Thursday, January 31, 2008

Modern Israel Proofs

A list of some of the clues that identify modern Israel. I know sometimes this is a complex doctrine and I thought that having a handy list would make things easier. You can use this for review, mark these verses in your bible, and/or print out this chart as a handy guide to place in your bible. Let me know if you can think of anything else.

> > A. GEOGRAPHY> 1. Ends of the Earth: Isaiah 24:16, 26:15, 41:8-9 43:6 49:6> 2. Isles Isaiah 24:15 49:6 60:9 Jeremiah 31: 9-10> 3. Thighs, Peninsulas, and Coasts: Jeremiah 31:8> 4. Tarshish (Atlantic Ocean Area) Isaiah 60:9> 5. Western Location: Isaiah 24:14, Hosea 1:10> 6. Located to the Northwest of the Land of Israel: Isaiah 49:12> 7. In the "North" Land: Jeremiah 3:18 31: 6-10> 8. Australia ("Land of Sinim" See also Brit-Am Computer Codes) Isaiah 49:8> 9. Best Places (Atziliyah) Isaiah 41: 9> 10. Fires in the Isles referring to Celtic Britain Isaiah 24:15> 11: Zarephath, meaning France and Britain, Obadiah 1:20> 12. Dolmens showing Pathway of Migration Jeremiah 31:21> 13. Many Waters (Several Oceans) Numbers 24:7
> > B. RECOGNIZABLE SYMBOLS> 14. Bald-Headed Eagle (symbol of USA) Micah 1:16> 15. Lion and Unicorn (Symbol of Britain) Numbers 24:7-9
> > C. HISTORICAL BEHAVIOR> 16. Cyrus: Messiah son of Joseph Isaiah 44:28> 17. Rule Over OTHER Peoples:> Genesis 27:29 48:19 "A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS" (Hebrew: "Malo HaGoyim" > i.e. Complete the Peoples, Onkelos: = Rule over the nations), Psalms 47:3> 18. Being Recognizable as a "Brit-Am" Isaiah 42:6 49:8 Covenant of the People> 19. Seafarers Isaiah 42:10> 20. Be the Dominant World Power Numbers 24:7-9 Micah 5:7-9> 21. Military Power: Deuteronomy 33:27 33:29 Jer. 51:20-21> 22. The "police-man" (battle-ax) of the Almighty Zechariah 10:7> 23. Defeat Edom (Germany and Europe) Ez. 25:14 Obad. 1:18> 24. Light for the Gentiles Genesis 12:2-3, 18:18-19, 22:18 > 24:4 Isaiah 42:1 42:6 Amos 6:15> 25: Alcoholic Drunkards Isaiah 28:1, 3
> > D. SITUATION> 14. Separate from Judah: Isaiah 11:12-13 49:21> 15. Not known to Judah: Isaiah 49:13-14, 21. Hosea 1:7> 16. Christianity: Hosea 2:8, 2:13, 2:16 11:12 Jeremiah 31:6> 17. Gomer: Linkage with European nations: Hosea chapter one
> > E. BLESSINGS> 18. Numerous: Genesis 15:5, 22:17, 24:60, 32:12, Numbers 23:10, > Isaiah 10:22, 24:16, 26:15 Hos.1:10> 19. Agricultural Plenty: Gen 27:28 49:25 Deut 33:13-16 Hoshea 2:8> 20. Mineral Resources Genesis 49:25 Deuteronomy 33:13, 15
> 21. GATE(s) OF YOUR ENEMIES (International Strategic Points) Genesis > 22:17 24:60> 22, 23, 24. Cush (India), Egypt, Chains in Slaves from Africa to be > taken overseas to homeland: Isa. 44:28 also Isa 43:3 45:14> 25. Ruled by Sons of David Jeremiah 33:22, 26> 26. Headed by Kings Genesis 17:6, 16, 35:11
> > G. ANCESTRAL NAMES IN GENERAL> 27. The name Hebrew (Western Celts were "Iberi"): Genesis 14:13 > 39:17 40:15 1:12 43:32 Jonah 1:9> 28. Isaac: (Genesis 21:12 48:16). Scythians, Zohak, Ishkuza, Sacasson, Saxon.> 29. Jacob: Isaiah 49:6 Tribes of Jacob: Union Jack, Yankee,> 30. John "Bull (nickname for Britain): Deut 33:17 Jeremiah 31:18 > "Aegel" (Angle) was a nickname for Ephraim> 31-101. Seventy Tribal and Clan Names still used
> > H. NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS> 102. Nobility Principle associated with Ephraim (UK) Jer. 31:20> 103. Representative Democracy associated with Manasseh (USA) Genesis 41:51> 104. The name "America" from Machir firstborn of Manasseh. USA the > major Capitalist nation and "Machir" denotes Principle of Sale.> 105. Zebulon on the shores of the Sea (Gen 49:13) Sabulingoi (People > of Zebulon) in Holland who do literally dwell on the sea-shores.> 106. Numerous Other Proofs in Scritpure and Related Sources.
> > > > > AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND I WILL BLESS THEE, AND MAKE THY> NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALT BE A BLESSING:> > AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND CURSE HIM THAT CURSETH> THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED [Genesis> 12:2-3].>

taken from www.britam.org

Monday, January 28, 2008

Blasphemy?

