Skip to content

Iran’s Yellowcake

April 13, 2009

Here’s a video from their point of view.

How much time until they can enrich enough for a bomb? And can a reasonable person expect that “negotiations” will be used for anything else but buying time until the bomb is built and negotiations are no longer required?

18 Comments leave one →
  1. Timmy C. permalink
    April 13, 2009 5:32 pm

    One thing that could help is if in June, that reformist Mousavi beats Ahmadinejad, and becomes the new President of Iran.

    Former Prime Minister Mousavi supports a “detente” with the West, and greater freedoms inside Iran, and has specifically expressed his openness to engage with Obama. He has specifically called the current leadership in Iran “extremists.”

    The other reformer Kahtami left the race to support Mousavi, and many of the other smaller reform movements seem to be coalescing around him.
    If — using Iranian terms — their “liberal” and “centrist” groups seem could unite around his candidacy they would have a chance to overtake the conservative party there.

    And the hope is that a perception that with Obama in power, that Supreme Leader Khamenei, may be more inclined to support or at least tolerate an electoral win by Mousavi.

    That wouldn’t solve our issues with their nuclear program by any means, but it would be of a great help.

    So: here’s hoping for Mousavi for Pres 2009!

  2. April 13, 2009 10:58 pm

    Perhaps… there’s a pretty big chain of assumptions going on here. One could look at this and say a “moderate” candidate would be the perfect thing for the Supreme Leader. With the “friendlier face” matra in full bore “negotiations” could continue full force until the mullahs think it’s time to turn Israel into an ashtray. Then remove their support for the “moderate” and put the appropriate person in power again. Or, just have “an accident” by “rouge” elements. All the better for plausible deniability.

    I was thinking I shouldn’t have used the word “reasonable” in the post above BTW. Another point of view might be that Iranian dominance is inevitable in the region and best to just work with that expectation. I think Thomas PM Barnett makes that case.

    At any rate, I hope that most of what we see is rhetoric. These are untrustworthy people who need to be stopped at every opportunity. Using negotiations for nefarious purposes can work both ways.

  3. Tuttle permalink
    April 15, 2009 11:14 am

    A “reasonable”person should take the Iranians at their word- they want a world without the United States and Israel and have sworn to destroy both. Why does anyone with half a brain, and who understands history, doubt that? Hitler told us EXACTLY what he was going to do. And still we had the liberals and the Neville Chamberlins who insisted he was just misunderstood and would never really do anything like that.

    The Count is right on. The Mullahs are the ones running things. They would use a win by a “moderate” as a ruse to continue their bomb program while misguided fools like Obama “engage” in dialog and “trust” them to keep their word. (How’s that “trust” thing working out with North Korea? They expelled all the nuke inspectors this morning and are starting building bombs again. Thank you Bill Clinton AND G W Bush. But mostly Clinton- he got ’em started. W was stuck with their mistakes.)

    Newsflash: we have NOTHING the Iranians want. They don’t want our money or our love. They want us DEAD.

    We’re dealing with people motivated by eschatology which tells them the end of the world is nigh and it’s their duty and calling to help bring it about, along with the rise of their 12th Imam (“Madi”), the Islamic Messiah, by causing bloodshed and chaos. You can’t reason with or negotiate with evil like this. Evil like this can only be destroyed through violent means or acts of God.

    Unfortunately, the government of the United States (and about half her population for that matter) no longer has the stomach to look evil in the eye, call by its name and deal with it. Our government has been taken over by left wing radicals to whom global warming is a more dangerous threat than radical Islamic fascists, and to whom conservatives who support lower taxes, are pro-life, support the war on terror and the Second Amendment, and oppose ILLegal immigration are the real threats to security. All with the help of naive liberals, some of whom are even Christians, who have their heads buried so far into the frakkin’ sand, they can’t see we’re witnessing daily the shredding of the Constitution and the biggest, softest, tenderest, most dangerous power grab in the history of this country. If you really believe Obama doesn’t know what’s in his own administration’s DHS report, you’re smoking something. Sounds an awful lot like his “bitter clingers” remarks during the campaign. I wonder how long it will be before I am arrested and hauled off to jail for my “subversive” political views?

    Fortunately, where Israel is concerned, acts of God are a real possibility. God has sworn to defend Israel, and if Iran or Syria dare attack them with any kind of WMD’s, the Muslim nations will most likely be the ones wiped out. (Sorry, am I being too religious on this here political blog?) Whatever. Somebody check out Isaiah 17:1. It’s coming….

  4. Timmy C permalink
    April 15, 2009 3:28 pm

    Well: I’d think we’d all agree that Mousavi would be trading up, even if as the Count rightly says: that doesn’t make them trustworthy. But in the Mideast better is better. So here’s hoping for better.

    (BTW: just today Mousavi won another endorsement from another of the factions, the “Solidarity Party.”)

    Unlike Tuttle, I do think there is one thing Iran is needy for. They are suffering from 12.5 percent unemployment. Perhaps enough to make them vote for “the good old days” of the Reformists in power.

    Especially if we can get Russian to help out a bit there.

    Speaking of Russia: I think Reagan’s presidency to be a mixed bag, but one thing he did right was to actually negotiate with the Russians who even though they had a Reformer in Gorbachev, also had hardliners who “just wanted us dead.”

    But agile and wise negotiations and support helped the effect of Glastnost and Peristroika win the day over the hardliners. Perhaps something analogous can happen in Iran.

    It certainly seems that when you look one generation down into the student freedom and protest movements in Iran, you see the next generation there being very pro-Western, pro-liberal, pro-freedom, anti-clerical, even pro-American. And 3/4 th of Iran’s population is under 30.

    Our goals should be to keep the current regimes contained and relatively harmless until the next wave of younger more liberal Iranians takes over. To convince them that their current status of “almost nuclear” gives them as much as they’d gain by being “actually nuclear” and that staying on the right side of that line would actually give them a better overall economic future.

    Again, I think Russia can help a great deal in that if we can get them to.

    Both Sec of State Hillary and President Obama seem to be reaching out to Iran, but doing so smartly, with no illusions as to who they are dealing with.

    “Trust but verify” would be good advice still.

  5. Toayminator permalink
    April 15, 2009 7:04 pm

    I think Timmy and Tuttle make some good points. Yes, we should “trust but verify”. But frankly I wouldn’t trust a Mullah as far as I could throw one. That said, yes, the younger generation IS very pro-American.

    Re: the Russians, however– The Russians were not motivated by religious fervor, but by pragmatism and the doctrine of MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction. That won’t work with the Mullahs. They WANT to die. Also,

    Timmy should also brush up on Ezekiel 38 and 39. Better yet, take a look at Joel Rosenberg’s book “Epicenter”. Russia is part of the problem– supplying Iran with both nuclear fuel and sophisticated air defense technology.

  6. April 15, 2009 11:43 pm

    Once again you show that even in a post consisting of two questions, and two questions only, you cannot bring yourself to answer them directly. Interesting that. What’s more, you follow up my further comments as if they weren’t even there. It’s not a conversation. Tuttle and Toay respond both to what I write and offer further thoughts. If what you say is connected to the flow of this debate, I’m not seeing it. What I do see is that you never really have an argument with what I say so you change the subject. I’m going to keep calling you on it.

    I’m hearing that you basically assent to the truth that you can’t really negotiate with these people. So you what- whistle past the graveyard hoping for the best? Touching how your guy is in power you’re all about “hoping for the better”.
    As for the idea that a moderate might actually play into the hands of the mullahs- a point which Tuttle readily agrees with- you have nothing to say, perhaps because you haven’t thought of a good argument against it. Like I said, it’s like you’re not really having a real debate or thread here, you’ll just reiterate what ever you read at Kos or HuffPo and insert here. That’s not going to fly anymore. Try to take over the thread or change the subject and I will pound on it.

    Next point: hoping that the current team is smooth enough to convince the Iranians that “almost nuclear” is as good as nuclear has to be the dumbest most insanely idea I’ve heard you put forth. What moron on earth would actually believe that? Certainly not an Iranian. Hopefully not the Obama team. You, I’m not so sure about. You’re no moron, so can you possibly be serious? Nuclear Iran is a “game changer” in that mercifully retired phrase.

    Toay is correct also. Your analysis of Reagan is laughably wrong. Of course yes negotiations took place with the Russians but Reagan also ran them into the ground with the arms race and some pretty in-your-face rhetoric. American leadership at it’s best. As I’ve said ad nauseam, negotiations work best if you have some muscle behind them. The liberal myth is that talking has always solved everything- ane that Conservatives only advocate wars. Let’s be more honest: it’s a combination of diplomacy with a strong military response always a possibility.

    In the end, what I hope for is that Obama team is not just about processs, but actually has a strategic goal in mind beyond hoping the new guy is a little better and biding time until the 30 somethings take over- with Russia’s help no less. Let me be the first to insist: it’s not going to happen that way. Maybe another way, but not that way. Russian has their eyes on our weakness as much as they ever have, and they are not going to do us any favors. Fish, barrel bang my friend.

