Thank you Christians, from an Israeli Jew

Great Debates
141

You obviously think you’re quite a clever guy.
News flash, you haven’t beaten me at anything, as you seem to think.

  1. My views of the end times have nothing whatsoever to do with my support for Israel.
  2. What are the so-called moral contradictions that are the flame that burns so hot that I dare not handle it? What is the moral contradiction in biblical eschatology?
  3. Obviously you can produce a post where I’ve said everything in the bible is to be taken literally. Please do so. If you can’t, then quit acting like a clown and trying to put words in my mouth.
  4. Covert anti-semitism? Get over yourself. How exactly is support for Israel’s position a cover for antisemitism? And what is your evidence that I am repressing antisemitic bias?
142

This is the kind of foolishness that will make your debates here hard, akohl. Collounsbury may or may not have a fan club–since I have no patience or precious time for things as idiotic as fan clubs (cliques, etc.), I couldn’t care less. I respect the output of those who are informed on an issue as thorny as this one. Collousnbury is informed on this topic, as he has demonstrated time and again over the years. You are not, as you have demonstrated in this thread. That’s not a bad thing per se, but some real research is now strongly recommended.

The BBC is not just radio. It also has a very good international news Web site (www.bbc.co.uk) and the best, most reputable international news TV channel (BBC World). Mind you, as far as radio goes you will not find more accurate or concise information than on BBC radio, so if you don’t get BBC World, the radio channel is a good start—infinitely better than some of the Web sites and articles you have provided in this discussion. I receive a daily customized e-mail update from the BBC Web site that gives me important news on topics of interest to me even if I don’t have the time to browse news sites or watch TV. You may want to look into it (the link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/email/newsletters)

If you get BBC World, by all means check out their regular news coverage (on the hour), but also look into programmes like HardTalk and Simpson’s World, which get down and wrestle with some really difficult issues, as well as the BBC specials (which change all the time).

Gold’s article is a typical piece of propaganda with little factual relevance, right down to the references to the Nazis. It was designed as a piece of persuasive (not informative) writing to hook people like you, apparently. If you can’t see that after people have pointed it out to you, you are either unable or unwilling (probably the latter) to employ critical thought in situations that you find distressing (preferring instead the comfort of your bias). And let me add that ignorance is corrected by learning, not by attempts to defend the indefensible.

It is difficult to expect anyone here (except maybe Israel hawks) to take you seriously if you show up making certain unlikely claims, fail consistently to defend your claims, waffle repeatedly on a number of subjects, and, when provided with clear and informative links, reply with the above.

I agree with Collounsbry when he says you are part of the problem. Not because you are an evil radical fanatic or anything like that, but because your lack of good information, and the poor sources of information you rely on, do not spell “accurate” and “unbiased” – quite the opposite, although you may think otherwise. Your conviction on a number of topics that have been covered here is ample evidence that you are operating under false information. So, unfortunately, you are contributing to the overall problem that exists in the Middle East today, even though you may not have a violent, oppressive, or discriminatory agenda.

The result of your misinformation? You praise a foolish fundamentalist Christian organization as friends of Israeli Jews when you don’t understand their motives at all (you only see their overt actions). You make the claim that the occupied territories are not in fact occupied at all, which is preposterous. Do you realize how these arguments and especially your refusal to acknowledge your errors make you sound?

Like part of the problem. That’s the tragedy in the Middle East: the real problem isn’t suicide bombers and Israeli battallions, but bias, which is frequently sufficient to negate truth, radicalize/polarize populations, and perpetuate vicious cycles. All unbeknownst to people like you, who I suspect are generally well-meaning but end up doing more harm than good.

143

How amusing you are Joe_Cool…

How about just answering the question instead of thrashing around like a drowning minstrel drunk on self-justification and false righteousness? Meanwhile let’s examine your dodging the issue a little.

It doesn’t? I take it that you don’t believe in the second coming as outlined in scripture then? The creation, struggle and eventual partial demise of Israel and the Jewish people of Israel has everything to with fundamentalist eschatology. The end of the Diaspora supposedly ushers in ‘The End Times’ - remember? So I restate my question; how do you feel about the people of Israel in this relation to this. Or do you feel that ‘The End Times’ as stated in the bible are not to be taken literally?

None. The moral dilemma arises when you say that you support Israel strife against the Palestinians for moral reasons such as the right for the Israeli Jews to exist in peace when in fact Apocalypse prophesizes the destruction of the same people you claim to support the survival of.

Indeed…

Hence I feel justified to go on ‘acting like a clown.’ Anyway… there is some room for weaseling there and it isn’t exactly unequivocal. Go ahead and use that space to backpedal if you like, or be a stand-up guy and stick the core of what you said and answer previous questions. If your answer is that it doesn’t apply to ‘The End Times’, then please explain why the biblical stand on homosexuality is unquestionable, while apocalyptic wet dreams of destruction and mayhem ushering in the coming of the king are not.

Well, I shall not accuse you specifically of anti-Semitism until you answer the question I posed. Praying for the destruction of Jews and believing that they are to convert to Christianity or be doomed to burn in the fiery lakes of Hell could arguably be said to be anti-Semitic, or?

Sparc

144

This statement is utterly incoherent. I seem to be reading a sort of Blood and Land argument rather popular among 19th century nationalists, the sort who gave birth to the late unpleasantness in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

I have no respect for where that argument leads.

First, the idiocy of judging “inheretance” by religious texts is just that, idiocy. As to their claims, the people who want to deny X will find the proper reading. The most likely being that Judiasm is simply a superceded revelation and its so-called inheritances are nothing but self-justifying distortions. (The last might very well be true in a rational sense, but then so would the same be true of their own text, but hypocrisy is a lovely thing.)

My revelation trumps your revelation.

Fucking playground games.

You want to use biblical text to justify land claims, go right ahead. It’s an empty fucking game, as historically those same biblical era nations varied in size, shape and territorial control. An empty fucking game that can only result in an endless cycle of violence.

145

Cool. I happen to have a copy of this wonderful text. I’ve even got multiple translations spanning about four centuries. Could you please direct me to the Book:Chapter:Verse where any of the US Presidents, with Senate approval(as required for treatys), signed it? I seem to have missed those pages in my past reading. Strange because I’m sure signature pages for the world’s leaders would have taken up a fair amount of room and I still don’t remember seeing them.

Don’t worry, if it’s not a generally circulated version, my home library is pretty well stocked and I’ve got access to other sources if necessary. All your reply needs to have is a Book:Chapter:Verse citation.

Thanks!
Steven

146

Revelation, you say?

Trumps, you say?

This is an end times thread!

Re-Collunsbury
Yup, he’s completely ignorant of the whole Middle East Situation. It would be a tie between Collunsbury and Sir Richard Burton as to who know less about the whole area.

Re-Akohl
As a Jew who is pro-Israel, I wish to distance myself from Akohl. I’ve never used the Torah to “prove” our claim on Israel. Further extremism is just as wrong on one side as it is on the other.

RE-The OP And International Christian Embassy
They’re using candy to lure kids into their basement. Some kids see the danger and refuse. But apparently, some think everything’s fine and wonder why all the other kids are too stupid to take candy from strangers.

147

Revelation, you say?

Trumps, you say?

This is an end times thread!

Re-Collunsbury
Yup, he’s completely ignorant of the whole Middle East Situation. It would be a tie between Collunsbury and Sir Richard Burton as to who know less about the whole area.

Re-Akohl
As a Jew who is pro-Israel, I wish to distance myself from Akohl. I’ve never used the Torah to “prove” our claim on Israel. Further extremism is just as wrong on one side as it is on the other.

RE-The OP And International Christian Embassy
They’re using candy to lure kids into their basement. Some kids see the danger and refuse. But apparently, some think everything’s fine and wonder why all the other kids are too stupid to take candy from strangers.

148

Lots of things about the end aren’t written literally. You must think I’m looking for a giant seven-headed, ten-horned monster to emerge from the Mediterranean Sea, with a woman in a purple robe riding on its back.

We’re talking about the Bible, not a Godzilla movie.

Something like the prohibition on homosexuality, which is written in plain, clear, unambiguous language, in both the Old and New Testaments, is painfully obviously meant to be taken literally. Revelation, on the other hand, is full of symbolism. Mostly symbolism explained elsewhere in the Bible, making it obvious that it is meant to be read symbolically.

I believe that in the beginning of the end, Israel will be the central focus of a worldwide conflict and will come out of it unscathed. Not because of their military ability, but because God will miraculously intervene, saying essentially, “Enough. These are mine.”

My support of Israel is not at all connected to end times prophecy. I support Israel because they and I belong to the same God. For the same reason that I would defend my brother against a stranger, even if I didn’t like him – We are children of the same father.

Are you sure we’re reading the same Bible? I don’t recall a prophecy of Israel’s destruction being necessary for Jesus to return.

Again, I must have missed the part where mayhem and the destruction of the Jews is necessary. Can you point me to where you’re looking?

You’re absolutely correct. That is most certainly antisemitic. Fortunately, that is also not my view. I don’t pray for anybody’s destruction or damnation.

I do, however, believe (as I’ve stated before) that we all earned a place in hell by virtue of our sinfulness and inability to live up to God’s standards. Fortunately, he provided a way out - accepting his salvation is our opportunity to receive Mercy, rather than Justice.

149

Ah but who said the I was insinuating that you must specifically take Revelations literally? I refer you to the other apocalyptic passages in NT some of which I will refer to and quote from further down. Notwithstanding I still don’t understand how you reconcile literal interpretation of scripture in one instance and symbolic in the other. Then again this debate has been going on for a few thousand years so maybe we should just leave that part be.

Interesting. The bible disagrees, but then again we are slowly establishing that the professed literal content of the bible in Joe_Cool’s liturgy is rather week in its actual literalness. It seems picking and choosing what is literal goes further than you seem to be aware of yourself. Then again you seem to not be quite aware of what the bible says on this matter.

Jesus outlines his own return in some detail in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. In all three chapters one of the conditions given is the destruction in part or completely of Jerusalem and Judea. Mathew and Mark are somewhat cloaked in as much as direct reference to what this means while Luke is pretty clear that the second coming will entail direct suffering and immediate death of masses of Jews. Note especially where I have taken care to mark out the passages in bold:

Do note that this is not in Revelations. I keep on coming back to the same question; why is one part of the bible literal and the other not?

I think that you have clearly answered your personal motives for supporting Israel, but I still do not understand how this can have any religious context if you do not completely distance yourself from eschatological belief in a New Testament ‘end time’ context.

That your answer as to your personal reasons to support Israel firmly plants you in the Us vs. Islam camp I will let others dissect in detail, while only noting that I find it rather extraordinarily thick that anyone can support Israel against the Palestinians based on:

When in fact the Palestinians are largely Muslim and Christian, meaning that they– when I checked last at least – also fulfill said criteria for being supported. Maybe you care to join us in the moderate pro equal rights for both sides camp instead?

Sparc

150

First, I’m not convinced that muslims worship the same god as Jews and Christians. I’ve discussed this before and don’t feel like rehashing it again. You’ve already shown that you know how to use the search function, so I am confident you’ll be able to dig up my views on that.
Second, IMO the Palestinians - collectively as a people - gave up any rights and credibility they might have had when they started strapping bombs to their sons and daughters and blowing up discotheques, pizza parlors, and shopping malls. If they want to call themselves soldiers, they could at least pretend to play the part and hit something of strategic significance, rather than high school students and shoppers. I realize that there are people there who are innocent of the attacks, but in the same way I as an American will have to bear the fate of my country, they as Palestinians will have to bear the consequences of their “country’s” actions.

Yes, I think I’m pretty well informed on what the bible says, thanks.

The bible most certainly does describe the conflict I described (and you don’t think that sounds like Jerusalem compassed round by armies?) - it’s in Ezekiel 38 and 39. And though it appears I was wrong about Israel being unscathed, what you’re missing is that the fact that something is going to happen doesn’t mean I have to hope for it. Some real bad stuff is going to happen in those days, but that doesn’t mean I will enjoy it if I’m around to see it, and it doesn’t mean I am looking forward to it.

Also, in case you missed it, the part you quoted says that ALL nations will be in distress.

Let me try one last time to explain how I determine whether something is to be taken literally:

If a literal reading makes sense, then it likely means what it says. Symbolic language is fairly easy to discern if you have a basic fluency in your language, especially since many of the symbols in the Bible are explained when used and many are reused in different places.

151

Bolding mine.

And a parody of this: “Christians gave up any rights they had-collectively, as a people-when they started throwing bombs at Planned Parenthood clinics.”

:rolleyes:

152

Have you got any kind of cite for this? Any actual documented instance of an adult Palestinian strapping a bomb on his or her son or daughter and sending him or her into town to blow up some Jews?