Olbermann Makes Light of Resurrection of Christ

By Ken Shepherd January 25, 2008 - 13:37 ET
Ten days after ESPN sportscaster Dana Jacobson's "F*** Jesus" outburst, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann made a dopey crack that made light of the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected in an immortal body from the dead. The remark came at the end of his "World's Best Persons" feature on the January 21 program as Olbermann relayed the story of one Feliberto Carrasco of Chile, who awoke from an apparently deep slumber in a casket at a wake being held for the presumed-to-be-dead elderly gentleman. Quipped Olbermann as he eased into a commercial break, "So do I have the etiquette correct here, does Mr. Carrasco get his own religion now, or what happens? Is there a vote?"Video (26 seconds): Windows (1.56 MB) or MP3 audio (184 kB) To be fair, Olbermann's remark is, to my judgment, hardly incendiary, at least in comparison to Jacobson's rant, but it was dopey and lame, needlessly dismissive of the beliefs of many people in his own viewing audience.

Ken Shepherd's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:









ESPN Anchor Goes On Vulgar Anti-Jesus Rant at Celebrity Roast

By Noel Sheppard January 20, 2008 - 10:35 ET
In the past few decades, as political correctness has taken hold of virtually every industry, folks involved in sports and sportscasting that have made racist or sexist remarks on camera have typically been fired or forced to make public apologies.
Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder's termination by CBS back in 1988 is a fine example, with the recent two-week suspension of Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman being another.
Yet, given what happened on an Atlantic City dais on January 11, where a high-profile ESPN anchor went on an alcohol-induced tirade which included a vulgar reference to Jesus Christ, it appears public antitheism is not politically incorrect.
After all, until this moment, you probably hadn't heard about this incident, and the person involved apparently has not been publicly admonished for her behavior by her employer.
While you consider such a double standard, Press of Atlantic City reported on January 12 (h/t NB reader Andy Traynor, readers are warned that vulgarity and blasphemy appear after the jump):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
It was everything a roast should be: insulting, vulgar and fun. Unfortunately, the fun moments weren't frequent enough as Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg of the popular ESPN morning talk show "Mike & Mike" celebrated their eighth anniversary with a celebrity roast at a sold-out House of Blues.
[...]
ESPN anchor Dana Jacobson made an absolute fool of herself, swilling vodka from a Belvedere bottle, mumbling along and cursing like a sailor as Mike & Mike rested their heads in their hands in embarrassment. [Comedian Eddie] Griffin came to the podium to defend her after she was booed by the crowd. [Host Jeffrey] Ross eventually had to pull her off stage, too.
For those unfamiliar with Jacobson, she was a "SportsCenter" anchor for ESPN in 2005, and later made a co-host of that network's morning show "Cold Pizza" which is now "ESPN First Take."
So, what did she actually say? According to the website Deadspin:
f... Notre dame""f....touchdown Jesus"and - the step-aside-because-lightning-is-about-to-strike... "f.... Jesus."
Didn't hear about this? Think it might have gotten more attention if her remarks were racist, sexist, or, heaven forbid, directed at Allah?
Heck, if she went on such a vulgarity laden anti-Muslim rant, she might have been fired that evening with ESPN airing a round-the-clock, every hour on the hour apology to prevent the Council on American-Islamic Relations from requesting a boycott of the network.
So, why the double standard?
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Noel Sheppard's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:











Ben Stein's Intelligent Design Movie

Ben Stein Documentary: Intelligent Design Scholars Muzzled By Scientific Establishment
By Kevin Mooney January 28, 2008 - 10:05 ET
American freedom is under assault within the scientific establishment and the academic community where the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory are being silenced and marginalized at the expense of research that could potentially expand human knowledge and boost medical research, according to a new documentary that raises questions about Darwinian assumptions. A growing number of scientists with expertise in biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy have encountered a level of complexity in the observable universe that in their estimation cannot be sufficiently explained by a random, directionless process. For this reason, they are compelled to offer up alternative theories for biological and astronomical objects that appear to be carefully calibrated and finely tuned by way of an intelligent agent. Unfortunately, scientists in the United States who offer up Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150 year old theories about the origins of life and the evolutionary process often find they cannot speak out without jeopardizing their careers and professional reputations. “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed researchers and scholars who have been forced out of prestigious positions. Instead of entertaining a free, unrestrained open debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has instead moved to suppress the Intelligent Design movement in a “systematic and ruthless” fashion at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts.
Although America was founded with a distinctive worldview that acknowledged a creator, today’s government agencies and publicly funded institutions are very much weighted in favor of methodological naturalism that presupposes life on earth is the by product of undirected, purposeless evolutionary forces. Moreover, the film strongly suggests the scientific establishment has very little appetite and patience for fully engaging in a debate with ID proponents.
There is a paradox at work here that is not lost on Ben Stein, a former presidential speechwriter who serves as the film’s narrator. On the surface Darwinian scientists appear supremely confident in their position. Nevertheless, they are reticent to allow for unfettered research and inquiry that takes ID into account. Stein, who is now an actor and political commentator, sees sociological, psychological and ethical factors at work. “If they are Darwinists and they owe their jobs to being Darwinists, they are not going to challenge the orthodoxy because that would challenge the whole basis of their jobs and their lives,” he said in an interview.
“So they are not going to challenge the ideology that has given them lush positions in real life. That's one thing. Second thing, once people are locked into a way of thinking, they are unlikely to change. Third is, if they acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design and that intelligent design is God, then they may think God has moral expectations of them and they may be falling short of those moral expectations, and they may be worried about some sort of judgment upon them.”Toward the end the film Stein interviews a Polish official who tells him there is more freedom and latitude in his former communist country to pursue certain avenues of scientific inquiry than there is now in the United States. “Censorship is stronger in the U.S. than in Poland because you have political correctness,” he observes. Stein has his own take on the erosion of American freedom that seems to be occurring while Eastern European countries move in the opposite direction.
“I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here,” he said. “There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises.
“Expelled” is set for release this coming Spring though Premise Media Corporation, a company that finances and produces independent films. The documentary begins and ends with a plea for greater freedom in academia from Stein. The ability to question conventional wisdom and to raise new ideas that run counter to the consensus is in great peril in his view. “Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement,” Stein wrote in a his own blog introducing the film. “There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry. This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science, always.”

Kevin Mooney's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:


Thursday, January 17, 2008

First Temple Seal Found in Jerusalem

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475897717&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

First Temple seal found in Jerusalem
Etgar Lefkovits , THE JERUSALEM POST
Jan. 17, 2008
A stone seal bearing the name of one of the families who acted as servants in the First Temple and then returned to Jerusalem after being exiled to Babylonia has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said Wednesday.
The 2,500-year-old black stone seal, which has the name "Temech" engraved on it, was found earlier this week amid stratified debris in the excavation under way just outside the Old City walls near the Dung Gate, said archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, who is leading the dig.
According to the Book of Nehemiah, the Temech family were servants of the First Temple and were sent into exile to Babylon following its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The family was among those who later returned to Jerusalem, the Bible recounts.
The seal, which was bought in Babylon and dates to 538-445 BCE, portrays a common and popular cultic scene, Mazar said.
The 2.1 x 1.8-cm. elliptical seal is engraved with two bearded priests standing on either side of an incense altar with their hands raised forward in a position of worship.
A crescent moon, the symbol of the chief Babylonian god Sin, appears on the top of the altar.
Under this scene are three Hebrew letters spelling Temech, Mazar said.
The Bible refers to the Temech family: "These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city." [Nehemiah 7:6]... "The Nethinim [7:46]"... The children of Temech." [7:55].
The fact that this cultic scene relates to the Babylonian chief god seemed not to have disturbed the Jews who used it on their own seal, she added.
The seal of one of the members of the Temech family was discovered just dozens of meters away from the Opel area, where the servants of the Temple, or "Nethinim," lived in the time of Nehemiah, Mazar said.
"The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archeology and the biblical sources and serves as actual evidence of a family mentioned in the Bible," she said. "One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the biblical source as seen by the archaeological find."
The find will be announced by Mazar at the 8th annual Herzliya Conference on Sunday.
The archeologist, who rose to international prominence for her recent excavation that may have uncovered King David's palace, most recently uncovered the remnants of a wall from Nehemiah.
The dig is being sponsored by the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem research institute where Mazar serves as a senior fellow, and the City of David Foundation, which promotes Jewish settlement throughout east Jerusalem.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475897717&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Pastor's European Adventure

Here is the link to updates to my pastor's European Adventure.

http://www.ucgtucson.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=10&Itemid=11

Strait of Hormuz and US GeoStrategy

an article which gives the best spin on what the U.S. is trying to do in the Middle East, which is make the Sunni Arabs into our allies in opposition to Shiite Iran. One of the points the article points out is that the NIE report last month which claimed there was no nuke threat from Iran was made to make the Arabs feel that they weren't standing up to Iran in defence of Israel. The president does seem to be also using the gambit of Israel's withdrawl from the "West Bank" as another attempt to befriend the Sunni Arabs as his recent trip brought up. This could be a shrewd play on the president's part, as the article brings out. However, one potential danger I would like to bring up on this is that in Psalm 83, most of the nations that try to cut off "the name of Israel", the Israelite tribes are the Arab nations themselves, not Iran (Persia), allied with Assyria (Germany). This could refer to a very distant event, but on the other hand the U.S. could be arming future enemies, unfortunately.
Psalm 83: 4. They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6.The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 7. Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8. Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.