  7. Toayminator permalink
    April 16, 2009 12:07 am

    Good thoughts, Count.

    Let me add that, whereas Reagan used SDI (missile defense) as a strategic “tool” against the Russians (they knew they couldn’t outspend us, and they knew we could make it work, which is why they tried so hard to get Reagan to abandon it at the Iceland meeting), Obama is actually CUTTING funding for SDI.

    You read me right. After 20-some years of testing, we finally have SDI working and improving, and along comes Obama and dismantles– okay, maybe not dismantles, but CUTS BACK on– a viable missile DEFENSE for our nation!! What moron does that??!!

    Not only does it leave us defenseless against Russian, North Korean, Iranian, insert-villainous-nation-here nuclear missiles, but it also removes another thing we have with SDI– the moral high ground. With SDI, as Reagan said, we would not have to wipe an attacking enemy’s country off the face of the planet. We could defend ourselves and figure out an appropriate, measured response in due time without necessarily having to kill millions of people. Obama has now taken that off the table.

    It is breath-taking– leaving your own people defenseless when you have it within your grasp to defend them. What utter foolishness. I can only draw 2 conclusions:

    1. Team Obama really does not understand the nature of evil / the nature of our enemies in a dangerous world.


    2. Team Obama really does hate America and really does think WE are the biggest problem, the biggest threat, to the world.

    Both prospects are too frightening to contemplate for very long.

    There are some who believe Obama may be the beginning of God leveling some much deserved chastening and judgments against this nation. I hope they are wrong. But when confronted with attitudes and decisions like those we are discussing here, I fear they may be correct.

    God help us. Literally.

  8. Timmy C permalink
    April 16, 2009 9:08 am

    The Count wrote: “If what you say is connected to the flow of this debate, I’m not seeing it…”

    Hmmm. Dave I was trying to answer this question: “And can a reasonable person expect that ‘negotiations’ will be used for anything else but buying time …?”

    I was trying to show based on reason, why there could be room for hope that negotiations are not basically useless. At least not yet. And that one bit of that reason might be the upcoming summer elections there.

    You wrote: “As for the idea that a moderate might actually play into the hands of the mullahs- a point which Tuttle readily agrees with- you have nothing to say…”

    My response to Tuttle and you was that yes, maybe a more liberal Iranian President could still be not trustworthy due to the conservative religious clerics behind the government but that, in essence, in the Middle East it would still be “better than now” if Mousavi won.

    And my use of the Russian example was to show a reasonable analogy of negotiating against someone who has factions of reason and factions who wants you dead.
    And my analogy to Russia holds I think: it was “better” that Gorbachev became a reformist power — even though there were still hardliner powers behind the government that wanted the US dead. “We will bury you” mentality and all that. And it was “better” that Reagan negotiated with him, and empowered Glostnost and Peristroikia within Russia. It contained them, and gave time for the next generation of Russians to come along and fully reject communism.

    And I’m not pushing a “liberal myth” that talking solves everything. And I’m not advocating a lack of military options on the table at all. I agree with the Count: “negotiations work best if you have some muscle behind them.” And I think that Obama and Clinton and Gates have all kept that clearly part of the story.

    I think it reasonable to say that if Mousavi wins in Summer, there may be room for something similar. I know that the Count scoffs at that and certainly it is a long view — maybe taking a decade — but in essence that is what did happen in Russia over about a decade.

    You can disagree but I was trying to model of a “reasoned” hope for why negotiations might that could keep Iran on the “almost nuclear side.” You seemed incredulous that Russia would help, but that is Medvedev and Obama are discussing right now, no? Again it may not work with Medvedev. But it would help if it could.

    And Toay: on Missile defense, you act like Obama has gutted it. Sec Def Gates did announce a haircut on it’s funding, but only a lowering of funding by 15 percent, out of a ten billion dollar a year commitment ….hardly giving up on it.

    Count, you wrote: “Like I said, it’s like you’re not really having a real debate or thread here, you’ll just reiterate what ever you read at Kos or HuffPo and insert here.”

    I can also say that these are NOT regenerated talking points from liberal blogs, these are my own thoughts actually sparked by your question.

  9. Toayminator permalink
    April 16, 2009 6:22 pm

    ROFL !!!!

    No…I’m sorry…really…

    Seriously, I’ve never doubted Timmy’s thoughts were original to him. Or mostly so.

    What I’M laughing at is the Russian thing. Ummm….you mkae some good points, except…don’t look now but there’s a former KGB hard-liner running the country and political opponents are being killed or imprisoned and freedoms of speech and religion are being dismantled every single day over there.

    Yes, the people of the former Soviet Union rejected Communism, just as the Iranian PEOPLE reject the Mullahs now. But it matters not one iota what the people believe or want because THEY are not the ones in power. They are being oppressed and ruled over; the authoritarian, dictatorial, tyrannical regimes that ARE in power are our enemies.

    As for Timmy’s quote:

    “maybe a more liberal Iranian President could still be not trustworthy due to the conservative religious clerics behind the government…” but “in the Middle East it would still be “better than now”…

    So, let’s see then… untrustworthy is better than… untrustworthy… I get it!! No, not really. I don’t get it. Oh, wait… liberal untrustworthy is better than radical untrustworthy. Makes perfect sense now. LOL….Giggling to myself….

    I call it whistling past the graveyard…

    Seriously…. not to be fundamentalist or radical or extremist or whatever we conservatives are labeled these days– enemies of the state I guess– seriously… if you want to have any hope of understanding what’s going on over there, you MUST read 2 books:

    1. Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg – make this a priority

    2. From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters – a bigger, longer tome, but well researched and documented

  10. Timmy C permalink
    April 16, 2009 6:39 pm

    Hi Mike:

    Sorry to be confusing:

    “So, let’s see then… untrustworthy is better than… untrustworthy… I get it!! No, not really. I don’t get it. Oh, wait… liberal untrustworthy is better than radical untrustworthy. Makes perfect sense now. LOL”

    I really meant more like this:

    “A unified Iranian Government of hardliners = now
    A divided Iranian Govenrment of Reformists and some Hardliners = better”

    Neither is trustworthy, but one is better for our desire to keep them contained and neutered.

    I’m also familiar in general with Rosenberg and Peters stuff, and let’s just say I question their eschatology in general, scholarship and application of prophecy.

  11. Toayminator permalink
    April 16, 2009 11:09 pm

    Timmy wrote:

    “I really meant more like this:

    “A unified Iranian Government of hardliners = now
    A divided Iranian Govenrment of Reformists and some Hardliners = better”

    Neither is trustworthy, but one is better for our desire to keep them contained and neutered.”

    Okay. In that context, yes, it makes sense.

    re: Rosenberg and Peters…. I dunno what to tell you there. Strangely, I am not all surprised to learn of your skepticism. Their stuff is solid and stands up to scrutiny. I’d add Chuck Missler to that list as well. He even goes so far as to admit his biases AND give all the points of view available along with references and sources for everything.

    If you have problems with their scholarship, eschatology and application… well there’s no need arguing further on that, unless you’re really open to evidence, sound teaching and having your assumptions challenged.

    The only sure barrier to Truth is assuming you already have it.

  12. April 17, 2009 9:41 am

    Good response Tim, I do appreciate it. I’ll still insist that you are in fact NOT really arguing that negotiations are reasonable, nor have you refuted that they can be used to waste time by the other side until it’s too late. You’re essentially saying that you hope an upcoming election- which in the past has been fixed- will produce a slightly better result for the US, and basically ignoring my point that a moderate government could be even more dangerous because we would now be obligated to act even more conciliatory towards the Iranians- actually becoming more lax – while behind the scenes work continues in secret unabated.

    Better could be better, but it could also just be a cosmetic change that means nothing, yet lulls us into further danger.

    That said, maybe something good can come of this. I certainly hope it will but I think the end of this will be a nuclear Iran with dire consequences for Israel, the US and the world.

    Also, regarding missile defense, I have no idea why a slight decrease would come at this time. I would think that increasing our defensive capabilities against this obvious and deadly threat would be a priority for an administration that doesn’t want to have wars and wants to protect us. What happens when Gates leaves?

    It also grates beyond belief that you are now such a proponent of “better is better” in the mideast after years of deriding any change in Iraq. It’s all sadly predictable that this kind of rhetoric would come out of you now. And don’t tell me I’m changing my tune. Then changes in Iraq have been deep and fundamental. A “moderate” leader in Iran, while more desirable than a madman, is only good for us if it produces changes on the other side that we then use to our advantage. From my POV it looks like we could just let the kidnapper have the gun again because he says he’s not going to shoot us and then he does anyway.

    At any rate, you have a confused argument. You are not arguing negotiations are reasonable, but that a democratic election might have good results for us. That’s an argument I’m more friendly to; but we don’t need to negotiate for those changes to happen.

