end time prophecy and the middle east today

[charles_r51]

has anyone come up with something which may explain what the middle east is coming to? i don't mean bible prophecy, but the relationships between the new conditions that seem to be affecting the middle eastern political situation and whether it is having any global repercussions on the political front. it seems to me that some behind the scenes political manuevering seems to keep the middle east in a tumultuous condition. ever since the attempts to bring peace into the region back in the mid-eighties, it always seems some group or other interferes with the effort and additional unrest flares up. no matter what solution is proposed, it always gets derailed by something that happens in another area of the middle east. could this be a continuous plannned effort by someone seeking to exploit the problems? anyone have any thoughts on this matter? i'd be interested in your opinions. and please, don't use bible qoutes, they just confuse the issue. i'd like real opinions, not imaginary ones.

Ask yourself why do we all call it "the Middle East" when it's nothing of the sort, it's technically East Asia (believe it or not).

It's called "the Middle East" because that's where it appears to sit if you look at it from Britain or Europe. Go back and have a look at the history of Europe in the Middle East (I admit I feel more comfortable calling it that) and you get an idea of why the turmoil.

[RedGlitter]

All I can say is that I think the middle east is its own tumultous condition and brings it on itself.

[telaquapacky]

There's a good article in a recent news mag I read, an interview with a prominent Egyptian ( the magazine is not within reach now, but I'll give the reference when I can).

One of the things this man said that I thought was most insightful and intriguing, was that while the west is trying to foster democracy in the Arab countries, their rulers are threatened by it. Since 9-11 they have allowed 9-11 and America's over-reaction to it foment radical Islam and terrorism, because if democracy takes hold, they'll lose their power. He believes there is a silent majority of moderate Muslims who want peace and democracy, and liberal reforms- particularly with regards to the treatment of women. Better treatment of women always translates into better education and standards of living.

The other thing he said is what we all know. Poverty and frustration seems to feed radical Islam. Their biggest hatred against the west has to do with our presence in their "holy land" and the presence of the nation of Israel. To the radicals, we are an alliance of infidels.

The writer also pointed up that there were two kinds of Islam in those countries- one that applies to the rich, and another entirely different one that applies to the poor. The rich have secret get-aways where they can live in a comparitively sensuous, world-loving western style; whereas the poor have a deeply devout but bitter, hardscrabble existence that makes them sick of the world and long desperately for a heavenly reward.

The writer also pointed up that there were two kinds of Islam in those countries- one that applies to the rich, and another entirely different one that applies to the poor. The rich have secret get-aways where they can live in a comparitively sensuous, world-loving western style; whereas the poor have a deeply devout but bitter, hardscrabble existence that makes them sick of the world and long desperately for a heavenly reward.

Sounds like mediaeval Christian Europe. Religion has always been useful in keeping the privileged in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

[telaquapacky]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Sounds like mediaeval Christian Europe. Religion has always been useful in keeping the privileged in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

Indeed! Although the faith of the One who had no place to lay His head was obviously never intended to be used that way.

Originally Posted by telaquapacky

Indeed! Although the faith of the One who had no place to lay His head was obviously never intended to be used that way.

My faint memory of the texts indicates you're probably right. But I'm repeating myself I suppose. Religion is a useful tool for oppresion.

[telaquapacky]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

My faint memory of the texts indicates you're probably right. But I'm repeating myself I suppose. Religion is a useful tool for oppresion.

Or, oppression is a useful tool for religion, as the case may be!

But religion is a more subtle tool to use for oppressive purposes. While pure political oppression is a mailed fist in a steel glove, religion provides a velvet covering.

[telaquapacky]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

But religion is a more subtle tool to use for oppressive purposes. While pure political oppression is a mailed fist in a steel glove, religion provides a velvet covering.

Speaking of "subtle," and "velvet covering," it is so subtle that religious oppressors often aren't aware that they are oppressing, but are well-meaning "do-gooders" who think they are enforcing their own religious ideas on others for their own good.

To be fair, though, it should be admitted that secular humanist "do-gooders" can fall into the same trap of enforcing their own philosophy on others, believing it's for their own good. Consider all the failed atheist social experiments in history- there have been some of those too, although perhaps less numerous or well-known.