Or are you merely speaking rhetorically?

Run up a flag or something, wouldja, when you’re speaking rhetorically, and when we’re supposed to take what you’re saying literally. :rolleyes: 'Cause otherwise we don’t have any way of knowing.

153

The Jews I’ve known would think you’re pretty whack for thinking you’re worshiping the same deity. Ah well, to each his own delusion.

Ah yes, collective guilt. The indisputable sign of clear-headed, moral thinking. Kill 'em all and let the Christian God sort 'em out.

I couldn’t agree more.

154

I disagree on that point inThis thread

155

Hmmm…Interesting Joe_Cool. I know that you mentioned that you didn’t want to rehash this issue, so you may ignore this as you will and I won’t be offended. But if you would allow me to ignore your plea for a moment ( :wink: ) and allow the small hijack, I am curious why you would consider the God of the Jews and Christians the same, but would exclude Muslims. I did take the trouble of searching for your earlier opinions on this matter and found just this one, which mentions why you would consider the Muslim and Christian God separate, but not why you would still associate the God of the Jews and Christians:

Which would be fine, except the Jews also don’t consider Jesus to be the son of God, so using that reason to exclude Muslims, but not Jews, would not seem to hold up ( in point of fact the Muslim conception of Jesus is more in line with the Christian view than that of the Jews, despite the dispute over divinity ). Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are obviously different religions, but their conception of God derives from the same sources and is very similar, if definitely not identical. I don’t think Islam is vastly more divergent from Christianity and Judaism than Christianity and Judaism are from each other ( of course that still leaves an awful lot of room for divergence ). Or in other words, if you wanted to argue a narrow interpretation of the Christian God and say he is not the same God as the God of the Jews or Muslims, I might still be inclined to disagree. But I think you would be on firmer theological ground than arguing that two of those faiths ( any two of them ) share a God the third doesn’t.

By the way, I believe that strictly speaking Muhammed wouldn’t be considered a more important prophet in terms of message than Jesus. It’s just that Muslims believe Jesus’ message ended up garbled and corrupted ( or perhaps just misunderstood ) and that Muhammed, as the terminal end in the line of Abrahamic prophets, was the restorer of the message Jesus and earlier prophets brought. So he gets pride of place because it his supposedly unblemished teachings that are the one True Word being observed now. But that doesn’t mean he actually “outranks” Jesus as a prophet in Islamic theology. In fact Jesus arguably plays a more important role in Muslim eschatology ( some versions anyway ) than Muhammed .

  • Tamerlane
156

Joe_cool, leaving aside the extremist/political nonsense you keep posting here as if this forum were your own lavatory, can you explain your claim that the god of the Jews and that of the Christians is the same, yet that of the Muslims is a different one? And I mean explain it with valid arguments, not the political idiocy you have posted so far (nice bit about collective guilt for the Palestinians, where have I heard people think like that before?).

Looking at the religious texts in question, it has always struck me that the god (and to an extent ideology) of Islam is at some point between those of Christianity and Judaism, as far as their differences go, because the three are otherwise quite similar. Certainly Islam’s deity has more in common with Christianity than the Judaic deity does, and the other way round. Not surprising, considering that Islam had strong influences from both Judaism and Christianity.

As for the rest of your output, well you have explained your position, and it is rather ignorant, thoughtless, and bigoted. Thanks for clearing that up.

157

And, likewise from the other end, Jews see Islam as closer to Judaism than Christianity is. For example, there’s never been any serious doubt in Judaism that Muslims worship the Jewish G-d, and are not idol worshipers or worshipers of a false god, but historically, the question in Judaism about whether Christians should be considered idol-worshipers has been less cut and dry/

158

DDG, thank you for illustrating so beautifully how easy it is to tell figurative language from literal. I can’t say for certain that parents aren’t physically attaching explosives to their offspring, but it is hardly likely, now, is it? However, they certainly encourage them in their exploits. If you have a problem with this statement, why don’t you google yourself one of the statements by family members of dead bombers?

Anyway, I’m going to say this last bit, and then I’m done with this thread, and hopefully I won’t be baited into defending myself against people trying to put words in my mouth again.

First, I did not make a claim of collective guilt for all Palestinians. Nations and persons are very different entities. Individuals do not necessarily possess all characteristics of groups of which they are members, but the fate of the group and the rights of the group apply to all its members, and the Palestinian state-hopeful is behaving disgracefully and bringing trouble and military response onto itself and its citizens.

I said that all Palestinians will have to bear the fate of their country, as I expect to bear the fate of mine, which is an obvious fact. If my country prospers, there is a reasonable probability that I will prosper as well (relatively, anyway). If my country is plunged into a depression or an outbreak of violence, I will suffer all the same, regardless of my personal responsibility or lack thereof for the situation. I do not have anything to do with decisions regarding U.S. foreign policy, and yet will be affected by their repercussions, whether positive or negative. Get it?

Now to be fair, a bit of disclosure is in order: I do not know any Palestinians (or Americans of Palestinian descent) personally. My only real life experience with them has been in the last year. I saw them dancing in the streets in Paterson, NJ to celebrate the deaths in the World Trade Center. I have been followed and have narrowly avoided fights (with people whom I don’t KNOW are Palestinian, but displayed the Palestinian flag on their cars and clothing, in the Palestinian section of Paterson), having given no provocation; confrontations that would have been for no cause other than the fact that I’m a white-looking American. Not to mention the stares from other customers and rude treatment by the staff at the Palestinian restaurant we once visited.

So in my limited experience, I have found Palestinians to be a very hateful people, and while I have tried not to let that bias find its way into my views on the middle east, I acknowledge that it may have. But of course, it’s not too difficult to be objective when they make it so easy - by bombing civilians going about their business, rather than striking at even vaguely military targets.

DocCathode:
I read your disagreement with that statement when you posted it, and it didn’t convince me then, either. I know that tow’ebah (is it possible to post actual hebrew characters?) can mean either ritually unclean or disgusting and abhorrent. So let’s examine it in context.
The prohibition in question is Leviticus 18:22:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination”
This is listed among these other gems:
[ul][li] Don’t have sex with your mother.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your stepmother.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your sister or step sister.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your granddaughter.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your half sister.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your aunt.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your daughter in law.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your sister in law.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with your neighbor’s wife.[/li][li] Don’t burn your children as a sacrifice to Molech.[/li][li] Don’t have sex with animals. [/li][/ul]

It just doesn’t make sense that right in the middle of all the incest, adultery, and bestiality, where the offenses described were clearly immoral depravity and tow’ebah clearly meant disgusting and abhorrent, there was a single case where it meant ritually unclean instead. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t that zev’s counter to the same statement?

now, on to the other thing…
I’m not going to be drawn into another hijack, and I’m not trying to convince anybody. I’m posting these links solely to help clarify what I believe about Muslims vs. Christians, and why.

http://www.geocities.com/bicwyzer.geo/Christianity/wg.html
http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/Linked%20Articles/MuslimChristian.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html
http://www.stpetersnews.org/commentary/c.scoggins.02.02.07.html

http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/CoffeeTalk45.htm

Again, I didn’t post these to foster another argument, only as a courtesy to Tamerlane, and anybody else who’s curious, to clarify my beliefs.

159

so if you are to take it literally, Its ok to be a lesbian but not gay, right?

Do you want to know something? You will never know if God wanted to live your life with the bible taken literally until you go to meet your maker.

Why should it bother you how other people choose to live their life? Is it really so bad that some men like cock or that some women like other women?

How about you try to build your relationship with your Deity and, if God really wants to speak to all of us, then god will. Trying to equate Homosexuality to beastiality is evil in my book.

I’m not one to quote scripture, (helll, I’m not even christian) but I seem to recall “Love one another as I have loved you” as the best quote out of that book.

Telling people they’re going to hell for being true to themselves sure ain’t christian.

160

But your statement wasn’t, “They encourage them in their exploits”. Your statement was, “They strap the bombs to them.” Telling someone, “Yes, I think it’s a good idea for you to protest by setting fire to yourself in the public square” is considerably different from actually handing him the can of gasoline and the box of matches.

I did, actually, for a while, and although I did turn up statements by family members expressing their grief, sorrow, and occasional pride in their offspring’s martyrdom, still I didn’t turn up any statements by family members saying that they had personally equipped the kid with the bomb.

So I guess you were speaking rhetorically, huh? Sorry, I must not have noticed the flag…

Gonna play with Joe Cool’s statement.

Doesn’t matter which group you put in there, Joe, it still reads the same–“I don’t know much about these people, but I do know that I don’t like them.”

There’s a name for that. :rolleyes: