Our Jewish Brethren

[jasoncran]

Why exactly would a theocracy be required? We had morality laws and this country's policies were based upon Christian doctrine for almost 200 years before it got all mucked up. It worked fine without the necessity of theocracy.

You don't need to stop all sinners, you only need to control those who would entice them into sin. Before the serpents began whispering in our children's ears that virgins were losers our teen pregnancy rates and our std rates were far lower. It wasn't illegal for teens to have premarital sex, it didn't need to be. Now we empower those who would corrupt them and demonize those who would stand between our youth and those who would destroy them. We have become a sick and decadent culture.

so there wasnt gay sex then?

there wasnt murder of blacks then?

so there wasnt drug use and alcoholism?adultery wasnt noneexistent. it happened then just not out in the open.

so there wasnt the whores in the wild wild west?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States

not to mention also gambling. we kid ourselves in thinking that this america we call ever was sinless. in fact its god grace that i see. despite the sins that a sect of believing christians did indeed pray and believe and god blessed and acted in mercy, buts it bunk to say that that ere was so grand and holy. it wasnt

in my state, if you were black what rights did you have? indian? none?

 

[jasoncran]

look one can hide sin from the open all you want.people still will do it. i dont have too look at porn to lust at the female body.

sure promotion has alot to do with it but again how does one convince the sinner that they are wrong in fornacation if they dont believe in the first place? dont you see the problem? you are attacking symptoms not the core, the cross doesnt make a better man it kills you and changes you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is one of those sneaky threads that could be placed in End times or the AP section, and in my opinion not the best for general discussion area.

Bottom line, this topic is about Supersessionism. There are many theological views on it and many hold to a combination of views.

Nothing sneaky. This isn't about supersessionism.

There are natural Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. I asked what they mean personally to you. I shared that my heart is becoming more and more tender toward them, for I once had the same kind of attitude toward them that is being expressed in this thread...that they are just run-of-the-mill believers like all the rest of us. Certainly true in regard to salvation itself, but not in regard to God highlighting them specifically to work through and show himself to the world. Something he is not done doing yet as many in the church have been erroneously taught. I'm not making a theological point about 'supersessionism'. I'm pointing out how God does indeed recognize the difference between gentile and (natural) Jew. Not for the theological points that invariably come up in a discussion about the Jews, but that it is indeed special to be in the natural lineage of the tribes of Israel. I'm learning to rejoice with the Jews for that special place they have in God's heart.

 

[celo]

Why exactly would a theocracy be required? We had morality laws and this country's policies were based upon Christian doctrine for almost 200 years before it got all mucked up. It worked fine without the necessity of theocracy.

The trouble with vague generalizations is that they can be supportive or contrary to one's claim, based on subjective interpretation. America's policy was based on Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is based on Jewish doctrine. America was therefore based on Jewish doctrine. See what I did?

Let's be honest, America was based on our founding fathers. These desists, masons, and even proper Christians were children of the enlightenment. As such, separation of church and state was fundamental to our origins.

Surly you wouldn't want to associate slavery, societal marginalization of women, burning female "witches" alive, and the violent displacement of native Americans as Christian values? The road goes both ways, I am afraid.

To say that murder and larceny legislation is based solely on Christian values is misleading. I would argue that they were based on what the founding fathers happen to believe was right common sense at the time, in light of periodic values and societal standards. The basic laws of our country are not very different from the laws of most secular countries. In other words, common sense values.

Perhaps you believe that common sense values are neither real nor innate. Perhaps you believe that God allowed them to be innate. Whatever you believe is your right as an American. I won't argue with what you believe, just as I won't try to argue which flavor of ice cream is superior.

It actually was quite a long time ago, well before I was born. These things are going on in Israel right now. I wouldn't be nearly as hard on them if it wasn't for the absolute hypocrisy of those who support Israel. They'll scream till they're blue in the face about how we have to be inclusive and we need to accomodate other faiths and other cultures but will turn right around and support Israel in their oppression of non-Jews.

Please, get some perspective.

A wise friend once told me that hypocrisy is not without a sense of irony. (OK I lied, I just made that up for argument's sake). Seriously though, I have learned that often hypocrites are the most likely to dish out accusations of hypocrisy. No ad hominem intended. How is oppression of non-Jews any different than any other type of oppression? (I realize this logic would also deem me a hypocrite, but such is the paradoxical nature of generalizations)

Lets say, for example:
African Americans (still isn't over, by the way.)
Women
Japanese (WWII)
Native Americans
Iraqis (no judgement on the war, but I'd be a fool to think we didn't hurt them)
Homosexuals (unlike the others, this one isn't gov. sponsored)
The lower class (debatable, you can remove this one if you want)
Each other (civil war?)

You claim to be beyond all this oppression because of your age, yet America still does its fair share of oppression, both domestic, and foreign.

Now If I were to jump on the moral stool, I could argue that where America had very little justification for our great country's (I mean that, no sarcasm) oppression, Israel has a reason to "suppress" non-Jews (Palestinians). To support this argument, I will cite the threats posed by some of those we oppressed:

Blacks: none
Women: definitely, definitely none.
American Japanese WWII: none, although a fear was reasonable
Native Americans: They wanted back what we stole, those selfish Small risk.
Iraqis: Who the heck knows, most probably none, depending on what you believe.
The lower class: None
Homosexuals: None to me, maybe to you.
Each other: South wanted to get out, we didn't want to let me. Risk is debatable depending where you stand.


Now, lets look at the threats Israel has faced since 1948:

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Fedayeen terror attacks
Suez Crisis 1956
Six-Day War 1967
War of Attrition 1967-1970
Yom Kippur War 1973
South Lebanon conflict 1978
Lebanon War 1982
South Lebanon conflict 1982-2000
First Intifada 1987-1993
Second Intifada 2000-2005
Lebanon War 2006
Gaza War 2008-2009

These are only the "official" wars. Does this mean Israel is justified in oppressing their belligerent neighbors? Of course not. However, it could be argued that Israel was more justified than we were.

When a nation is quite literally fighting for their survival, internet debates on "morality" are quite frankly, ignorant, childish, presumptuous, and downright silly. People do what they do to survive. I would bet a large sum of money that had ALL of Israel's neighbors greeted them with pies instead of tanks and Katyusha rockets, this "oppression" that you see would not exist.

Of course, some people believe the land does not belong to Israel, and that they are justified in their hostilities. To assume this position only opens a paradox of hypocrisy. Does America then belong to the natives? Does America belong to the wildlife? What about Germany? Shouldn't it be Prussia? The extension of this logic would mean that all land can only belong to the first person who ever called said land home.

Look at any species of animals. If larger predator claims territory from a subordinate rival, is he not entitled to his victory?

This is where morality and righteousness breaks down. In a world of finite resources, it is the nature of life to battle for survival. To claim a just cause is to pick a side, not to pass absolute judgement.

I'm Jewish. Thus, I support Israel. I do not hold any illusion that this is either "right" or "wrong." If I were Arab, then I would support Palestine. That's how the world works. Now if Israel truly were "oppressing" their non-Jewish neighbors for no reason whatsoever, I would have to abandon my Jewish predisposition and support Palestine. Here's my equation to picking sides in general: Are they an in-group, or out-group? (Family, Israel, Friends, Americans....: in. All others:out) Do I think my group is rational and more "just" than "unjust" in my subjective, non-absolute opinion? After weighing both options, I pick a side.


You are entitled to support whichever side you want. Just please, don't be ignorant to the other side, and especially to our own and current history. You being born "above" our muddy past is not only naive, but fails to factor in our current oppressive behavior. Besides, you do wish to oppress homosexuals, do you not? Of course, if you believe that it is God's will to do so, then I am sorry to say that this exact same logic has been the source of oppression through human history. There is nothing scarier than a fundamentalist acting on his interpretation of "God's will."

I know that passing judgement from the comfort and stability of your life over the internet is very easy. Try living "righteously" when your existence has been threatened since you were 1 years old.

I do not mean to offend you, but I do wish to get my point across.

This is my belief. I could be wrong. If you think I am wrong, I'll save you some time and let you know that a forum retort will not impact my belief. Probably just as this response means nothing more than a data bank of rebuttal source material for you.

Because in all likelihood we will never agree on the subject, let's not deceive ourselves into thinking we will. I am, however, curious what you think of the points I had mentioned, and why you disagree. Surely you have good reasons to believe what you do. I suppose I am curious what your logic is.

Had I underestimated you or misjudged your position, I sincerely apologize for any inflaming remarks. I try to call it like I see it, which of course is often wrong.

VIOLATION OF THE TOS
EDITED BY STAFF

 

[Sinthesis]

'm pointing out how God does indeed recognize the difference between gentile and (natural) Jew. Not for the theological points that invariably come up in a discussion about the Jews, but that it is indeed special to be in the natural lineage of the tribes of Israel. I'm learning to rejoice with the Jews for that special place they have in God's heart.

This entire thread is based on an improper assumption about genealogy.

Act 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 - But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

Genealogy only has validity in the bible when it concerns the Promise of the Messiah. Because Jesus had no physical offspring, biblical genealogical significance ended at the Incarnation. However, what can be considered significant is the foundation for the spiritual legacy Jesus gifted us which has been painfully expressed culturally throughout the history of western civilization, of which Rabbinic Judaism is still a part.

 

[Hitch]

This entire thread is based on an improper assumption about genealogy.

Act 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 - But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

Genealogy only has validity in the bible when it concerns the Promise of the Messiah. Because Jesus had no physical offspring, biblical genealogical significance ended at the Incarnation. However, what can be considered significant is the foundation for the spiritual legacy Jesus gifted us which has been painfully expressed culturally throughout the history of western civilization, of which Rabbinic Judaism is still a part.

As usual ,well said.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

Blacks: none
Women: definitely, definitely none.
American Japanese WWII: none, although a fear was reasonable
Native Americans: They wanted back what we stole, those selfish Small risk.
Iraqis: Who the heck knows, most probably none, depending on what you believe.
The lower class: None
Homosexuals: None to me, maybe to you.
Each other: South wanted to get out, we didn't want to let me. Risk is debatable depending where you stand.

blacks: slavery ended 150 years ago and the civil rights movement was 40 years ago. Racism by individuals today isn't the same as government racism in Israel today. We don't send blacks to prison for sleeping with white women anymore, Israel still sends Arabs to prison for sleeping with Jews.

Women: Women's suffrage was almost a century ago, get over it.

Japanese: I don't defend Japanese internment, and once again it was 70 years ago.

Iraqis? That's a justafiable war and we more than go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. No country in the world has ever taken the pains we do to avoid civilian casualties in a war.

Lower classes? Now you're really getting ridiculous. Rich take advantage of poor in every land, have for all eternity, and will always. Jesus even talks about it in the Bible.

Homosexuals: They aren't oppressed.

The South: 150 years ago, though I am curious how the Feds would react if people tried to secede today. My guess is that the same thing would happen. But once again, this isn't the same as what's being done in Israel.

Now, lets look at the threats Israel has faced since 1948:

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Fedayeen terror attacks
Suez Crisis 1956
Six-Day War 1967
War of Attrition 1967-1970
Yom Kippur War 1973
South Lebanon conflict 1978
Lebanon War 1982
South Lebanon conflict 1982-2000
First Intifada 1987-1993
Second Intifada 2000-2005
Lebanon War 2006
Gaza War 2008-2009

All the result of the western sponsored Jewish invasion of Palestine. If people stuck machine guns in your mother's face and forced her out of her home so foreigners could move in you'd fight back too. Speaking of the Suez Crisis, why don't you look up the Lavon Affair. The Israelies attempted to bomb US and UK embassies in Egypt so they could blame it on Muslims and stall the Canal turnover. Speaking of the Suez Canal Crisis; Israel, the UK, and the US started that. You can't be part of an aggressor force and then use that as an excuse for later oppressions.

Just as Native Americans were justified in defending their lands Palastinians are justified. The difference is we are now in the modern world; if Israel wants to be treated like a modern democratic nation they need to behave like one.

 

[ChristianNationalist]

This entire thread is based on an improper assumption about genealogy.

Act 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 - But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
​

Genealogy only has validity in the bible when it concerns the Promise of the Messiah. Because Jesus had no physical offspring, biblical genealogical significance ended at the Incarnation. However, what can be considered significant is the foundation for the spiritual legacy Jesus gifted us which has been painfully expressed culturally throughout the history of western civilization, of which Rabbinic Judaism is still a part.

How exactly is Rabbinic Judaism a part of Jesus' spiritual legacy? They reject Christ and are even less a part of his legacy than are Muslims, Muslims at least recognize him as a prophet. Rabbis are the inheritors of the legacy of the Pharicees. While the Saducees and the Essennes were wiped out, the Pharisees were the founders of Rabbinic Judaism.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This entire thread is based on an improper assumption about genealogy.

Act 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 - But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

Genealogy only has validity in the bible when it concerns the Promise of the Messiah. Because Jesus had no physical offspring, biblical genealogical significance ended at the Incarnation. However, what can be considered significant is the foundation for the spiritual legacy Jesus gifted us which has been painfully expressed culturally throughout the history of western civilization, of which Rabbinic Judaism is still a part.

...simply not true. There is no "improper assumption about genealogy" on my part:

"...they (Israel) are loved on account of the patriarchs..." (Romans 11:28 NIV1984)

This being true of post-resurrection, unrepentant Israel, how much truer and glorious it is for the remnant among them (the subject of this thread) that has repented! That's what I'm talking about.

Genealogical significance, for what that actually means, not what people think it means, will continue to the end.

 

[celo]

blacks: slavery ended 150 years ago and the civil rights movement was 40 years ago. Racism by individuals today isn't the same as government racism in Israel today. We don't send blacks to prison for sleeping with white women anymore, Israel still sends Arabs to prison for sleeping with Jews.

Yes, we do not send blacks to prison for sleeping with white women, we send them to prison for being black. I am not saying that it is intentional, but the way our legal system works, minorities are unfairly prosecuted and arrested. Do they ever do injunction sweeps in white neighborhoods where everyone is arrested on a certain street, and then searched for something incriminating? You can argue that these areas have higher crime and routine sweeps are justified, but do not say that they don't exist. I have seen them in person. The only time I was arrested, I was in the holding jail with a black there for riding a bicycle without registration. Have you ever heard of a white person facing such a ridiculous charge? I didn't even know it was a law. Again, he was the victim of one of these sweeps. Another black I met was being charged with possession of a controlled substance. He had filled his mom's non-narcotic, non-recreational medication, and didn't have caregiver documentation. Even pharmacies don't follow this strictly. And the reason they were arrested in the first place? Discriminatory injunction sweeps. I'm from Los Angeles btw.

1 out of 3 black males will spend time in prison in the USA. Before you jump to any justifying conclusion, note that the rate of white, black and latino prisoners who grew up without a father is identical, and thus is often contributed as the leading cause of crime.

Women: Women's suffrage was almost a century ago, get over it.

Japanese: I don't defend Japanese internment, and once again it was 70 years ago.

Believe me, I'm not only over it, but I was never in it. My point is that we behaved oppressively now and much more so in the recent past. You cannot ignore this fact and pass judgement on others for the same thing.

Iraqis? That's a justafiable war and we more than go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. No country in the world has ever taken the pains we do to avoid civilian casualties in a war.

How you can say that it is anything but debatable leads me to conclude that you lack perspective. Did you severe? I will assume by your unipolar perspective that you did not. There is a difference between patriotism, and believing everything we do is justified. Go ask a soldier why we were in Iraq. You will get different answers. Hence the multiple perspectives. I agree that we were as careful as one can be when expending high explosive ordnance and ammunition in a densely populated civilian city.

Lower classes? Now you're really getting ridiculous. Rich take advantage of poor in every land, have for all eternity, and will always. Jesus even talks about it in the Bible.

The fact that you mistook my point as one of justification is telling. There are other parameters, you know. So, if I understand you correctly, some oppression is justified, while other forms are not? Doesn't that make you God, if you are to decide which are just, and which are not? You made my point for me.

Homosexuals: They aren't oppressed.

Really? I never thought of it that way.

The South: 150 years ago, though I am curious how the Feds would react if people tried to secede today. My guess is that the same thing would happen. But once again, this isn't the same as what's being done in Israel.

Yes, it was some time ago. Unfortunately, "reconstruction" was a fairly large failure. Sharecropping? This is much more complicated than simple oppression, so I will concede this point. You raise an interesting, albeit unrelated, question. I wonder how they would react as well? Something tells me in these PC times, it would be handled with words. I would hope so at least!

All the result of the western sponsored Jewish invasion of Palestine. If people stuck machine guns in your mother's face and forced her out of her home so foreigners could move in you'd fight back too. Speaking of the Suez Crisis, why don't you look up the Lavon Affair. The Israelies attempted to bomb US and UK embassies in Egypt so they could blame it on Muslims and stall the Canal turnover. Speaking of the Suez Canal Crisis; Israel, the UK, and the US started that. You can't be part of an aggressor force and then use that as an excuse for later oppressions.

Just as Native Americans were justified in defending their lands Palastinians are justified. The difference is we are now in the modern world; if Israel wants to be treated like a modern democratic nation they need to behave like one.

[/QUOTE]

No, the difference is that Native Americans can't much hold their own against an armored cavalry division with complete air superiority. And that we have paid many of them off to accept the situation. Israel's opponents are considerable.

Would you say a Native American would be just in firing Katyusha rockets at NYC? Now lets say as a result of a major, violent Native American rebellion, would America be justified in responding in kind? (Which we did). The only difference is that the American Indian wars are over. They lost. The conflict with Israel is ongoing. So what if it happened 200 years ago? That's how countries react to internal rebellion. Look at any country in the world. Russia? England? Us? Israel? China? Bosnia? Czech Republic? Slovakia? They all act the same. My point is not to forget this and condemn Israel as acting strangely and uniquely oppressive. In my opinion, you have every right as I do to support Palestine. Just please don't think the situation unique and one-sided.

If you still cannot let go of the "but it happened before I was born and not in the modern times!" line of thought, then consider these modern countries, their modern civil unrest, and how "nice" the resisters are treated by the nation:

Tunisia
Egypt
Libya
Yemen
Syria
Bahrain
Algeria
Lebanon
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Sudan
Recently, Ivory Coast (thank God now resolved somewhat)
oh, and Israel

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

You make it seem like all of those wars mentioned with Israel put Israel as the aggressor, simply because the land was not theirs. Now we are entering philosophy, and I will not say anything except that you're entitled to your philosophy and perspective. Please don't make absolute judgements on an issue as highly debated as this.

Again, I'm not saying Israel is right, but I believe they are responding in kind. Launch a missile, get a bulldozer. Simple, and necessary logic.