Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was a little more uncertain. Northern barbarian warrior tribes is about as much as you can infer. That gives you a lot of flexibility about who it can refer to, particularly in the present day. Like nearly all prophetic scripture, it is a flexible template for whatever you want to declare it to be.
Yes. Babylon and Assyria would seem to be obvious choices, but they have their own very particular identity in the Bible, and Gog and Magog are not so clearly identifiable. Northern Barbarian tribes is about it. Not the Iranians, back then, Iran was seen as on God's side after defeating Babylon and releasing the Jews from captivity. The Persians were honoured in the 'Susa' gate in the 2nd Temple.
Like Babylon and Assyria, the Macedonian empire was too Identifiable to be Gog or Magog. And I can't think of any other people who bothered the Jews that much. So One is left with a sort of vague prophecy of barbarian tribes that never seemed to come true.
Anyone remember lifetime Member Campbell 34 of the NAMI Ark, 80 pages of "Henry Gee said evolution is a fairy tale" (1) and especially the Gog/Magog Israel and Iraq in prophecy with a massive Chinese tank army rumbling across the middle east to invade Us?
(1) a particularly unfortunate Quotemineable remark of the same order as "Museum palaeontologist says there are no transitional fossils", which Eusebius (C34 reincarnated) has often used.
I'm reading Jean Edward Smith's "Bush", a biography of George W. A lot of it is stuff I already knew, but I came across something fantastic which I had not previously heard.
When President Bush was trying to get Germany and France to join in his invasion of Iraq, they of course flatly rejected this idea. Bush thought that he could make a personal appeal to France's President Chirac. He phoned him to implore him to take action, but Chirac expressed doubts that it was too late for diplomacy, and graver doubts that the WMD actually existed. So Bush altered his tactics.
"Jacques" he said, "you and I share a common faith. You're Roman Catholic and I'm Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord. Gog and Magog ar at work in the Middle East. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God who wants to use this conflict to erase His people's enemies before a new age begins."
Chirac had no idea what Bush was talking about and said he would get back to Bush. He then had his staff find out who Gog and Magog were. They are of course the names applied to the evil forces of Satan in Revelations.
Chirac was horrified to learn that Bush was being so simple minded and basing his decision for war not on the evidence, but on his readings from the Bible.
I have always known about Bush's fundamentalist faith, but I had not realized it extended to this sort of stupidity.
Hmm. I don't know why we should be surprised. He was not exactly known for being the brightest crayon in the box. And if you have any kind of religious faith (I don't mean a simple belief in god, I mean holding to some kind of religion or other) there is always somewhere along the line a suspension of logic. Really it's just a case of where you draw that line.
Having sat through both Republican and Democratic Conventions, I have been surprised how many times words like 'god' and 'faith' have been mentioned at the Democrat one and how absent those words were at the Republican convention. Usually you would expect this to be the other way around.
However the Democratic Convention didn't feel to me in any way overtly religious, it was mainly just a case of people expressing their faith in passing, so to me it felt like a reasonable and comfortable balance.
Certainly one of the many selling points at Democratic convention was 'better together' with an emphasis on embracing all faiths and ethnicities.
I haven't been posting much lately. To be honest I've been so much in shock about Brexit and with the whole Trump circus in America, I've been in despair about western values. The Democratic convention has given me some optimism back in people again.
That is rather surprising. Am I "manufacturing evidence" if I suggest that, at the Republican rally, the Religion is taken for granted and the faithful don't want to hear what they know already - they want to hear the US "Brexit" line.
The Democrats (and I seem to have heard Penn Jillett observe that one of the presidents that most made the "God" mention was Bill Clinton, but I may be imagining that) may feel that their credentials on social an international issues is to be taken for granted. They may have to argue more on Jobs and fiscal policy, but along the way, the occasional God -mention in order to establish their religious credentials might be felt needful.
The days when a platform speech assuring that no religion will get any privilege, people of all religions or none will be regarded as equal not only under the law but in society, and religion will be kept out of government, Law, education, work, hospitals, science, SPORT and any other public area, in order to secure the vital 40% "None" vote is still in the future. But I may live to see it.
I haven't been posting much lately. To be honest I've been so much in shock about Brexit and with the whole Trump circus in America, I've been in despair about western values. The Democratic convention has given me some optimism back in people again.
I can't commend this essay enough to those who want to understand the Trump phenomenon. It's written by a prominent linguist and cognitive scientist.
It doesn't make me feel any better about the possibility he could win, but it does at least render the basis of those who follow or even just tolerate him, clear and comprehensible. To the point of this forum, the author discusses the various framing and memes that are used to approach the topic of governance, not least the "strong father" concept that finds its pinnacle of expression in Christian fundamentalist ideology. When understood this way, the support for Trump makes a kind of sense.
The main take-away point is that you can't counter this kind of thing by debunking it directly. All that does is play into Trump's game by repetitiously bringing his demagoguery into people's awareness, unwittingly reinforcing it. The only effective counter is to have a positive agenda to discuss separately. To emphasize concepts like empathy and compassion and caring and civil society and civil discourse. To appeal to the better angels of people's nature, basically.*
And that is why Clinton is such a weak candidate in this scenario, in my view. Some say Clinton really is, somewhere inside her crusty shell, optimistic, believes in common cause and coming together to overcome problems rather than dividing people, etc., but people also know her naked ambition and ruthlessness. That is in my view why Sanders consistently polled double digits ahead of Trump while Clinton has run neck-and-neck and often behind. I would have loved to see a true opposite to Trump (a pure soul, or as close as you can get to it in national politics) in this race.
* One wonders sometimes if this isn't a lesson for atheists. If we've learned anything it's that you can't directly penetrate the Fund-A-Shield; you can only hold up positive principles of equality, acceptance, respect for others, etc.
I can't commend this essay enough to those who want to understand the Trump phenomenon. It's written by a prominent linguist and cognitive scientist.
It doesn't make me feel any better about the possibility he could win, but it does at least render the basis of those who follow or even just tolerate him, clear and comprehensible. To the point of this forum, the author discusses the various framing and memes that are used to approach the topic of governance, not least the "strong father" concept that finds its pinnacle of expression in Christian fundamentalist ideology. When understood this way, the support for Trump makes a kind of sense.
The main take-away point is that you can't counter this kind of thing by debunking it directly. All that does is play into Trump's game by repetitiously bringing his demagoguery into people's awareness, unwittingly reinforcing it. The only effective counter is to have a positive agenda to discuss separately. To emphasize concepts like empathy and compassion and caring and civil society and civil discourse. To appeal to the better angels of people's nature, basically.*
And that is why Clinton is such a weak candidate in this scenario, in my view. Some say Clinton really is, somewhere inside her crusty shell, optimistic, believes in common cause and coming together to overcome problems rather than dividing people, etc., but people also know her naked ambition and ruthlessness. That is in my view why Sanders consistently polled double digits ahead of Trump while Clinton has run neck-and-neck and often behind. I would have loved to see a true opposite to Trump (a pure soul, or as close as you can get to it in national politics) in this race.
* One wonders sometimes if this isn't a lesson for atheists. If we've learned anything it's that you can't directly penetrate the Fund-A-Shield; you can only hold up positive principles of equality, acceptance, respect for others, etc.
I know what you mean but if there's one thing I've taken away from this convention it's that much of the image we have of Hillary is a much exaggerated, as her husband Bill put it, 'cartoon character' version of reality that does not square with the truth. I've learned a lot about her from the convention, as it seems have most of the media and anchor people presenting it.
I had no idea that she was on the ground immediately after ground zero, amid the still smoking fumes and debris, questioning the air quality and the vocalising her concern for the health of first responders, and subsequently fighting afterwards to have them properly compensated and cared for. Or her fight for the rights for disabled kids to have a proper education. Or her fight for respite care for family caregivers or any number of other bills that she personally instigated designed to help those in need. I was particularly touched by the number of stories from people who she followed up on years later to check in on them to see if they were doing okay and people surprised that they would even be remembered so many years later.
