Israel and Iran

I didn't know you were an IDF tank commander?

;-)
LOL--I've been to Israel and parts of "Palestine" (i.e. the West Bank) several times, but I haven't been closer than small-arms distance to Gaza, ever, and don't really plan to be, in a Merkava or not. ;)

I'd really like Israel to finish crushing Hamas and stabilize that region. With as much money as people around the world are willing to throw at it, that place really could become the "Riviera of the Eastern Med."
 

My own daughter is hearing these stories, and turning on Israel despite her Christian upbringing, and love of shows about the orthodox jews.

If this was a war crime, there's a 10x greater chance that Israel would investigate and punish wrongdoing, compared to any of their islamic neighbors.

Ham-Ass is at fault here.
 
My own daughter is hearing these stories, and turning on Israel despite her Christian upbringing, and love of shows about the orthodox jews.

If this was a war crime, there's a 10x greater chance that Israel would investigate and punish wrongdoing, compared to any of their islamic neighbors.

Ham-Ass is at fault here.

What does being a Christian have to do with supporting Israel? I do not understand that. I am asking seriously and without judgement.
 
Ham-Ass is at fault here.
BlackSmoke…

Definitely not piling on, but just a quick reminder to all that sometime ago we agreed that we would get away from using derogatory nicknames when discussing serious topics around politics and religion. Ultimately it helps keeps the conversation respectful towards both sides.
 
My own daughter is hearing these stories, and turning on Israel despite her Christian upbringing, and love of shows about the orthodox jews.

If this was a war crime, there's a 10x greater chance that Israel would investigate and punish wrongdoing, compared to any of their islamic neighbors.

Ham-Ass is at fault here.

There are very few things Hamas is better at than killing unarmed Israelis at a concert.

1. Stealing Aid and using it to enrich themselves instead of feeding their own people.
2. Killing their own people.
3. Using the western media to blame Israel for 2 and 3.

Here's something that goes into detail on the above:

Hamas has no intention of peace, at this point they need to be eradicated. But we knew this.


Israel will give them back hundreds of killers if they give back hostages, many of whom are just bodies. The others who likely continue to be tortured or worse.
 
What does being a Christian have to do with supporting Israel? I do not understand that. I am asking seriously and without judgement.

Being a Christian automatically involves Zionism. If you really believe in Christianity, as it is written. The end stage of the world as we know it involves the jewish people returning to Israel and fighting to keep their land in the book of Revelations. Predictions like that from the Bible is the reason most people believe. A good portion of the bible is prophecy that eventually become fulfilled. Think the virgin birth, the destruction of the temple etc.

Without putting bible verses all up in here, and would have to look them up myself, the foundation of the religion is the continuation of Judaism.
 
Being a Christian automatically involves Zionism. If you really believe in Christianity, as it is written. The end stage of the world as we know it involves the jewish people returning to Israel and fighting to keep their land in the book of Revelations. Predictions like that from the Bible is the reason most people believe. A good portion of the bible is prophecy that eventually become fulfilled. Think the virgin birth, the destruction of the temple etc.

Without putting bible verses all up in here, and would have to look them up myself, the foundation of the religion is the continuation of Judaism.

Thank you for your explanation.
 
BlackSmoke…

Definitely not piling on, but just a quick reminder to all that sometime ago we agreed that we would get away from using derogatory nicknames when discussing serious topics around politics and religion. Ultimately it helps keeps the conversation respectful towards both sides.

Ok, I haven't been on much lately and missed that conversation. I refuse to type their name, that's why I always used that moniker.

However, I have to ask, and I am not being a smart ass or trying to provoke, that the rules on the board are now such that I can not use a derogatory name for a terror group? I understand not wanting to put down a religion, but not understanding why I have to treat the islamo-fascist group with any respect. Becaue, my true feelings, I do hate them. Once again, seriously asking, I mean no disrespect.
 
Ok, I haven't been on much lately and missed that conversation. I refuse to type their name, that's why I always used that moniker.

However, I have to ask, and I am not being a smart ass or trying to provoke, that the rules on the board are now such that I can not use a derogatory name for a terror group? I understand not wanting to put down a religion, but not understanding why I have to treat the islamo-fascist group with any respect. Becaue, my true feelings, I do hate them. Once again, seriously asking, I mean no disrespect.
At the peak popularity of this site we had permanent admins, annual moderator elections; the site was essentially staffed 24/7.

The political threads were often angry back-and-forth arguments with name calling and venomous diatribes. Amazing and well respected members from both sides of the political spectrum left the site in disgust, many to never return. Good friends (including some staff) argued both openly and behind closed doors, it was ugly.

Today you are stuck with just little ol’ me; it’s not possible (nor desirable) for me to read every post of every thread; so all I ask is that we treat each other with the same respect and professionalism we’d offer if we were debating face-to-face.

On to your question…. Ham-Ass being a nick name for Hamas? Sure.

But then we morph into dumb-o-crats, lib-a-tards, plus witty but disrespectful names for public figures, on-and-on. Members who want to make an argument have to contend with not just with making/defending their points, but also with whatever name they or the group they care about was just called…it escalates and escalates.

There are unlimited sites online where a person can make disparaging comments/remarks about their political adversaries; but here in this little corner of the net, I’m simply asking members to bring a level of decorum and professionalism to their conversations.

Hope that answers your question.
 
Being a Christian automatically involves Zionism. If you really believe in Christianity, as it is written. The end stage of the world as we know it involves the jewish people returning to Israel and fighting to keep their land in the book of Revelations. Predictions like that from the Bible is the reason most people believe. A good portion of the bible is prophecy that eventually become fulfilled. Think the virgin birth, the destruction of the temple etc.

Without putting bible verses all up in here, and would have to look them up myself, the foundation of the religion is the continuation of Judaism.
I think this is accurate the vast majority of the time but I will add a few exceptions and context.

There tend to be two theological beliefs within Christendom that largely coincide with a lack of care or even a downright hostility towards the Jewish people.

1) Supersessionism-i.e. replacement theology. Essentially, the Church replaced the Jews as God's chosen people and therefore, the Jews filled their role and are no longer special in the "age of the church."
2) Preterism-i.e. the belief that, at least some of, the prophecies relating to the "end times" already occurred. Usually people of this belief point to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and the subsequent destruction of the temple as "the bad stuff that was prophesied in the Bible."

Out of the 3 major Christian sects (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) no major sect holds either of these two beliefs. Preterism is fairly rare across the board, but Supercressionism exists today and there is a growing movement toward it, specifically, from the more Progressive churches.
 
Supercressionism exists today and there is a growing movement toward it, specifically, from the more Progressive churches.

This article seems to be talking about progressivism as a political movement adopting supersessionist ideals, less so churches.

It also trys to justify the Evangelical "all Jews will convert or go to hell when Christ returns" as somehow different than Supersessionism.

He does give the game away though on why it gets a pass. It's not because its not Supersessionism, but because Christian Zionism is beneficial to Israel.

But because of the role Israel—the people and land—play in evangelicals’ eschatology, here and now on earth they are among Judaism’s most faithful friends and blessed supporters.
 
Last edited:
I think we should give Jerusalem back to the Catholics.

wwe network kane GIF


"Bahw Gawd! The Catholics are heading to the ring! It's a triple threat!"
 
This article seems to be talking about progressivism as a political movement adopting supersessionist ideals, less so churches.

It also trys to justify the Evangelical "all Jews will convert or go to hell when Christ returns" as somehow different than Supersessionism.

He does give the game away though on why it gets a pass. It's not because its not Supersessionism, but because Christian Zionism is beneficial to Israel.
Sentence 1:

I think we can largely break individuals down into one of two different categories concerning epistemology,
1) Those who let their philosophy/politics influence their view on their religion/A-Religion.
2) Those who let their religious/A-religious beliefs guide their views on philosophy/politics.

I think that for many progressive churches, you can see their Neo-marxist "have vs. have not" philosophy coloring the way they view scripture. "Man, if the Egyptians had borders like we do today, Jesus would have never been allowed to escape Herod." Hilarious, since Rome annexed Egypt in 30 BC, but I digress. The point is, their core belief system is philosophical, which then bleeds over into their religious beliefs.

Here is a link to an article a college friend of mine wrote. Notice how he tries to equate the political position of "gun control" with the true teachings of Jesus and how "white _____" is the core problem. Feel free to view his other works and look for the "social justice buzzwords."

Sentence 2:
While it may seem like those two concepts are tightly linked, non-Supersessionist's believe that the Jews remain God's chosen people, but they must still make the same repent/believe transformation as everybody else. In that sense, there is no difference between Jew/Gentile. Despite that, God did make a unique covenant with them.

Super's (supersessionism) believe the Jews have been replaced. It may seem minor, but the theological implications and practical effects are major. Example A,
"A unique phenomenon in Ireland is that many antisemitic attitudes in Ireland appear to originate within churches themselves, Bumin noted. Beliefs such as supersessionism (the idea that God’s covenant with the Jewish people has ended) and blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus are “far more widespread in the Irish community than they are in America,” he said."

Neo-Marxists hate Jews because they are the "have's" whereas other super's dislike them for other reasons as illustrated above. I agree that the foundational beliefs may differ, but they arrive at the same super theology, regardless at the expense of the Jews.

Sentence 3:
As for why the Jews like Evangelicals, agreed.

In fact, I'll go a step further. Going back to religious beliefs effecting philosophy/politics, that can be clearly seen on the right, see: Mike Huckabee.

Here is an example from 2017 where a Bill to receive hurricane aid was tied to a pledge not to boycott Israel. That to me is insane.

So, while I certainly have a major axe to grind with progressive Christianity, I also think many, typically, evangelicals go a step too far in support of Israel. A lot of people blame AIPAC for that, but I know a large number of evangelicals that don't take money from them, yet remain their most zealous supporters.

Full circle back to the start. Most Christians support Israel for religious reasons and the ones that don't tend to believe in some form of replacement theology. Whether the roots of that are Marxist, Nazi, etc. is largely irrelevant to the general point imo.
 
At the peak popularity of this site we had permanent admins, annual moderator elections; the site was essentially staffed 24/7.

The political threads were often angry back-and-forth arguments with name calling and venomous diatribes. Amazing and well respected members from both sides of the political spectrum left the site in disgust, many to never return. Good friends (including some staff) argued both openly and behind closed doors, it was ugly.

Today you are stuck with just little ol’ me; it’s not possible (nor desirable) for me to read every post of every thread; so all I ask is that we treat each other with the same respect and professionalism we’d offer if we were debating face-to-face.

On to your question…. Ham-Ass being a nick name for Hamas? Sure.

But then we morph into dumb-o-crats, lib-a-tards, plus witty but disrespectful names for public figures, on-and-on. Members who want to make an argument have to contend with not just with making/defending their points, but also with whatever name they or the group they care about was just called…it escalates and escalates.

There are unlimited sites online where a person can make disparaging comments/remarks about their political adversaries; but here in this little corner of the net, I’m simply asking members to bring a level of decorum and professionalism to their conversations.

Hope that answers your question.

1000011947.jpg

Then Ham Ass it is.
 
Back
Top