  13. Timmy C permalink
    April 17, 2009 10:06 am

    Hi Count:

    Close here:

    “You’re essentially saying that you hope an upcoming election- which in the past has been fixed- will produce a slightly better result for the US…”

    But to be precise, I’m arguing that the upcoming election COULD give a reasoned hope for negotiations to be more fruitful if a Reformer is in power.
    And that our negotiations can — as they did with Russia — empower the Reformists and help keep them contained. Maybe not. But maybe, and there is at least some rational reason to hope for that.

    If Mousavi wins, that is. If not, it’s likely a lot harder.

    I’ve heard you say you think it could be more dangerous if a Reformer is elected, but basically disagreed, saying that in pretty much every way a divided Iran is better for us than a consolidated government of Hardliners.

    And I really don’t think I’ve changed my views that “better is better” in the Middle East and in the past have applauded incremental even two steps forward one step back changes in Iraq. Even in our more contentious discussions of “Iraq as a burning building” back in the day — I was in the position of WANTING the building to survive, and wanting Iraq not to become a failed state, etc…

    As to the motivations on the haircut to SDI: Here is what Sec Def Gates said:

    “Broadly speaking, there were several principles or criteria that governed… most of my major program decisions. The first was to halt or delay production on systems that relied on promising, but unproven, technology, while continuing to produce – and, if necessary, upgrade – systems that are best in class and that we know work.

    This was a factor in my decisions to… Halt the airborne laser at the R&D phase while increasing funding for the THAAD missile defense program.”

    So Gates upped SDI spending on the more proven parts of SDI (THADD) and only trimmed the more troubled and “iffy” sections of it, while continuing the R&D overall.


  14. Toayminator permalink
    April 17, 2009 10:53 am

    The rest of Timmy’s comment was omitted after the “AND” at the bottom, BUT… we do know the airborne laser system works. They’ve tested it from large aircraft. It blew the snot of several missiles, and has been deployed to Israel. That said, it’s the size of a refrigerator and needs further miniaturization to work well on fighter aircraft.

    One hopes the reduction in funding will not reduce the possibility of reducing the size of the thing so we can reduce our enemies missiles to ashes.

  15. Timmy C. permalink
    April 17, 2009 12:28 pm

    The Count may find this going WAY off field of his original two questions, but this is my response to Mike’s good questions around Escatology and Tuttles refering to it… and by extension, present day Iran.

    Firstly, totally agree with Mike’s statement that it is good advice to be teachable…. everything I say following on my views of eschatology are open to correction, and held humbly.

    So Rosenberg and Missler, are Dispensationalists. And their view of Eschatology is deeply shaped by this tradition.

    So in short: I don’t see Dispensationalism in Scritpure. It simply feels like something added to the view of the Biblical text, not found within it. The idea of God’s using “seven distinct dispensations” in his dealings with mankind just feels artificially added to the Biblical story.

    More than that:

    My views on end times and Scripture is that the Church has fallen into about 3 big camps on it. Only two of which are Orthodox Christian positions in my POV:

    1. 100% Futurists – all of the Scriptural prophecies are talking about events in OUR future. Tons of variants underneath this camp. Premill, Postmill, etc…

    2. Complete “Preterists” – “preter” in Greek means “Past.”
    They hold that all of Scriptural prophecies are fullfilled already mostly in the 1st Century, and they deny that Jesus return would occur and interpret ALL of the language of End Times or Final Judgement to the fall of Jerusalem.

    In my view this camp took a good idea and went too far. But there is also this one:

    3. Partial or “Orthodox Preterists” – Believe that many Scriptural prophecies are fulfilled already, but does not deny the future Second coming of Christ bodily, that the Final Judgement etc is still to come.

    To me the Partial or Orthodox Preterist view seems the best fit with Scripture as I see it.

    It makes versus like Mt. 23:36 make sense without as much gymnastics as some futurists contort themselves into.. The idea that the “Beast” is Rome, much of Jesus’ talk of coming judgement talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and that there is no single anti-Christ fits well with 2nd John.

    In Revelation 13:18 John strongly implies his readers AT THE TIME would be able to figure out who he was talking about….and that 666 is the numerical transliteration of “Nero Caesar” from the Hebrew, or 666 is the numeric translation of Rome “Lateinos” in Greek.

    John seemed to be saying to the Church that “the Beast” was alive at the time of his writing, and was that the readers of the time could understand who he was. That would seem crazy if the beast wasn’t going to emerge for another 2,000 years or more.