The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy

January 14, 2008 1955 GMT
By George Friedman
Iranian speedboats reportedly menaced U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6. Since then, the United States has gone to great lengths to emphasize the threat posed by Iran to U.S. forces in the strait — and, by extension, to the transit of oil from the Persian Gulf region. The revelation of an Iranian threat in the Strait of Hormuz was very helpful to the United States, coming as it did just before U.S. President George W. Bush’s trip to the region. Washington will use the incident to push for an anti-Iranian coalition among the Gulf Arabs, as well as to push Iran into publicly working with the United States on the Iraq problem.
According to U.S. reports and a released video, a substantial number of Iranian speedboats approached a three-ship U.S. naval convoy moving through the strait near Iranian territory Jan. 6. (Word of the incident first began emerging Jan. 7.) In addition, the United States reported receiving a threatening message from the boats.
Following the incident, the United States began to back away from the claim that the Iranians had issued threats, saying that the source of the transmission might have been hecklers who coincidentally transmitted threats as the Iranian boats maneuvered among the U.S. ships. Shore-based harassing transmissions are not uncommon in the region, or in other parts of the world for that matter, especially when internationally recognized bridge-to-bridge frequencies are used. And it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the source of a transmission during a short, intense incident such as this. The combination of Iranian craft in close proximity to U.S. warships and the transmission, regardless of the source, undoubtedly increased the sense of danger.
Two things are interesting. First, the probability of a disciplined Iranian attack — and, by U.S. Navy accounts, the Iranian action was disciplined — being preceded by a warning is low. The Iranians were not about to give away the element of surprise, which would have been essential for an effective attack. While the commander on the scene does not have the luxury we have of dismissing the transmission out of hand — in fact, the commander must assume the worst — its existence decreases the likelihood of an attack. Attacking ships need every second they can get to execute their mission; had the Iranians been serious, they would have wanted to appear as nonthreatening as possible for as long as possible.
Second, the U.S. ships did not open fire. We do not know the classified rules of engagement issued to U.S. ship captains operating in the Strait of Hormuz, but the core guidance of those rules is that a captain must protect his ship and crew from attack at all times. Particularly given the example of the USS Cole, which was attacked by a speedboat in a Yemeni harbor, it is difficult for us to imagine a circumstance under which a ship captain in the U.S. Navy would not open fire if the Iranian boats already represented a significant threat.
Spokesmen for the 5th Fleet said Jan. 13 that the U.S. ships were going through the process of determining the threat and preparing to fire when the Iranians disengaged and disappeared. That would indicate that speed, distance and bearing were not yet at a point that required a response, and that therefore the threat level had not yet risen to the redline. Absent the transition to a threat, it is not clear that this incident would have risen above multiple encounters between U.S. warships and Iranian boats in the tight waters of Hormuz.
The New York Times carried a story Jan. 12, clearly leaked to it by the Pentagon, giving some context for U.S. concerns. According to the story, the United States had carried out war games attempting to assess the consequences of a swarming attack by large numbers of speedboats carrying explosives and suicide crews. The results of the war games were devastating. In a game carried out in 2002, the U.S. Navy lost 16 major warships, including an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious ships — all in attacks lasting 5-10 minutes. Fleet defenses were overwhelmed by large numbers of small, agile speedboats, some armed with rockets and other weapons, but we assume most operated as manned torpedoes.
The decision to reveal the results of the war game clearly were intended to lend credibility to the Bush administration’s public alarm at the swarming tactics. It raises the issue of why the U.S. warships didn’t open fire, given that the war game must have resulted in some very aggressive rules of engagement against Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. But more important, it reveals something about the administration’s thinking in the context of Bush’s trip to the region and the controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program.
A huge controversy has emerged over the NIE, with many arguing that it was foisted on the administration against its will. Our readers know that this was not our view, and it is still not our view. Bush’s statements on the NIE were consistent. First, he did not take issue with it. Second, he continues to regard Iran as a threat. In traveling to the Middle East, one of his purposes is to create a stronger anti-Iranian coalition among the Arab states on the Arabian Peninsula. The nuclear threat was not a sufficient glue to create this coalition. For a host of reasons ranging from U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq to the time frame of an Iranian nuclear threat, a nuclear program was simply not seen as a credible basis for fearing Iran’s actions in the region. The states of the Arabian Peninsula were much more afraid of U.S. attacks against Iran than they were of Iranian nuke s in five or 10 years.
The Strait of Hormuz is another matter. Approximately 40 percent of the region’s oil wealth flows through the strait. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the tanker war, in which oil tankers moving through the Persian Gulf came under attack from aircraft, provided a sideshow. This not only threatened the flow of oil but also drove shipping insurance rates through the roof. The United States convoyed tankers, but the tanker war remains a frightening memory in the region.
The tanker war was trivial compared with the threat the United States rolled out last week. The Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint through which Persian Gulf oil flows. Close the strait and it doesn’t flow. With oil near $100 a barrel, closing the Strait of Hormuz would raise the price — an understatement of the highest order. We have no idea what the price of oil would be if the strait were closed. Worse, the countries shipping through the strait would not get any of that money. At $100 a barrel, closing the Strait of Hormuz would take an economic triumph and turn it into a disaster for the very countries the United States wants to weld into an effective anti-Iranian coalition.
The revelation of a naval threat from Iran in the Strait of Hormuz just before the president got on board Air Force One for his trip to the region was fortuitous, to say the least. The Iranians insisted that there was nothing unusual about the incident, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said that “Some political factions in the U.S. are pursuing adventurism to help Bush to spread Iran-phobia in the region. U.S. officials should apologize to Iran, regional countries and the American people.” This probably won’t happen, but he undoubtedly will be grateful that the Iranians said there was nothing out of the ordinary about the incident. If this incident was routine, and if the U.S. war games have any predictive ability, it means that the Iranians are staging routine incidents, any one of which could lead to a military confrontation in the strait. Bush undoubtedly will be distributing the Iranian statement at each of his stops.
Leaving aside the politics for a moment, the Iranian naval threat is a far more realistic, immediate and devastating threat to regional interests than the nuclear threat ever was. Building an atomic weapon was probably beyond Iran’s capabilities, while just building a device — an unwieldy and delicate system that would explode under controlled circumstances — was years away. In contrast, the naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran’s reach right now. Success is far from a slam dunk considering the clear preponderance of power in favor of U.S. naval forces, but it is not a fantasy strategy by any means.
And its consequences are immediate and affect the Islamic states in ways that a nuclear strike against Israel doesn’t. Getting the Saudis to stand against Iran over an attack against Israel is a reach, regardless of the threat. Getting the Saudis worked up over cash flow while oil prices are near all-time highs does not need a great deal of persuading. Whatever happened in the strait Jan. 6, Bush has arrived in the region with a theme of widespread regional interest: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open in the face of a real threat. We are not certain that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier could be sunk using small swarming ships. But we are certain that the strait could be closed or made too dangerous for tankers for at least a short period. And we know that, as in land warfare, finding the bases that are launching ships as small as speedboats would be tough. This threat had substance.
By dropping the Iranian nuclear threat and shifting to the threat to the strait, Bush moves the Iran issue from being one involving the United States and Israel to being one that excludes Israel but involves every oil producer in the region. None of them wants this to happen, and all of them must take the threat seriously. If it can establish the threat, the United States goes from being an advocate against Iran to being the guarantor of very real Arab interests. And if the price Arabs must pay for the United States to keep the strait open is helping shut down the jihadist threat in Iraq, that is a small price indeed.
This puts Iran in a tough position. Prior to the issuance of the NIE, the Iranians had shifted some of their policies on Iraq. The decline in violence in Iraq is partly because of the surge, but it also is because Iran has cut back on some of the things it used to do, particularly supporting Shiite militias with weapons and money and urging them to attack Sunnis. It also is clear that the limits it had imposed on some of the Iraqi Shiite politicians in the latter’s dealings with their Sunni counterparts have shifted. The new law allowing Baath Party members to return to public life could not possibly have been passed without Iranian acquiescence.
Clearly, Iran has changed its actions in Iraq as the United States has changed its stance on Iranian nuclear weapons. But Iran shied away from reaching an open accommodation with the United States over Iraq following the NIE. Factional splits in Iran are opening up as elections approach, and while the Iranians have shifted their behavior, they have not shifted their public position. The United States sees a shift of Iran’s public position as crucial in order to convince Iraqi factions, particularly all of the Shiite parties, to move toward a political conclusion. Reining in militias is great, but Washington wants and needs the final step. The NIE shift, which took the nuclear issue off the table, was not enough to do it. By raising the level of tension over a real threat — and one that has undebatable regional consequences — the United States is hoping to shape the internal political discussion in Iran toward an open participation in reshaping Iraq.
Iran doesn’t want to take this step for three good reasons. First, it wants to keep its options open. It does not trust the United States not to use a public accord over Iraq as a platform to increase U.S. influence in Iraq and increase the threat to Iran. Second, Tehran has a domestic political problem. In the same way that Bush saw an avalanche of protest from his supporters over the NIE, the Iranians will see resistance to open collaboration. Finally, the Iranians are not sure they need a public agreement. From their point of view, they have delivered on Iraq, the United States has delivered on the NIE and things are moving in a satisfactory direction. Why go public? The American desire to show the Iraqi Shia that Iran has publicly abandoned the quest for a Shiite Iraq doesn’t do Iran a bit of good.
The Iranians have used the construction of what we might call a guerrilla navy as a lever with the United States and as a means to divide the United States from the Arabs. The Iranians’ argument to the Arabs has been, “If the United States pushes us too far, we will close the strait. Therefore, keep the Americans from pushing us too far.” The Americans have responded by saying that the Iranians now have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially regardless of what the U.S. Navy does. Therefore, unless the Arabs want to be at the mercy of Iran, they must join the United States in an anti-Iranian coalition that brings Iran under control. In its wooing of the Arabs, Washington will emphasize just how out of control the Iranians are, pointing out that Tehran is admitting that the kind of harassment seen Jan. 6 is routine. One day — and the day will be chosen by Iran — this will all get really out of hand.
The Iranians have a great deal to gain from having the ability to close the strait, but very little from actually closing it. The United States is putting Iran in a position such that the Gulf Arabs will be asking Tehran for assurances that Iran will not take any action. The Iranians will give assurances, setting the stage for a regional demand that the Iranians disperse their speedboats, which are purely offensive weapons of little defensive purpose.
The United States, having simplified the situation for the Iranians with the NIE and not gotten the response it wanted, now is complicating the situation again with a completely new framework — a much more effective framework than the previous one it used.
In the end, this isn’t about the Strait of Hormuz. Iran isn’t going to take on the U.S. Navy, and the Navy isn’t quite as vulnerable as it claims — and therefore, the United States obviously is not nearly as trigger-happy as it would like to project. Washington has played a strong card. The issue now is whether it can get Iran into a public resolution over Iraq.
The Iranians appear on board with the private solution. They don’t seem eager for a public one. The anti-Iranian coalition might strengthen, but as clever as this U.S. maneuver is, it will not bring the Iranians public. For that, more concessions in Iraq are necessary. More to the point, for a public accommodation, the “Great Satan” and the charter member of the “Axis of Evil” need to make political adjustments in their public portrayal of one another — hard to do in two countries facing election years.