I've concluded that Hillary's problem in the media is that, as a polar opposite of Trump, she does not brag about her achievements, she just gets on with the job, quietly and steadfastly and therefore most of it goes un-noticed. This convention has really turned around my view of her. I had this idea that much of her political career was riding on the wave of being a 'Clinton' but I've come to realise she's a far stronger and perhaps more politically minded person than her husband and that she'd have gone a long way in politics even if she had never met him. While I loved Bernie, it wasn't the right time for him... he was too much, too soon for Americans I think. I think Hillary will make good on her promise last night to the Bernie supporters to listen to their concerns.
That is rather surprising. Am I "manufacturing evidence" if I suggest that, at the Republican rally, the Religion is taken for granted and the faithful don't want to hear what they know already - they want to hear the US "Brexit" line.
The Democrats (and I seem to have heard Penn Jillett observe that one of the presidents that most made the "God" mention was Bill Clinton, but I may be imagining that) may feel that their credentials on social an international issues is to be taken for granted. They may have to argue more on Jobs and fiscal policy, but along the way, the occasional God -mention in order to establish their religious credentials might be felt needful.
The days when a platform speech assuring that no religion will get any privilege, people of all religions or none will be regarded as equal not only under the law but in society, and religion will be kept out of government, Law, education, work, hospitals, science, SPORT and any other public area, in order to secure the vital 40% "None" vote is still in the future. But I may live to see it.
I think they were so focussed on hate and fear-mongering they forgot to mention god.
I've concluded that Hillary's problem in the media is that, as a polar opposite of Trump, she does not brag about her achievements, she just gets on with the job, quietly and steadfastly and therefore most of it goes un-noticed.
Yes, that is what women do.
Hillary will have the biggest problem being a woman in what is still known as a man's world. There are still a large % of people that still won't vote for her because she is a woman - and I'm surprised that the media isn't discussing this issue.
I suspect it's because even the media is a bit afraid of what would happen should Trump win. Bush the 2nd clamped down on them, refusing to allow lots of war coverage to air. Can you imagine how Trump would blow his stack if the media picked him apart?
I know what you mean but if there's one thing I've taken away from this convention it's that much of the image we have of Hillary is a much exaggerated, as her husband Bill put it, 'cartoon character' version of reality that does not square with the truth. I've learned a lot about her from the convention, as it seems have most of the media and anchor people presenting it.
.
Some people are charming in intimate settings, some are charming in large pubic settings, some are both and some are neither.
Bill Clinton is an example of the "both", able to mesmerize large audiences as well as able to make individuals feel that they are the absolute center of his attention when it is one on one.
From what I have read, Hillary is also able to leave a positive impression on people when she is facing them in small groups or one on one. However, when up on a podium addressing large groups, she seems uncomfortable, rehearsed, stiff..and comes across as a bit stern and righteous. She seems like someone who isn't going to make any mistakes, but also is never going to surprisingly delight you.
That is a severe handicap for her in her presidential run because the more likable candidate, the one who is perceived as more down to earth, the one you would feel most at home at having a beer with, has won every election since FDR with the exception of Nixon's two victories. It is fortunate for her that she is running against an opponent who also scores low in likability factors. In those terms the race is stern but loving Principal Hillary vs crazy out of control Uncle Don.
Some people are charming in intimate settings, some are charming in large pubic settings, some are both and some are neither.
Bill Clinton is an example of the "both", able to mesmerize large audiences as well as able to make individuals feel that they are the absolute center of his attention when it is one on one.
From what I have read, Hillary is also able to leave a positive impression on people when she is facing them in small groups or one on one. However, when up on a podium addressing large groups, she seems uncomfortable, rehearsed, stiff..and comes across as a bit stern and righteous. She seems like someone who isn't going to make any mistakes, but also is never going to surprisingly delight you.
That is a severe handicap for her in her presidential run because the more likable candidate, the one who is perceived as more down to earth, the one you would feel most at home at having a beer with, has won every election since FDR with the exception of Nixon's two victories. It is fortunate for her that she is running against an opponent who also scores low in likability factors. In those terms the race is stern but loving Principal Hillary vs crazy out of control Uncle Don.
Yes, I believe she even said something herself to that effect somewhere in her speech last night.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran was seen as on God's side after defeating Babylon and releasing the Jews from captivity. The Persians were honoured in the 'Susa' gate in the 2nd Temple.