    I also wonder about the hyper-literalism that comes with many of the 100%/ Futurists/Dispensationalists. I’d also wonder why given that many prophecies about the first coming of Christ were not fulfilled literally but rather symbolically, (for example Matt 11:14) why these theologians seem to say, “but for the Second coming ALL of the prophecies will be fulfilled literally.”

  16. Timmy C. permalink
    April 17, 2009 12:39 pm

    Pesky missing blockquote after the Paragraph ending “…that the Final Judgement etc is still to come.”

  17. Toayminator permalink
    April 17, 2009 11:57 pm

    Timmy wrote (among other things): “…many prophecies about the first coming of Christ were not fulfilled literally but rather symbolically..”

    Foghorn Leghorn voice: “You’re way off, son! I say, you’re way off!!”

    First off, The Count started this thread about Iran, so out of respect for his “threading”, I’m only going to respond this once to this. (Full Disclosure: I encouraged Timmy to post his follow up.) After this, if The Count doesn’t object to some theological discussions somewhere, we can do that as time allows.

    Secondly, I’ve been hired to write, so starting Monday, I won’t have a lot of time for the next several weeks.

    Now then… back to Matthew 11:14.

    Foghorn Leghorn voice: “You’re way off, son! I say, you’re way off!!”

    Matthew 11:14 is not a prophecy of Christ’s first incarnation. It has nothing to do with Jesus directly.

    Jesus is identifying John The Baptist as the “Elijah” prophesied by Malachi to come as a forerunner to the Messiah in Malachi 4:5. It requires eyes of faith to see it, which is why Jesus says “if you are willing to receive it”. Further, the Angel Gabriel announced that John would “come in the spirit and power of Elijah” in Luke 1:17. And to avoid any confusion that there was going to be a literal reincarnation of Elijah (it is appointed unto man once to die), John The Baptist himself denies that he is literal Elijah in John 1:21.

    There is absolutely nothing here that is inconsistent in any way with the rest of scripture. Clearly there are metaphors and similes in scripture- context always tells the tale- and Jesus and Gabriel both make it clear this is an instance of “typology” or “modeling”.

    Additionally- as an aside- prophecies sometimes have double or even triple fulfillment. Sometimes there are multiple “layers” in view. The Malachi prophecy also refers to the “Day of the Lord”. There are some good reasons to infer that Moses and Elijah are the “two Witnesses” in the book of Revelation.

    If you study their activities, you’ll discover that they are the only 2 prophets whose careers were “interrupted” in some fashion. (Moses- sent to the “penalty box”. Elijah translated outta here.) Further, it was Moses and Elijah who appeared to Jesus on the Mount during the Transfiguration, at which time they had a “briefing” to discuss future and end times events. And if you look at the miracles that Moses and Elijah performed in the Old Testament and the miracles the Two Witnesses perform in Revelation, it’s a good fit.

    Doesn’t mean I’m right. But it’s an interesting idea.

    But to get back on track…there are over 300 prophecies related to Christ’s first incarnation and every single one of them was demonstrably fulfilled literally.

    Couple rules when dealing with this stuff.

    1. Scripture is always the best interpreter of scripture. And for most things in the Bible, you’ll find at least 2 references somewhere else in the Bible. (By the mouth of 2 witnesses a thing shall be established.) My guess is, Timmy, you read the Matthew verse and drew a perhaps reasonable conclusion from it. However, Gabriel’s proclamation in Luke really helps us here. In light of the rest of scripture, it comes into much clearer focus.

    2. Context is important. Are there figures of speech, metaphors, etc in scripture? Of course. But context will always tell you which is which. I guess the point I’m making here is not that ALL scripture is literal. If it were, God would be blast furnace and have feathers. The point is, to take the Bible seriously. Seriously.

    If Timmy has more “symbolic” fulfillments, I’d be glad to tackle them.


  18. Timmy C permalink
    June 7, 2009 10:44 am

    More current events that seemed appropriate to post… and relevant to this older conversation:

    This next Friday is the Iranian Elections. Do pray for Mousavi to win for the reasons we hashed over in this thread above.

    …. The current state of affairs is that folks think that IF he can get the under 30 show up in decent force, then Mousavi has a shot at this upset over the Conservatives there. Good summary article here

    It’s impossible to say where the race is now, but Mouavi is in the game, and there are some positive signs like this….

    But we won’t know till at least this Friday if Mousavi or anyone gets the needed 51% to win….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: