Boaz, you missed:

Isaiah 1:20

"but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken"

Isaiah 1:28

"But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the LORD will perish"

It also occurs to me that the words are so authoritatively written, how exactly was God communicating these thoughts so succinctly?

Maybe it was through the Old Testament equivalent of those folks today who roam the streets (and inhabit our hospitals) convinced that God is speaking to them?

If not, who exactly is He speaking to these days? Surely there must be some prophets around who have open communication with "the LORD". Given the disparity in world population between then and now, there must be dozens, even hundreds, of them out there?

Hi Pericles
a couple of points.

1/ "Or you will be devoured by the sword.. refers to the situation where enemies or the surrounding nations will attack Israel. (see Habakkuk 1:5-6)
They have been warned.. "Return to the Lord your God" yet...they persist, eventually, their sorry state will bring judgement. It brings judgement not just because they forsook the Lord, but because in that forsaking, they also turned their backs on justice.

2/ How...did God communicate these words to the Prophet ? See verse 1 please.

3/ Who is He speaking to these days ? Same as ever.."us". You, me and the bloke next door. To me he says "Come back" when I stray, to you he is saying "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mat 11:28)

To the world he is saying "I am the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for His sheep" "I am the true vine" "I am the light of the world" "Before Abraham was...I am"

You may be interested in what he said to this man, -note his name.

http://www.leaderu.com/wri/pages/iamsayin.html Scroll down to see the major headings.

Boaz, as I understand your observations, the punishment for "forsaking the Lord" is death by the sword. In which case, where does it differ from the strictures of other religious books that you so readily quote and condemn?

The source is interesting too...

>>How...did God communicate these words to the Prophet ? See verse 1 please<<

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" Isaiah 1.1

As far as I can work out, that era spans some hundred plus years. So this wasn't a single communication, was it? In this context, what constitutes "a vision"?

And referring me to a text that begins "[a]s we reflect on the whole witness of the inerrant and infallible Scriptures, regarding the Person of Jesus..." is hardly going to fill me with confidence that the author will deliver dispassionate and level-headed observations, now is it?

While I had previously given you some credit for your enthusiasm, misguided though I believed it to be, your forays into anti-Muslim rabble-rousing have led me to believe that you are not only wrong, but wrong-headed and potentially a danger to yourself and possibly to others.

Pericles
you and I both have the ability to see past the 'doctrinal' aspects of such things as you mentioned but the Bible reference I usually use is this one
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&version=31

I don't see any of the blurb you mentioned on that, and yes, such statements are always a worry. They are not really needed, truth stands by itself.

But back to the topic.

Your welcome to consider me a rabble rousing twit who is a danger to himself and those around him. You just call them as you see them.

I'd like to refer you to this article, which appears on the Daniel Pipes web site, but..the quotes are from the European court of human rights, in relation to Islam and Western states. There are some very sobering aspects.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/70716

One part is this:

[according to the Convention and the case-law of the Turkish courts on constitutional law issues nothing obliged States to tolerate the existence of political parties that sought the destruction of democracy and the rule of law]

Which is basically my own position. except that my position is on steroids and is turbocharged.

Here is what
a) exists in Melbourne and Sydney
b) I am totally against on every level.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/71268

Please have a look at this web site I put together.
http://www.truetruth.wikispaces.com

I feel encouraged also by this post also to the Pipes site
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/70852

have a good weekend

Boaz: "Your welcome to consider me a rabble rousing twit who is a danger to himself and those around him. "

You are also a demonstrated liar who regularly posts fabrications and distortions in this forum: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6180 .

Your lack of response to those charges indicates that you have no answer to them. Put up or shut up, Boazy.

Dear C.J. I have to 'put you to the verbal sword' first.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6264
I resent being called a 'LIAR' at worst you may describe me as 'misinformed' but I don't resort to 'lies' to acheive my goals as I know it will rebound.

PERICLES I didn't answer one important thing. The 'putting to the sword' of rebels relates back to the curses and blessings of the Deuteronomy covenant outline. It relates to 'the nations around you'
It is not a legal thing where some Israelite policemans slices your head off for being a spiritual bad boy.

But.. refer the story of Elijah.. an exception.

GADGET
Very good point "Is it then neccessary to have a religious position prior to that war"

I think the best way to answer that, is to examine the history of the Muslim battles and see just how bigger role 'Fighting for Allah' played in their mental outlook.

I think that belief that we are 'on Gods side' (and its corollary. He being on ours) is an important motivating factor and if the right idea of a Just and Merciful God is held, then the outcome would be more just and with minimized human abuse when victory is gained.

The last words spoken to the American Troops just before they embarked on the Invasion of Iraq were these "We are not going in to take territory, we going to remove a Tyrant" This is perhaps a humanistic version of "God is on our side" ?

C.J. please contribute next time rather than just abusing.