For a greater analysis, read this:
The Middle East in Bible Prophecy

Monday, January 14, 2008

Islamic Jesus

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080113231632.1q3rt654&show_article=1
'Islamic Jesus' hits Iranian movie screens

Jan 13 07:16 PM US/Eastern
A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hardline president has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the "common ground" between Muslims and Christians.
Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, "Jesus, the Spirit of God," as an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but quite simply "wrong".
"Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong -- it was not like that," he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified.
Talebzadeh said he even went to Gibson's mansion in Malibu, California, to show him his film. "But it was Sunday and the security at the gate received the film and the brochure and promised to deliver it," though the Iranian never heard back.
Even in Iran, "Jesus, The Spirit of God" had a low-key reception, playing to moderate audiences in five Tehran cinemas during the holy month of Ramadan, in October.
The film, funded by state broadcasting, faded off the billboards but is far from dead, about to be recycled in a major 20 episode spin-off to be broadcast over state-run national television this year.
Talebzadeh insists it aims to bridge differences between Christianity and Islam, despite the stark divergence from Christian doctrine about Christ's final hours on earth.
"It is fascinating for Christians to know that Islam gives such devotion to and has so much knowledge about Jesus," Talebzadeh told AFP.
"By making this film I wanted to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue since there is much common ground between Islam and Christianity," he said.
The director is also keen to emphasise the links between Jesus and one of the most important figures in Shiite Islam, the Imam Mahdi, said to have disappeared 12 centuries ago but whose "return" to earth has been a key tenet of the Ahmadinejad presidency.
Talebzadeh made his name making documentaries about Iran's 1980-1988 war against Iraq, an important genre in the country's post-revolutionary cinema.
But such weighty themes, and his latest film on Jesus, compete with domestic gangster thrillers and sugary boy-meets-girl love stories, the movies that continue to draw the biggest audiences in the Islamic Republic.
The bulk of "Jesus, the Spirit of God", which won an award at the 2007 Religion Today Film Festival in Italy, faithfully follows the traditional tale of Jesus as recounted in the New Testament Gospels, a narrative reproduced in the Koran and accepted by Muslims.
But in Talebzadeh's movie, God saves Jesus, depicted as a fair-complexioned man with long hair and a beard, from crucifixion and takes him straight to heaven.
"It is frankly said in the Koran that the person who was crucified was not Jesus" but Judas, one of the 12 Apostles and the one the Bible holds betrayed Jesus to the Romans, he said. In his film, it is Judas who is crucified.
Islam sees Jesus as one of five great prophets -- others being Noah, Moses and Abraham -- sent to earth to announce the coming of Mohammed, the final prophet who spread the religion of Islam. It respects Jesus' followers as "people of the book".
Iran has tens of thousands of its own Christians who are guaranteed religious freedoms under the constitution -- mainly Armenians, though their numbers have fallen sharply since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Every Christmas, Ahmadinejad and other officials lose no time in sending greetings to Christian leaders including the pope on what they describe as the "auspicious birthday of Jesus Christ, Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH)."
In this year's message, Ahmadinejad said that "peace, friendship and justice will be attained wherever the guidelines of Jesus Christ (PBUH) are realised in the world."
Shiite Muslims, the majority in Iran, believe Jesus will accompany the Imam Mahdi when he reappears in a future apocalypse to save the world.
And Talebzadeh said the TV version of his film will further explore the links between Jesus and the Mahdi -- whose return Ahmadinejad has said his government, which came to power in 2005, is working to hasten.
Shiites believe the Mahdi's reappearance will usher in a new era of peace and harmony.
"We Muslims pray for the 'Return' (of Imam Mahdi) and Jesus is part of the return and the end of time," Talebzadeh said.
"Should we, as artists, stand idle until that time? Don't we have to make an effort?"

