# A population facing future extinction



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2009)

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/news/article.htm?id=1588

Please read, but I won't be available for comment about this article.


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 5, 2009)

Not having read it yet, I will state that the correct link is:
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/news/article.htm?id=1588

Read it; shocking. Sounds like a thoroughly Muslim strategy, though; extinction by demographics. They are trying to apply the same thing (without the active oppression, of course, as they are not in power there) in Israel and, to a lesser extent, here in Europe. Their growth rates are enormous.

As much as colonialism can be condemned, the US should never have forced us out of Indonesia - and we definitely should not have left Papua-New Guinea. 

(By we, I mean, of course, the Kingdom of the Netherlands.)


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 5, 2009)

Pergy,
The link was dead for me. I do know that at the current US rate of birth among 'evangelicals' , 1.8 per family, it won't be long before we are 'out bred'. France and Italy are within a couple of generations of becoming Islamic purely from birth rate. Italy, I believe is at 1.4 per family for non Muslims and Muslims are at 6.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 5, 2009)

This is so very sad, just look through history and Christian communities have repeatedly been slaughtered by persecution. 

If we did not have confidence in God's sovereignty this would be unbearable, even with such confidence it is so very hard to understand.


----------



## TimV (Jan 5, 2009)

> Sounds like a thoroughly Muslim strategy, though; extinction by demographics. They are trying to apply the same thing (without the active oppression, of course, as they are not in power there) in Israel and, to a lesser extent, here in Europe. *Their growth rates are enormous*.


Wow. Another Muslim sin. Having more kids than secular Catholic Italians and secular Jews. We ought to do something about that ;-) Almost as bad as their not allowing abortions.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 5, 2009)

In England it is supposedly worse than France and Italy, at least that is what my future brother in law tells me, and they are considering sharia law in prisons, because so many of the inmates are muslim and they will not eat from what has touched something "unclean" so in the future there will have to be 2 refrigduators, 2 ... you get the picture and I can not spell the things 

And in Denmark the are asking Jews to take their children out of sertain public schools because there are majoretis of arabs in the school and it is easier to move the Jews.

And is school system in general they are slowly but surely moving all "christian" out.
I think "the end" is near for us as well.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Sounds like a thoroughly Muslim strategy, though; extinction by demographics. They are trying to apply the same thing (without the active oppression, of course, as they are not in power there) in Israel and, to a lesser extent, here in Europe. *Their growth rates are enormous*.
> 
> 
> Wow. Another Muslim sin. Having more kids than secular Catholic Italians and secular Jews. We ought to do something about that ;-) Almost as bad as their not allowing abortions.



I wasn't implying they are in sin. WE are in sin. Just look at how the modern church hates children. They look askance at any family that has more than two children. Three is almost tolerable. To have a large family, Ahem. . . being fruitful and multiplying, is looked on as strange, cultic, not thinking of the children's welfare, etc. The rip the children from the arms of their fathers so they may be instructed by 'professionals' rather than their fathers (Deut. 6). 

We have gone all squishy on abortion; in part because it is so rampant in the pew. Either that or we think that we have fought too long and not accomplished anything so, 'what's the use?'

Yep, we are in sin.

What were God's words to Adam and Eve? Be fruitful and mulitiply.
What were his words to the Israelites in Babylonian captivity? Get wives for your sons. Give your daughters in marriage. Have lots of babies so that you do not decrease. 

Yep, we think we know better.

Isn't it odd how the most affluent societies see children as a drain on the family income and lifestyle and the poorer societies see them as a blessing? My Papa was never a wealthy man. He farmed 40 acres with a mule and ended his life still having to work in a mill as a mechanic. He had 10 children, nine of whom lived to adulthood. They were never able to 'afford such a large family'. I'm sure glad they saw children as a blessing. I'm the first born of his tenth.

My wife and I have only been able to have one child. We'd have a dozen in if the Lord gave them to us. Our society has made it so expensive to adopt that we can't have the family we would love to have. And, just look at how few churches actually help with adoption expenses.

