try to keep it scriptural and base this particular question on Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The prince is antichrist, the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple were the Romans (the people of the prince that shall come)

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:06:02 +0000

The Jewish tradition, to which you appear to cleave, ‘watchman’, calls the antichrist ‘armilus’ (derived from romulus) – but historic Christianity, including those sources which are appealed to as patristic authorities for dispensationalism and the rapture doctrine, say that he will be a Jew, of the tribe of Dan.

By: watchman

watchman — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:50:02 +0000

Not quite Rowan. Antichrist will not be of the Jews but out of the revived Roman empire. File this under European Union and keep your eyes on world news.
Bistroist, not even close. Alexander dies, Generals take power, one of whom is Antiacus who “ignores” the jews by slaughtering priests and desecrating temple with sow sacrifice.

By: Bistroist

Bistroist — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:48:49 +0000

Oh, yes, that horrible, heathen Roman empire. That was very much Christian by the time the Visigoths decided to drop in.

My my, how utterly terrible. They were almost as bad as the Greeks, who viciously persecuted the Jews by… ignoring them?

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:45:46 +0000

wait a minute, let me add to that the idea that according to the Dispensationalists, Jesus will rule on earth via the Jews, until the end of the world, when all the Jews will go to hell for not having given up their desire for worldly power, and Jesus will rejoin his real friends the Christians, who have been waiting in heaven since the Rapture. Morally confusing, I grant you. Does anyone know whether John Nelson Darby was a Freemason?

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:55:21 +0000

let me unwind this conundrum here : the Dispensationalists purport to believe that it is necessary for the Jewish Messiah, i.e. the Antichrist, to come and set up a third temple in Jerusalem – because only when this has happened can Jesus return and kill the Antichrist. OK?

By: watchman

watchman — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:54:02 +0000

That, my friends is not a fruitcake, that is a Dispensationalist )that’s what the “time of the gentiles” refers to and it’s NOT in the bible) and every last fundie you see with a Bush sticker on the back of their car believe exactly that and that’s exactly why they got so big behind the attack Iraq nonsense.
Here ya go Ed.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Luke 21:24 King James version

By: Dan Someone

Dan Someone — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:24:36 +0000

smitten, Beth, smitten.

I prefer “smitified” or “smotificated.”

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:50:08 +0000

smitten, Beth, smitten. D.Sidhe, the dubious merit of novelists like Jean Parvulesco is that they can make their characters say things that they would not be able to say in propria persona. This is also true of Umberto Eco, who actually uses much the same material as Parvulesco, but ends up as a sort of ‘civilised social democrat’. Since these men choose to express their views deniably, via didactic fiction, I don’t feel too bad quoting them without attribution. The real point I think must be that mercantile imperialism, which is what all modern empires fundamentally are, is not driven by any sort of spiritual idea pro or con biblical, but by an internally inconsistent and constantly changing web of rationalisations, some pseudo left and some pseudo right. I am watching hitchens versus galloway at the moment and one can really see this in hitchens. What a fraud he is!

By: D. Sidhe

D. Sidhe — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:37:44 +0000

According to the incredibly boring Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World by Mark Kurlansky, “cod” is a time-honored euphemism for human genitalia, both male and female.

So, okay, I could almost go with “In Cod We Trust”, but on the other hand, it was a really boring book. I’m pretty sure I’m still traumatized by it. And it could have been interesting, too. That’s the truly sad thing.

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:13:15 +0000

Pinko,

I think I like your suggestion better.

In cod we trust. Cod Dammit.

By: Marq

Marq — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:40:13 +0000

Definitely homosexuality. I don’t know how God feels about drinking lead, but we definitely know that He hates…

Ha! Say, Brad, attempting to “straighten” up the bog, hmm? Ah, well–Gawd may hate me, but I refuse to consider the possibility that “he” even exists, so ::nyaaahhh!::

By: Ed Marshall

Ed Marshall — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:35:24 +0000

Dust off your history books and check out what happened to the world empires of the Babylonians, the Asyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the French (Napoleon), the Nazi Germans and even the British. All were mighty world empires who at some time in their reign dealt harshly with the Hebrew people. It is “the times of the Gentiles” and God will allow or even use nations to dominate His chosen people but that does not change the covenants He made with them nor does it lift His curse on any nation that “curses them”.

By: Marq

Marq — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:34:58 +0000

And if we assume one person per state and country (U.S. excluded), that’s a grand total of 128 readers!

Now, Brad–you know that a fair percentage of his readers don’t know which state they live in. “Fuckin’ ‘Murika, dude!!1!!”

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:32:26 +0000

wow, that is how to do post hoc ergo propter hoc ad absurdum!

No, I’m pretty sure that only applies when the argument wasn’t absurd to begin with.

Or maybe not. Think about it, what do these major record-setting events have in common?
-The costliest insurance event in U.S. history
-The costliest hurricane in U.S. history
-The largest terrorism event in U.S. history

They all occurred during the presidency of GW Bush. Are each one of these major record-setting events just a coincidence or awe-inspiring signs that God is s actively involved in the affairs of America? The message is clear: if you love God (or if you just don’t want to get smote), vote Democrat!

By: huh

huh — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:52:49 +0000

Holy Shit!

God’s a terrorist.

If we obey his will, then the terrorists have won…..