Monday, January 7, 2008

Kenya

http://www.wnponline.org/longitude/Show/?BlogID=575
http://www.wnponline.org/longitude/Show/?BlogID=576

Posted 1/4/2008 7:15 PMAdd to technorati.com Add to del.icio.us
This update was prepared by John Elliot, our senior pastor for Kenya. He gives details UCG members in Kenya: For a news update check this NYTimes article. Thank you for your concern for our members in Kenya during the ongoing turmoil there. I won’t comment on the various news reports which can be viewed online. Today’s editorial “Comment” in the excellent Daily Nation newspaper begins…“Our beloved country, the Republic of Kenya, is a burnt-out, smouldering ruin. The economy is at a virtual standstill and the armies of destruction are on the march… It is unbelievable foolishness for Kenyans to destroy their economy, their homes and their entire way of life in the name of politics and on behalf of people whose lives of comfort and luxury are going on normally.” www.nationmedia.com/dailynation Kenya is home to 700 UCG brethren who attend Sabbath services throughout the country each week. Tribal clashes, which are uncommon here but not rare, are typically fueled by political maneuvering. A little background to the current situation will help provide context for events of the past week. In 1963 Kenya gained independence from Britain and its first elected leader was Jomo Kenyatta. Mr. Armstrong visited Mr. Kenyatta as well as his eventual successor, Daniel Arap Moi (picture in photo). Mr. Moi began his presidency well. Soon however, those with power and opportunity sucked the country dry of both its financial resources and the aid coming in to help its needy citizens. In 2001 Mwai Kibaki ran for president on promises of ending corruption and won by a landslide. However, governmental corruption at all levels has continued to increase. While members of Parliament are paid salaries equal to that of the President of the USA, plus huge sums for humanitarian projects for their constituencies, local citizens are left to fend for themselves. In the run up to last week’s presidential election, a flamboyant Raila Odinga from the Luo tribe promised all Kenyans a sharing of the financial resources and an end to corruption. Hopes were raised among the masses for an enhanced standard of living. But, reported vote tampering returned the incumbent president to power who is from the Kikuyu tribe. Emotions raged between gun wielding police and angry Lou and other tribal peoples. Then ethic retaliations flared up against Kikuyus everywhere. In a country where owning weapons is outlawed, killings are mostly done with crude weapons and fire. The news has been filled with such atrocities. Phone calls and e-mails between me and some of our leaders in East Africa indicate that all of our brethren have been spared physical loss. However, the tensions and emotional strains are present as they live among a frustrated and sometimes lawless society. In some cases, church services had to be cancelled for the safety of our members. Obtaining food in areas that experienced drought has become even more complicated and expensive. Deacon John Otieno from the Luo town of Migori spoke of twelve killed there one day and another four the next. He wrote today, “I found that most of the local members are starving and did not have even anything to buy food, so I did manage to withdraw some funds from the church account in town on Monday when there was little bit calm.” Kisumu, Kenya’s third largest city was essentially gutted by looters and will take months to restore. Deaths and violence have crisscrossed the entire nation. Antonio Ndung’u, our office manager in Nairobi, told me by telephone that he has been in touch with the other deacons and several local leaders every day. All the brethren are okay. The only close call we have heard of was member Josiah living in the Eldoret area who manned a lookout on top of his house to watch for the thousands of attackers, some of whom burned a church with 35 women and children inside. Antonio rallied the church leadership to remind the brethren they serve not to become polarized or involved in political or tribal matters. “This is a matter that we have no control over as Church members and we belong to the future Kingdom of God, not the local government,” he said. Your prayers for peace in the region are appreciated to enable safety for the membership and to permit the work of God in East Africa to continue to flourish. A first-ever meeting with Bible Study Course graduates in Ethiopia is planned for April when Ed Dowd and I visit the region. A stable environment would certainly benefit everyone.

Kenya's TragedyPosted 1/4/2008 10:10 PMAdd to technorati.com Add to del.icio.us
Reading John Elliott's message about the tragedy that has befallen Kenya in recent days urged me to think about the need for God's kingdom on this earth.There are countless tales of corruption, atrocity and suffering on the African continent. It is a huge complex mix of mankind living out their lives in the hope of something better. Sadly their governments have not protected them nor supplied so many of the basic needs. No wonder that many turn to religion for help to survive and to give them a glimmer of hope that life holds out something more than their miserable present.This article in today's Financial Times gives a summary of Kenya's story in terms of the hope that economic investment would bring. That hope is now set back till order and stability are restored. Here is the conclusion:
There will be some who argue that the events in Kenya will prove a rite of passage in the transition to greater prosperity and more accountable government. There are still grounds to hope that permanent damage to the social fabric can be avoided.
But there is a danger that these signs of fresh disaster will stoke belief among investors that the billions being raised in western capital to meet African demand for infrastructure and corporate growth are misplaced. Rather, the crisis in Kenya should serve as a reminder that a continent so huge, complex and beset with challenges will remain vulnerable to setbacks whenever politicians have only their own interests at heart, and so long as the majority live on barely a dollar a day.This reminded me of God's indictment of the rich in James 5:1-6
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you."Before you turn away to the next crisis or other pressing matter in life say a prayer for the peace of Kenya and its people, and pray "thy kingdom come".Add to technorati.com Add to del.icio.us

Friday, January 4, 2008

Iran vs. Israel Nuclear War

Deterring World War V12.27.2007 - 08:07
Should a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran be called World War V or something else? That’s an irrelevant question. The real issue is who would come out ahead. The answer to such calculation might determine whether such a war erupts in the first place.Let’s assume the worst about Iran — even if it is a bit of a stretch: that its leaders are in the grip of messianic ideas that might incline them to launch a nuclear fusillade to annihilate Israel even if it meant incurring significant Iranian casualties, including the incineration of major cities.But would the ayatollahs launch such an attack if they would lose several cities and millions of Iranians — and not manage to destroy Israel? That is the question raised by a new study — based upon a war game — by the military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for International Studies in Washington D.C. The study does not appear to be on-line yet, but is summarized in Tuesday’s New York Post.It seems that Israel’s anti-ballistic-missile systems might spare it the worst, not that the results wouldn’t be horrific. According to the Post’s Andy Soltis, among the main points of the study are:
An exchange of nukes would last about 21 days and immediately kill 16 million to 28 million Iranians and 200,000 to 800,000 Israelis.Long-term deaths, from the effects of radiation and other causes, were not estimated.The greater Iranian death toll is explained by several factors:*Israeli bombs have a bigger bang. Israel has produced 1-megaton nukes, while Iran would be unable to produce anything more than 100 kilotons, a weapon with one-tenth the impact.*Iran would have fewer than 50 nuclear weapons, while Israel would have more than 200.*Israel also has a homebuilt Arrow-2 missile defense, buttressed by U. S. made anti-missile weaponry. Iran has a limited missile defense.*Israel’s missiles would be more accurate, due to high-resolution satellite imagery.If Syria joined its ally Iran in a wider war, it could attack Israel with mustard gas, nerve agents and anthrax in non-nuclear warheads.That could kill another 800,000 Israelis, but in response, up to 18 million Syrians would die.The implications of the Cordesman study would seem, at first glance, to cut against the necessity for a preemptive Israeli or American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The logical inference one might draw from the conclusions of the CSIS study is that Iran would be deterred and Israel could therefore live with a nuclear-armed Iran.That would be great news but, unfortunately, Israel cannot afford to gamble its future on the outcome of a Washington war-game. The Iranian calculation might differ significantly from Cordesman’s. More to the point, an Iranian nuclear umbrella would significantly embolden an already emboldened Iran in its quest for regional influence and the destruction of Israel by indirect means. Norman Podhoretz argued back in June that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a strategic neccesity, and he predicted that President Bush was likely to carry out such a strike sometime in the remainder of his term. That always seemed improbable to me given the acute American difficulties in neighboring Iraq. In the wake of the U.S. intelligence community’s estimate that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003, the possibility of such action seems to have diminished to the vanishing point, even if the intelligence estimate is deeply flawed.But U.S. action or no U.S. action under Bush, Norman’s case for a strike on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons remains as compelling as before.�
»Back to Connecting the Dots
»Back to Commentary
del.icio.us
Google
Facebook