Yep, WE are the sinners.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jan 5, 2009)

Spiritual warfare often seems to take the form of physical cleansing of populations. Even Americans of the Southwest, in the past an evangelical stronghold, are being rapidly replaced with Roman Catholics from other countries.


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> Rocketeer said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a thoroughly Muslim strategy, though; extinction by demographics. They are trying to apply the same thing (without the active oppression, of course, as they are not in power there) in Israel and, to a lesser extent, here in Europe. *Their growth rates are enormous*.
> ...



I think you misinterpreted what I said. Firstly, it is not a Muslim sin, but a simple fact; they outbreed secular Western folks. Secondly, I am not Italian, but Dutch; and we now have 1 million Muslims in a total population of 16.5 million; the only population group which can keep up with them are the orthodox reformed people, but we are under two percent of the entire population, sadly. Even more sadly, a lot of youth is lost to the world in our churches. Muslims, on the other hand, cannot convert without risking their lives; if they could, most of them would have secularized over here. And that, my friend, is a very dominant Muslim sin and the one which causes the former; without their forcefully keeping in their members they would rapidly secularize: they dominate by oppression.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2009)

It IS a Mslm sin if gifts are given out to poor people if they volunteer to receive sterilization or sterilization is given instead of birth control or districts are recarved to give their religion a majority in a growing number of places, or if prostitutes with AIDS are intentionally traded for sandalwood with the goal of erasing the locals so that sandalwood can be taken for free, or if health services are allocated to places where mslm transmgrants moveto and not where local melanesian populations inhabit.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 5, 2009)

Co, at least you have Geert Wilders and a few others who are waking up. I've seen "Fitna" and it seems like many of the native Dutch have had enough of this rubbish. I have a friend who says that hospitals are getting fed up with making sure that all their kitchens are Halal, etc. I pray that there is still hope for the Netherlands in this regard, though it does not seem likely in a land famed for 'tolerance'.

The sad thing is that the indifference in the general populace is also increasing the ranks of the white supremacists in Europe, since in many cases the neo-Nazis are the only ones who seem to care. If you are young, unemployed, and without a future, and someone tells you that you are part of a native-born group of people that will help rid your Fatherland of the creeping invasion of Islam (and they conveniently lay the blame for your poor state of affairs on the Muslims in the land), there is a good chance you will follow. They will invoke the name of Beatrix, Julianna, the Nederlands Binnenland Strijdkracht and the like, and even heroes of old like Piet Heyn, Willem van Oranje and Grutte Pier. And all that puffery goes a long way to filling young heads with dreams, dreams that seem on the surface to be noble and worthwhile.

Pastor Underwood, if I could thank you a hundred time for that post, I would. 
(We're trying to do our part!)


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 5, 2009)

My wife comes from a family of 13 children; Andrew died shortly after birth, so 12 are living.

My in-laws have 37 grandchildren, and my wife and I have been blessed with three little ones, and we got married in May of 2005 (baby's due in Feb). There are still Christians who take dominion seriously. The basic problem is eschatology: escapist or pessimistic, or both. We will be victorious. The world is a very bad place: that's why we should be multiplying, so that Christ's people can build a city on a hill, and go forth as missionaries, pastors, doctors, statesmen, businessmen, homemakers, etc. and turn the world upside down.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 5, 2009)




----------



## satz (Jan 5, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Yep, WE are the sinners.



Pastor Underwood,

Could I respectfully ask, isn’t it too board a statement to make that “we” are in sin?

Since you and your wife are prevented from having more children by circumstances outside your control, how are you personally in sin?

The attitudes toward children… the attitude towards abortion… those are things that vary from church to church and, to a lesser extent from family to family. 

We, either as individual Christians or as a particular church are not in sin because of the way world behaves. Paul said it was not his business to judge those without. 

Again, respectfully, it seems to me that to make a blanket statement that “we” are in sin because of the way the world, or churches with which we have no association, behave is an over-generalisation which is not really warranted.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 5, 2009)

It's the attitude, brother, that's the sin. If we willingly gave over to God every Christian womb, the world would be a different place today. Pastor Underwood has done just that, and God has blessed him with a child. If the Lord then closes the womb, such is His will. Adopt if the desire for more children is there. 

But the long and the short of it is that our attitude toward His blessings is a big part of the problem. And he is talking about how "we" behave as (as I understand it) the visible church.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 5, 2009)

satz said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, WE are the sinners.
> ...



I say 'we' because 'we' are the church. Have you ever noticed how often Godly righteous men prayed in repentance in the first person plural in Scripture. I believe strongly that our over independent attitudes are one thing that has led us into the position in which we find ourselves.

And, if you were to survey the churches of this nation, USA, I dare say that the overwhelming majority of them fit my description to a 'T'. If this were not the case it wouldn't even be an issue.

So, no, on both accounts I do not think 'we' is too broad.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 5, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I believe strongly that our over independent attitudes are one thing that has led us into the position in which we find ourselves.



You may find this hard to believe, being the Southern Baptist I am, but I totally agree with you.


----------



## satz (Jan 5, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I say 'we' because 'we' are the church. Have you ever noticed how often Godly righteous men prayed in repentance in the first person plural in Scripture. I believe strongly that our over independent attitudes are one thing that has led us into the position in which we find ourselves.
> 
> And, if you were to survey the churches of this nation, USA, I dare say that the overwhelming majority of them fit my description to a 'T'. If this were not the case it wouldn't even be an issue.
> 
> So, no, on both accounts I do not think 'we' is too broad.



I don’t want to get into the presbyterian / independent differences that Pastor Ivan hinted at, but I do not think that “we” can be lumped together as one church. 

A sincere question - which prayers did you have in mind? If they were from the OT, I think we must apply the context that in those days there was one church which was the nation of Israel. This is no longer true today. There are multiple, seperate churches and each church is judged for its own faithfulness. 

In Revelations 2-3 Jesus Christ walked amongst the candlesticks and gave an assessment of the faithfulness or lack thereof of each individual church. He did not give a general assessment of the faithfulness of all the churches considered together, for they were separate entities. In fact, he even drew a distinction between the majority and the faithful remnant even in churches which he admonished. (2:24, 3:4). 

In that sense I do not understand why the behaviour of the majority of the churches in the USA, or anywhere else should cause a particular church or Christian to be a sinner, if that church and family is in order.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree with Lawrence. The Bible is full of "we" repentances (Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezra, Solomon, etc.) and the epistle to the Hebrews.

At the same time, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that the Muslims will be defeated by having children. They have proven themselves more than able over the centuries to castrate men, enslave children and butcher women. God must smite them. Either smite them with His grace, turning them from worshipping the devil (who pretends to be God) to the living God, or with His wrath, as He did Herod.


----------



## satz (Jan 5, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I agree with Lawrence. The Bible is full of "we" repentances (Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezra, Solomon, etc.) and the epistle to the Hebrews.



Pastor Greco,

Which part of hebrews are you referring to?


----------



## Ivan (Jan 5, 2009)

I may not be your average Southern Baptist and in a way neither is my church. As I think about the families in our church the average number of children per family is about 4 or 5. We have one family with ten children. 

And I think that is a very good thing. 

I now wish that my wife and I had started eariler having children in our marriage and that we would have had at least a couple more children. However, after the third C-section with the third child at 37 years old, we decided that was enough. In hindsight, I wish we had consider adoption. 

I thank God for my wonderful daugthers, three ladies who are as different as can be, yet all who love the LORD.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:12-15, 4:1-4, 12:1-2 among other passages. The language is different (being sermonic and not prayer) but the idea is the same: turn from the sin that is in your life toward obedience to the Lord.


----------



## TimV (Jan 5, 2009)

I think I understand where you are coming from, Rocketeer. I lived in SA when everyone was trying to force a non Western, uneducated, socialist majority on us, and of all the European countries, Holland was the most aggressive in demanding that we give up our rule, so forgive me if there's a bit of schadenfreude that comes through in some of my posts. And while Holland was the most vocal in pressing sanctions, Jewish groups were hugely disproportionate in handing SA over to the ANC. Of the original 6 leaders, three were Xhosa and three were Jewish. And the English speaking press in that country is almost totally dominated by Jews, and they also pushed for the end of Afrikaner rule. And while I know schadenfreude is wrong, and I do try to beat it into submission, at the end of the day the way you treat people is the way you're going to get treated, so fasten your seat belt.
When you say



> They are trying to apply the same thing (without the active oppression, of course, as they are not in power there) in Israel and, to a lesser extent, here in Europe. Their growth rates are enormous.


you are saying that Arabs have more kids than Israeli Jews, as if it's just a hatred of Jews and not that having lots of kids is valued by their culture. This "trying to apply" deal is something I disagree with. Those Arabs in Israel have been there at least 500 years, and certainly dozens of generations longer than the vast majority of Israeli Jews. 

I have 7 kids, and almost all the Jews I know have few kids. That's their choice, as was the choices of their parent or grandparents to move to Israel.

Currently 25% of Israel's voting population are Arab (about 1.5 million) and another 3.5 Israeli Arabs, people who have been there for centuries aren't allowed even to vote.

The trick is to ask yourself what you would do in their place, both if you were an Israeli Jew and an Israeli Arab, and if you do that, things get less clear cut.


----------



## satz (Jan 5, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:12-15, 4:1-4, 12:1-2 among other passages. The language is different (being sermonic and not prayer) but the idea is the same: turn from the sin that is in your life toward obedience to the Lord.



Thank you. 

I had a quick look at those passages and from my understanding they are "we" passages because they describe duties pertaining to all christians. As you put, all of us must believe, turn from sin and obey God.

What I do not see these passages as saying is that we as christians are personally responsible for the sins of the world, or of churches we are not associated with. The "we" repentances of Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezra and Solomon must, from my understanding, we understood in the context that the "we" there is the nation of Israel, of which all of God's people in the OT were a part. There is no longer such an overarching body that links together all NT christians, and certainly there is nothing that links us and the world such that their sin becomes ours.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2009)

satz said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:12-15, 4:1-4, 12:1-2 among other passages. The language is different (being sermonic and not prayer) but the idea is the same: turn from the sin that is in your life toward obedience to the Lord.
> ...



The "we" passages in the OT are not about a civil kingdom. They are about the covenant people of God. That is why reference is made to the covenantal breaches. It is the same with the New Testament church. It is a covenanted people. It is the one holy and apostolic church. As Christians, cannot speak of "we" in a "world" sense, but we can in a worldwide sense.


----------



## satz (Jan 5, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> The "we" passages in the OT are not about a civil kingdom. They are about the covenant people of God. That is why reference is made to the covenantal breaches. It is the same with the New Testament church. It is a covenanted people. It is the one holy and apostolic church. As Christians, cannot speak of "we" in a "world" sense, but we can in a worldwide sense.



My understanding was that in the OT the civil kingdom was the same as the covenant people. Or, all the Israelites were in the one church, the "church in the wilderness" as Acts describes it. That is why the men of the OT would offer prayers of repentance with respect to the whole nation. I do not see that this is any more the case in NT.

Do you consider that if a church in another town or city tolerates abortion that makes you personally a sinner?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 6, 2009)

satz said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > The "we" passages in the OT are not about a civil kingdom. They are about the covenant people of God. That is why reference is made to the covenantal breaches. It is the same with the New Testament church. It is a covenanted people. It is the one holy and apostolic church. As Christians, cannot speak of "we" in a "world" sense, but we can in a worldwide sense.
> ...



I don't think it is a matter of personal sin, but corporate responsibility. It is why the Israelite who was not guilty of covenant breaking (e.g. Nehemiah, Daniel) could say "we." He knew that God's judgment was corporate, and would affect him. So it is with the Church. So yes, I am affected by the church in another city. It affects how unbelievers see me, since we have the same identity (not as Jews, but as Christians) and the same calling.


----------



## satz (Jan 6, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I don't think it is a matter of personal sin, but corporate responsibility. It is why the Israelite who was not guilty of covenant breaking (e.g. Nehemiah, Daniel) could say "we." He knew that God's judgment was corporate, and would affect him. So it is with the Church. So yes, I am affected by the church in another city. It affects how unbelievers see me, since we have the same identity (not as Jews, but as Christians) and the same calling.



Pastor Greco,

My point was that Nehemiah, Daniel and others like them shared corporate responsibility with the covenant breaking Israelites because they were all, to use crude language, in the same church. Israel was, in the words of Acts, the "church in the wilderness". 

This form of formal association does not exist in the NT. The Corinthians were shamed by the behavior of one of their number, not by a member of another church. I mentioned Revelations 2-3 where Jesus Christ judged each church individually for their works, not for the behavior of all Christians generally.

I would agree that we are all affected by the behavior of other christians in the sense of how unbelievers view us. But we are not made _sinners_ by their behavior, which was the statement of Pastor Underwood's which I objected to / was confused about.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 6, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> At the same time, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that the Muslims will be defeated by having children. They have proven themselves more than able over the centuries to castrate men, enslave children and butcher women. God must smite them. Either smite them with His grace, turning them from worshipping the devil (who pretends to be God) to the living God, or with His wrath, as He did Herod.



Good point about the vicious nature of Muslims in history. One thought, however, of encouragement would be this:



> Psalm 127:3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
> children a reward from him.
> 
> 4 Like _*arrows in the hands of a warrior*_
> ...



So, not only is it important to have a lot of children, it is as important to train them up so that they will defeat God's enemies, whether by just warfare or by evangelism.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2009)

More than likely, all that the article predicted will come to pass and the Melanesians will be pushed to the fringes.


----------



## satz (Jan 6, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> It's the attitude, brother, that's the sin. If we willingly gave over to God every Christian womb, the world would be a different place today. Pastor Underwood has done just that, and God has blessed him with a child. If the Lord then closes the womb, such is His will. Adopt if the desire for more children is there.
> 
> But the long and the short of it is that our attitude toward His blessings is a big part of the problem. And he is talking about how "we" behave as (as I understand it) the visible church.



I really mean no disrespect to anyone... as this is a discussion board I am just... discussing.

If Pastor Underwood has done just that, why does he include himself as a being in sin just because of the state of the world and broad christianity today?

You yourself have shared recently the trials you and your family have gone through for your convictions. I just find it confusing why you gave such a hearty "Amen" to a post that essentially called you a sinner because of the behavior of those around you.

It may seem that I am trying to avoid responsibility, and maybe there is some element of that in my heart. But I see no wrong in wanting to see what is the biblical basis for laying blame upon someone. 

If sin was discovered in my own church or my own family, even if I was not directly involved, I can see how I would be corporately responsible - those are institutions where God has placed people with responsibility. But as for the world around me and board christianity in general, I see no biblical reason I should feel ashamed for their actions.


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 6, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> Co, at least you have Geert Wilders and a few others who are waking up. I've seen "Fitna" and it seems like many of the native Dutch have had enough of this rubbish.


 
Don't get me started on Wilders; the guy is eerily reminiscent of a certain one-time dictator in a neighboring country. He called for a ban on the Koran (!), and for sending back the Muslims to where they came from; the guy is a dangerous extremist.



kvanlaan said:


> I have a friend who says that hospitals are getting fed up with making sure that all their kitchens are Halal, etc. I pray that there is still hope for the Netherlands in this regard, though it does not seem likely in a land famed for 'tolerance'.



Since Christianity is dwindling here, the Dutch are no longer 'tolerant', but 'indifferent'; they just don't care what you do, _except_ when what you do has anything to do with Christianity. The Dutch culture is rapidly anti-Christianizing. Muslims get more respect here than Christians - it has come so far. As for hope, the only hope I have is in God.



kvanlaan said:


> The sad thing is that the indifference in the general populace is also increasing the ranks of the white supremacists in Europe, since in many cases the neo-Nazis are the only ones who seem to care. If you are young, unemployed, and without a future, and someone tells you that you are part of a native-born group of people that will help rid your Fatherland of the creeping invasion of Islam (and they conveniently lay the blame for your poor state of affairs on the Muslims in the land), there is a good chance you will follow. They will invoke the name of Beatrix, Julianna, the Nederlands Binnenland Strijdkracht and the like, and even heroes of old like Piet Heyn, Willem van Oranje and Grutte Pier. And all that puffery goes a long way to filling young heads with dreams, dreams that seem on the surface to be noble and worthwhile.



True, true. The far right is not gaining such a lot of currency here, though, and Wilders is becoming marginalized, but in general, the population is moving from the political center towards left and right.



TimV said:


> I think I understand where you are coming from, Rocketeer. I lived in SA when everyone was trying to force a non Western, uneducated, socialist majority on us, and of all the European countries, Holland was the most aggressive in demanding that we give up our rule, so forgive me if there's a bit of schadenfreude that comes through in some of my posts. And while Holland was the most vocal in pressing sanctions, Jewish groups were hugely disproportionate in handing SA over to the ANC. Of the original 6 leaders, three were Xhosa and three were Jewish. And the English speaking press in that country is almost totally dominated by Jews, and they also pushed for the end of Afrikaner rule. And while I know schadenfreude is wrong, and I do try to beat it into submission, at the end of the day the way you treat people is the way you're going to get treated, so fasten your seat belt.



Peace, peace! My grandfather is a good old Afrikaner, and my mother and most of my aunts organized pro-SA rallies here in the days of apartheid. I won't say apartheid in and of itself is a good thing, but from what my family in SA tells me, I would say it seems to have been a lot better than what you have over there now.

As you see, part of me is pretty conflicted; I have very keen Afrikaner sympathies, but am also Dutch. My SA part is angry with our letting you down, whereas my Dutch part is ashamed of it. Verstaan jij wat ek seg?



TimV said:


> This "trying to apply" deal is something I disagree with. Those Arabs in Israel have been there at least 500 years, and certainly dozens of generations longer than the vast majority of Israeli Jews.



My choice of words might not have been correct; I mean to say that it is not just the high birth rates, which have my blessing, but that _in combination with the _oppressive Islam policies of keeping believers in that make Islam so inordinately strong. They become strong by their oppressive system, and that is what irks me. But it has been this way since Mohammed, and things won't change, I guess.



TimV said:


> I have 7 kids, and almost all the Jews I know have few kids. That's their choice, as was the choices of their parent or grandparents to move to Israel.
> 
> Currently 25% of Israel's voting population are Arab (about 1.5 million) and another 3.5 Israeli Arabs, people who have been there for centuries aren't allowed even to vote.
> 
> The trick is to ask yourself what you would do in their place, both if you were an Israeli Jew and an Israeli Arab, and if you do that, things get less clear cut.



I know, I know, and you are right. The entire thing is horribly complicated; in effect, they have a sort of an apartheid as well; but I think I know that Israeli domination is better for the Arabs than Arab domination would be for the Israelis, just as white domination was better for the blacks than black domination ('equality') turned out to be for the whites in SA.

Have you, by the way, thought of why the surrounding Arab states did not just absorb the Palestinians, but let them sit in refugee camps? Can I hint at a strategy behind that?


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 6, 2009)

> You yourself have shared recently the trials you and your family have gone through for your convictions. I just find it confusing why you gave such a hearty "Amen" to a post that essentially called you a sinner because of the behavior of those around you.



But here's the thing: When I look on my heroes, whether they be family members or Biblical heroes or Reformation heroes, I see my weakness and my lack of follow through on what I purport to believe. I do sin in my selfishness, in my looking out for #1, and there is nothing Christlike about that behaviour. I don't see anything incongruous about it. I fear that at some point in my life, I will look back and have an 'Oskar Schindler' moment, and I try to keep my eyes on what is important to avoid that.


----------



## TimV (Jan 6, 2009)

> Verstaan jij wat ek seg?


Ja, ek verstaan nou. Vrede.



> Have you, by the way, thought of why the surrounding Arab states did not just absorb the Palestinians, but let them sit in refugee camps? Can I hint at a strategy behind that?



That's the big point Christian Zionists make. It's like all dark skinned Spanish speakers to many Americans. They think they're all the same. But under Biblical law you can't remove the ancient boundary stone. You just can't take someone whom you feel to be inferior and push him into another country and take their land.

Everyone's got their own theories and biases, but at the end of the day those Palestinians aren't going anywhere. The Christian Zionists don't think more than 5 years into the future, since they believe they will be Raptured before then and won't have to live with the repercussions of their actions, and the Jewish Zionists are leaning on the US like their ancestors leaned on Egypt to protect them from Babylon, and the results will be the same.

Stateless people are under a lot of stress, and it makes them act irrationally. After WW1 many Jews living in the West as refugees were citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When Poland was carved out of mostly that Empire those Jews suddenly had no passports, and Poland didn't frankly want them. The French said they couldn't stay, the Germans pushed them towards Poland and the Poles wouldn't take them in. The sat in a Gaza type refugee camp and were kept alive by international aid.

The reason that I bring this trivia up is some of the history buffs might know where I'm going. A man from this Stateless population was named Hershel Greenspan and he became deranged and murdered the German consul in France, which was the reason for Hitlers 1,000,000,000 Mark fine on the collective German Jewish population.

We'd all agree that the German response was not proportionate. So I'd submit that if we were all to take our current biases off for a bit and look at what's going on with the Gaza population, and start looking at facts, like that over the last 8 years Israel has been fighting Hamas that the kill rate is 150 to 1 in Israel's favor etc... that there is some disproportionality taking place, and it would be in everyone's interest to curb it.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2009)

So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?


----------



## Rocketeer (Jan 6, 2009)

TimV said:


> That's the big point Christian Zionists make. It's like all dark skinned Spanish speakers to many Americans. They think they're all the same. But under Biblical law you can't remove the ancient boundary stone. You just can't take someone whom you feel to be inferior and push him into another country and take their land.



You are right, of course, in many ways; on the other hand, the problem goes back even further than that. It starts, of course, with the English double-crossing the Jews and the Palestinians, and then the whole mess just degenerated. The current situation might be the best 'solution' obtainable, actually...



TimV said:


> Everyone's got their own theories and biases, but at the end of the day those Palestinians aren't going anywhere.



True.



TimV said:


> The Christian Zionists don't think more than 5 years into the future, since they believe they will be Raptured before then and won't have to live with the repercussions of their actions, and the Jewish Zionists are leaning on the US like their ancestors leaned on Egypt to protect them from Babylon, and the results will be the same.



Not true. So long as Israel is not internationally boycotted to destroy it's trade and economy, the Arab world cannot defeat it. Say what you will, but monetary US help has never increased since the fifties, and with the inflation and Israeli economical growth it now is an insubstantial convenience; the Arab nations do not have the will nor material to seriously threaten Israel, and the terrorists don't stand a chance; their methods are ineffective at best. They may spread a lot of death and misery, but they cannot fight on Israeli ground; the only thing they can hope to do is defend their homelands, fire rockets and send suicide bombers. In a few years, maybe a decade, anti-rocket systems will be so affordable and common that rockets won't be a danger anymore, and the suicide bombers are being deterred pretty effectively, especially with the wall in place now.



TimV said:


> Stateless people are under a lot of stress, and it makes them act irrationally. After WW1 many Jews living in the West as refugees were citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When Poland was carved out of mostly that Empire those Jews suddenly had no passports, and Poland didn't frankly want them. The French said they couldn't stay, the Germans pushed them towards Poland and the Poles wouldn't take them in. They sat in a Gaza type refugee camp and were kept alive by international aid.



True, but... The Jews did not have friends who would go to war for them, like the Arab world did. It is more than a little strange that, if you are willing to let your young men die for a nation, you are not willing to take them in.



TimV said:


> The reason that I bring this trivia up is some of the history buffs might know where I'm going. A man from this Stateless population was named Hershel Greenspan and he became deranged and murdered the German consul in France, which was the reason for Hitlers 1,000,000,000 Mark fine on the collective German Jewish population.
> 
> We'd all agree that the German response was not proportionate. So I'd submit that if we were all to take our current biases off for a bit and look at what's going on with the Gaza population, and start looking at facts, like that over the last 8 years Israel has been fighting Hamas that the kill rate is 150 to 1 in Israel's favor etc... that there is some disproportionality taking place, and it would be in everyone's interest to curb it.



Take note that Israel is not acting offensively, but defensively; the reason for the disproportionality is that Israel seeks to protect its population, whereas Hamas uses it for shielding.

Edit:



Pergamum said:


> So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?



We are seeking a unifying theme in oppression between different races; I am saying that the Muslim tendencies shown in Indonesia are indicative of Islam. I will ditch the subject if you wish me to.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 6, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?



Let's face it, it was all your fault.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?
> ...



It always is. 

All we need now is to incorporate theonomy and some baptist/paedo themes and we can have a battle royale! SMACKDOWN 2009!

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 01:57:59 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?



We are seeking a unifying theme in oppression between different races; I am saying that the Muslim tendencies shown in Indonesia are indicative of Islam. I will ditch the subject if you wish me to.[/QUOTE]

No, your theme is quite on the money. Everywhere it dominates it makes all the other populations move to the fringes into a forced dhimmitude. The thread was swerved into comments on the godliness of having lots of babies and the sinfulness of not, but in the case of this province at least a large reason for the lack of babies might be blamed on the majority religion and the soon-to-become majority population, which seems to be orchestrating events, whether consciously or unconsciously, to make way for a new majority by 2011 and a radical change on this left side of the island.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 6, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



You forgot EP and TR, dude!


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 6, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> So, how did we start talking about Zionists and South Africa?



We are seeking a unifying theme in oppression between different races; I am saying that the Muslim tendencies shown in Indonesia are indicative of Islam. I will ditch the subject if you wish me to.[/QUOTE]

No, your theme is quite on the money. Everywhere it dominates it makes all the other populations move to the fringes into a forced dhimmitude. The thread was swerved into comments on the godliness of having lots of babies and the sinfulness of not, but in the case of this province at least a large reason for the lack of babies might be blamed on the majority religion and the soon-to-become majority population, which seems to be orchestrating events, whether consciously or unconsciously, to make way for a new majority by 2011 and a radical change on this left side of the island.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 6, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> My wife comes from a family of 13 children; Andrew died shortly after birth, so 12 are living.
> 
> My in-laws have 37 grandchildren, and my wife and I have been blessed with three little ones, and we got married in May of 2005 (baby's due in Feb). There are still Christians who take dominion seriously. The basic problem is eschatology: escapist or pessimistic, or both. We will be victorious. The world is a very bad place: that's why we should be multiplying, so that Christ's people can build a city on a hill, and go forth as missionaries, pastors, doctors, statesmen, businessmen, homemakers, etc. and turn the world upside down.
> 
> ...



Not that I disagree Adam because I really do not, but is that really or first priority I me yes we should multiply, if for no other reason because he said so.
But it was my impression that it did not have so much to do with this world, we are Gods chosen people, we should obey our Lord and first and foremost by telling people about him and that this it not the primary place for victory. That place is some where else.
We are not winners of this world but receivers of the next.

I think you would say the same, I just wanted to state it out loud.
Because it is so nice to tell myself.


----------

