[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:44:21 07/26/05 Tue
Author: Mary, quite contrary
Subject: the Philistines were not descended from Abraham?
In reply to:
Chuck in ND
's message, "We need it remember" on 15:13:13 07/22/05 Fri
They are the ancestors of the modern Palistinians. But, they have had enough time to mix with the peoples in the middle east; they probably have as much of the blood of Israel as anyone else in the area, not to mention Abraham, thinking of the Samaritans. The Hittites became which people?
Maybe it's just my wild idea that the House of Israel's "church members" (those who are trying to abide by some kind of covenant; the early Americans from Europe really tried) always have to have some kind of opposition, so that if the Nephites had the Lamanites, modern Israel would have a parallel persecutor, to keep them humble optomistically? Or battle weary? I think I'm throwing around some wild ideas, but I wonder. Some Christians believe America is the modern Israel; I don't think I quite agree, although I believe it's the promised land, in Book of Mormon terms. I think I just shot down my point, but we know that most of the LDS Americans have descended from Northern Europeans, hence the blood of Israel.
Edom (through Lot, yuck!) is Abrahamic, so Israel needs to leave them alone. But, not the Philistines or the Hittites? I am in a teachable mode here; I want to understand. I'm quite excited about my little theory, but I don't want to go off half-cocked. Do we know which lines the modern "Arabs" are descended from, poor grammar?
I keep thinking that even though they are apostate Christians, Northern Europe and America WERE founded on Christian principles, mostly, so we have a responsibility to carry the "covenant" (I'm sounding born-again Christian here, but I don't mean to) to those who are not yet Christian. So, engaging in war with them is or is not permitted by the covenant. I don't want to deal exclusively with LDS doctrine, because I realize that most of our politicians who are Christian aren't LDS. And I don't believe the "Christians" who participated in the Crusades were very Christ-like, but, then, of course, they were apostate.
Have I lost everyone yet?
Repeat what you said about the "bloodlines", Chuck, and maybe I'll understand enough to make sense.
My head is woozy.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |