[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I have not had the time or interest to follow this whole thing in detail, but I don't see where this Cahn fellow has promoted what is contained in the last part of Mike's rant here. (or, I should say, I don't see where Nell or anyone else is promoting such things) As yu'al know, I REALLY, REALLY try to discourage any kind of "political" wrangling on the Forum. God knows we have enough controversial things to discuss without getting into politics!

Mike is one the most long term and respected members of our little forum here, but I think the "create chaos" blast is a little out of line and I bet he wishes he can take that one back. (I can take it back for him if he wants)

There is a larger issue I want to quickly address. When some member posts something, it is not to be taken as the official position of LocalChurchDiscussions.Com - and that goes for anything I post as well.... unless of course I say that what I'm about to post is to be taken as the official position of LocalChurchDiscussions.Com Seriously, and I've noticed come up a few times recently, some folks are taking things a little too seriously around this place. (and didn't we get enough of that in "The Lord's Recovery"?) We are just "discussing", not preaching or making earth-shaking declarations. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't get into some serious topics, it's just that we are all brothers and sisters that share a common history in a movement that was infamous for taking itself WAY too seriously, so I'm hoping that we can all take that into consideration in our dialog.

Public Service Announcement Over.

Your brother who is unto Him.

No need to take back my challenge or my rant.

Note that I did not provide the specifics of who said what I quoted before. It may not all be from the person that said this one thing, but there was a challenge to provide verses to show how it is that Cahn is wrong. And in the bit I posted, there is asserted that there is a basis upon which modeling a society upon the OT Israel by committing it to God and dedicating it to His purposes will provide blessings for the country. And further that the general slide of the country from that place will not only remove the blessings, but even invite a form of wrath such as through the allowance of the attacks of 9/11.

You say that we should simply have a discussion about it. Well that's really getting somewhere. Some say that thing is true and sound and others disagree. Cahn evidently asserts that these warnings, which are patterned after events and prophecies in the Bible, are now seen in modern US and are evidence that catastrophe either allowed or orchestrated by God is coming if we (the US, not just the church) do not return to God.

We can dance around the premise of whether the US was ever sufficiently "for God" to attain such a status. But that will be strictly a matter of opinion. And it seems that there is a standoff there. But since the whole thing is based upon the notion that the scriptures provide any nation the ability to command God's blessing via mirroring enough of the positive elements of the covenant with Israel. And further that the serious of warnings provided to Israel are specifically, down to the literal occurrence of metaphorical events, being seen in America and are evidence that we are under the beginning of a similar judgment but God.

To make this kind of claim requires more than a claim. There needs to be a sound basis allowing for this kind of transference of the specifics of the covenant with Israel and the transference of the specific warnings by God concerning the punishment that was to come. So I request evidence that there is a way for a nation to obtain Israel-like status through their own volition. It needs to come from scripture, not just from comparing prayers or the words of men. we can dress-up and act any way we want but it is nothing if there is not a basis for it actually achieving the thing claimed.

And then there are these warnings. They were given to Israel due to their failure to live up to the covenant with God. I need a basis to transfer them to today, not just as a wake up to the church for falling asleep at the wheel, but to a whole secular nation for "falling away from God." Of course that is entirely predicated upon the claim that such nation was ever really "for God."

I need a spiritual basis grounded in the scripture to consider such an effort worthy of taking energies away from the actual calling that I already see in the scripture.

You call this politics? Asking for scriptural evidence that the claim is valid?

I have ranted against the claims. I have seen nothing other than efforts (even if honestly believed, like Lee) to turn very real and meaningful scripture into something that I find no evidence for. The general rule is that the one who makes a claim needs to support and defend it. It is not simply presumed true and all who disagree required to rebut it. Yet that is where we are now.

I am asking for evidence that it is true. As I have not seen anything that provides that evidence, I wonder out loud if there are some eyes that are not seeing clearly. And am personally attacked as being like a Local Church elder. And the fact that I put it as a prayer is derided as being that of a Pharisee. I know that PMs are private, but it was to me, so I will reveal that much of it.

And you call me the one politicking?

I've seen this before and it was not pretty. A novel approach to something that is simply insisted on as being the way it is followed by rather personal assaults on those who do not see it or agree with it, then by the exit of the ones who claim to have been mistreated. Seems that declaring something a principle makes it above reproof. There can be no scrutiny. The fact that it is a principle is not debatable. It requires no proof. And to request it gets the ire of the moderator, even if not officially standing as the moderator at the time. But with the threat of the moderator being provided.

Condescending and patronizing by referring to my longevity on the forum does not diminish what I see as the truth of the outcome of certain kinds of topics here. I have observed it on more than one occasion.

And I guess I should go easy on this one because . . . well, read between the lines. This is a contentious subject. It has been mired in emotions, claims and counter-claims. But for something so allegedly important, it has not been provided with a sound theological basis. I am requesting that basis. And quoting a verse and calling it a principle is not a valid basis. There needs to be evidence that it is intended as a principle rather than a specific thing.

So if you don't want to do this, or don't want anyone to request that it be done, then I suspect that we will be left with more and more random, probably unscriptural (I say probably because it is playing politics to ask for a sound scriptural base), theologies tossed about here that are allowed no real analysis. As it is, the claim is that I have to read Cahn's book and see for myself. Last time I looked, this forum is not about the books of Cahn any more than the writings of those guys who claimed that their writing was scripture. I should not have to read Cahn to defend against him. Someone should distill it down to the evidence that makes it so. Not the evidence that he claims is the warning against the US, but the evidence that it could actually be true. Saying that we have to read his book or show where he says any specific thing is nonsense. They have to show how it is that anything they want to claim from within his book is worthy of serious consideration.

And, again, I do not request that you delete anything. It should all stand. You may like to call my request a challenge. But a discussion that seeks truth is not just idle chatter. There needs to be evidence to support a claim of truth. I have requested it. And if you want to call it a challenge, I would agree. But if you want to declare that to be unacceptable, then you have declared the forum closed to actual discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of this man's writings. Writings that caused some sisters to return to the forum after a long silence to challenge us to pray for the return of America's OT Israel-like blessing from God.

I am not the only person who has pushed-back. I might be the only one who has challenged the soundness of the theology. Or the actual connection to scripture. So I ask for the basis and I am bad while emotions claim that this disaster is coming because we went back on our covenant with God and it is unassailable.

If you need to protect them because they are sisters, then you need to consider whether they are the best defenders of their position. And if there is no one else to do it for them, where does that leave us? With a thread that should be shuttered and deleted? Probably not. Sets as bad precedence.

I don't buy that position. It is quite acceptable for sisters to propose anything. But they are subject to the same standards for debate and argument. Otherwise they should not be allowed to present what they will not defend while others defend them against the need to defend.

The challenge is valid and is rational for this kind of discussion. Stop complaining when someone actually challenges the premises. I won't say they need to put up or shut up, but they definitely need to put up. Or put up with the push-back. They have no basis to complain at this point. They have not made a case. Just stated a premise and wrapped it in spiritual words and a plea that it is just about getting us to pray. Sounds more serous than that. As if no one is praying. The problem presented is not simply to pray, but to pray for specific things. It is not just to return to God. And, by the way, those who are praying are not in need of returning to God. The faults that are heralded are from those who were never with God in the first place. There is no returning. So we say it is about prayer. But that is not all that it is. It is about selling a modern Israel in America. One that has the ability to move God's hand and demand blessing.