Should Catholics support Israel, Palestine, or take a neutral stance?

[colmywaykurtz]

Here is one, from Catholic Answers at catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp:

Amillennialism

The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized**, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church.**

Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. **The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming. **

**Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints. **

What’s the Catholic Position?

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been “amillennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. "

---

Its late and I 'll need some time, but I’ll get you some more sources in a bit.

-Chris

'…In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. " ’

This would be consistent with the fact that Kramer’s work “The Book of Destiny” received the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur of Bishop Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa.

And I have a quotation from Augustine that is reproduced in Joseph Ianuzzi’s book The Triumpho God’s Kingdom In The Millennium And End Times that sets forth his (Augustine’s) distinction between believers in a spiritual millennium, on the one hand, and “carnal millenarians” on the other, that I will share shortly. Time doesn’t permit at this moment.

More later. Take care.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Modern Israel was born out of terror. If a person does just a minimal amount of research they can learn of how settlers engaged in deadly terrorism against the British in order to get them to give up control of the land of Palestine. The King David Hotel Bombing is one of the worst examples. In this incident the Jewish settlers dressed as Arabs in an attempt to pin the blame for the deadly terrorist act on Arabs.

Modern Israel is hostile to Christianity. The cross is a much hated symbol. It was removed from official cityscape pictures of Jerusalem where they rose above the buildings. The plus symbol is avoided in math because it is a type of cross. There are many stories of Orthodox and Catholic priests suffering terrible treatment in modern Israel including being assaulted and spat upon.

I can think of no good reason to support Israel as a nation as a Christian. Many folks do, particularly Christian Zionists, who believe that modern Israel will bring about the end times. This is particularly terrible and wrong idea that came from dispensationalism.

Every populace everywhere could be said to have been “born out of terror”. Certainly Muslim societies were, including in “Palestinian” states like Gaza. There’s not a spot on earth where somebody hasn’t displaced somebody else, and there were always Jews in Israel, despite the Diaspora.

Right now, the choice in “Palestine” is between good governance and wretched governance, and only Israel provides the first.

Christians of every kind are safer in Israel by far than anywhere else in the Middle East. The same is true of Muslim Arabs. How many Muslim Arabs are in line to give up their citizenship in Israel in order to go live in some killing ground like Syria or some poverty-stricken economy like that in Egypt? Certainly not the Muslim Arabs in the Israeli parliament or the high-ranking Muslim Arab army officers in the Israeli Defense Force. The only places in the Middle East where Christians are killed randomly and their churches bombed are in the Muslim lands.

 

[exnihilo]

Every populace everywhere could be said to have been “born out of terror”. Certainly Muslim societies were, including in “Palestinian” states like Gaza. There’s not a spot on earth where somebody hasn’t displaced somebody else, and there were always Jews in Israel, despite the Diaspora.

That is not true. Yes, there has often been violence but certainly terrorism is different from war. All war is not terrorism. Terrorism is blowing up hotels and hanging soldiers on the side of the road. The founding of Israel is particularly characterized by terrorism against the civilian population. And how can you condemn Muslim terrorism if that is just the way the world is? One minute terrorism is OK the next it is terrible.

St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great, who asked him “how dare he molest the sea”. “How dare you molest the whole world” the pirate replied. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor”.

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.

Once a group gets power then acts against it are terrorist. What Israel does to the Palestinians would be terrorism were Israel not a state or a Muslim state the US looks to overthrow.

Right now, the choice in “Palestine” is between good governance and wretched governance, and only Israel provides the first.

I’m not sure how you arrive at that opinion. What exactly is good about the governance of Israel and bad about the governance of Palestine? Certainly you cant say the Palestinians engage in terrorism since you said that is how the world works.

Christians of every kind are safer in Israel by far than anywhere else in the Middle East. The same is true of Muslim Arabs. How many Muslim Arabs are in line to give up their citizenship in Israel in order to go live in some killing ground like Syria or some poverty-stricken economy like that in Egypt? Certainly not the Muslim Arabs in the Israeli parliament or the high-ranking Muslim Arab army officers in the Israeli Defense Force. The only places in the Middle East where Christians are killed randomly and their churches bombed are in the Muslim lands.

I’m not sure of your claim that Christians are safer in Israel. Christians were relatively safe in Iraq, before the invasion. There was a large Christian community there. It has been destroyed by the war. Christians are fairly safe in most Muslim countries.

Certainly Saudi Arabia is hostile the Christianity. But you can be a Christian there so long as you dont proselytize.

The difficult thing to do is to reconcile western support of countries like Saudi Arabia that are more hostile to Christianity and the willingness to make war on countries like Iraq, which had a Christian foreign minister, and Iran.

 

[Seamus_L]

Syria’s Christian population overwhelmingly supports the Assad government, due mainly to the fact that they enjoy freedoms unheard of in most Islamic majority nations. Hezbollah in Lebanon had an approval rating of 80 pct in the Christian community in 2006. I doubt any of these people would prefer life in what for them would amount to a Zionist police state.

 

[ciero]

If by “literal,” you mean a “first return” of Christ (as in the first of a plural number), no, I don’t mean that at all. That’s an assertion of Protestant dispensationalist doctrine, the one that holds with the idea of a “rapture,” based on a misinterpretation of 1st Thess 4:17.

The millennium, according to the interpretation of theologians such as Fr. Hermann Kramer (The Book of Destiny), is the dominion of Christ OVER the earth, not ON earth—His spiritual presence in the Eucharist in a greatly-expanded and revivified Catholic church.

And this period of world peace and plenty, together with its end and the revival of widespread sinfulness, is what PRECEDES the physical return of Christ.

THAT is what I am talking about here.

Nice try…hardly Catholic though! Maybe a nice reading of the church fathers instead of this quack!

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is not true. Yes, there has often been violence but certainly terrorism is different from war. All war is not terrorism. Terrorism is blowing up hotels and hanging soldiers on the side of the road. The founding of Israel is particularly characterized by terrorism against the civilian population. And how can you condemn Muslim terrorism if that is just the way the world is? One minute terrorism is OK the next it is terrible. All war is precisely terrorism in its methods. All generals will tell you the objective in war is not to kill the enemy, but to deprive him of the will and means to fight. And what do you call it when Americans gave Indians blankets infected by smallpox or burned their food stores? There is always terrorism when one people takes over a place from another. I’m not defending it. But the very limited amount that attended the foundation of israel (which was mostly aimed at the Brits) was in no way unique.

I’m not sure how you arrive at that opinion. What exactly is good about the governance of Israel and bad about the governance of Palestine? Certainly you cant say the Palestinians engage in terrorism since you said that is how the world works. Arab Muslims and Christians can live in Israel without being bombed or randomly shot. They earn more there than anywhere else in the Middle East excluding the oil kingdoms, and that’s because Israel can guarantee a reasonable amount of order and the rule of law within Israel…conditions that don’t exist elsewhere in the area. That’s why thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank work in Israel, drawing wages they could never draw elsewhere in the M.E.

I’m not sure of your claim that Christians are safer in Israel. Christians were relatively safe in Iraq, before the invasion. There was a large Christian community there. It has been destroyed by the war. Christians are fairly safe in most Muslim countries. Christians in Iraq under Saddam were tools of the state, and that’s the ONLY reason they were safe other than against Saddam’s own terror. How safe are Christians in lebanon? Why are they leaving in droves?

Certainly Saudi Arabia is hostile the Christianity. But you can be a Christian there so long as you dont proselytize. or bring bibles into the country, or worship openly, or go to Mecca at all, for any reason whatever, or have alcohol in your possession, or be accused of some crime by a Muslim.

The difficult thing to do is to reconcile western support of countries like Saudi Arabia that are more hostile to Christianity and the willingness to make war on countries like Iraq, which had a Christian foreign minister, and Iran.

Yes, I know about the Christian foreign minister. I know his cousin, who fled Iraq some years before Saddam’s overthrow. Aziz lived in abject terror for himself and his family all day, every day. He participated in crimes of the regime because he was given no choice. Christians were tools of the regime in Iraq; those that Saddam didn’t kill, that is. Long history to that, predating Saddam. The present government in Iraq evidently doesn’t see their utility the same way.

And where are you getting it that the U.S. went to war with Iran?

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve spoken with several Christian Iraqis who said that life for them in Iraq was much better under Saddam Hussein, then it has been since the so called liberation. Chaldean bishop Ibrahim N Ibrahim also holds that belief.

 

[ciero]

What a naive view of history! I do not deney that the Jews were treated badly by the Nazis in Europe…but does that really give them the right to go to Palestine and treat the Arabs badly? Why should the other Arab nations be responsible for taking in the Palestinians when the Zionist Jews kicked them out of their homes where they had lived peacefully for almost 2000 years. Palestine belonged to the Arabs since the Romans expelled the Jews in 70AD. The Jews were offered land for their own country in both North Africa and South America after WWII but they demanded Palestine even though they had no legal or moral claim to it…the bleeding hearts gave it to them because they felt sorry for the Jews misfortune after WWII…and the Palestinians have suffered ever since. I agree with the PAlestinans…get rid of the state of Israel…they have no rightful claim to the Palestinian land!

FREE PALESTINE!!!

Get rid of the Zionist state of Israel…I have nothing against the Jewish people…just their treatment of their fellow Semtic people the Arabs of Palestine including the indigenous Christians of Palestine!!!

Ciero, you have no idea of the history of the Jewish people in the 19th and 20th century or of Middle Eastern History.
The modern state of Israel exists as a result of rampant anti-semitism in Europe and the United States during the early years of the 20th century until the end of WWII. This anti-semitism enabled Hitler and the Nazis to commit the Holocost. After the war, there were several million displaced persons living in camps throughout Western Europe. Stalin (a notorious anti-semite) refused to allow them to return to Eastern Europe, and the Western European countries as well as the US and Canada could not, and would not allow them to settle in their countries. Finally, the UN, which was new at the time allowed the State of Israel to form, despite rabid British opposition.
At the same time, the surrounding Arab countries, who actually sided with the Nazis during WWII (The Grand Mufti, as well as several important Mullahs were feted by Hitler in Berlin during the late 1930’s and there was an Islamic Division of the SS to accomodate Arabs and Iranis during WWII) The British had to exert considerable effort to contain the Arab World during the War.
Modern Israel is a democracy with political parties and systems similar to that of the European Nations (Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Some of the correspondants have expressed sympathy for the Palistinian Christians. The fact is, that Palestinian Christians have been all but erased in Moslem areas of the Mid East(- just ask any Lebanese Christian-) but they thrive in Israel.
The plight of the Palistine Arabs is not the fault of the Israelis. It is the fault of the Arab nations, who not only refused to allow Palistinians settle in their countries, but worked them up with anti-Israeli and anti-semitic propaganda. Until the demise of the USSR, this was largely financed by the Soviets as a weapon against the West in the Cold War. Since the demise of the USSR, Russia has been replaced by Iran in this.
What I don’t understand is why the Moslem Arab Countries have not been called to task for their blatent anti-semitism? If any Western politician made speeches about the Jews like Moslem politicians do, they would be crucified in the press…but not them.
I cannot see how any Christian, who indeed follows the teachings of Christ can possibly not support Israel.
Do any of you think that if Palistine were under the control of the Moslems, that any of our Holy Places would be preserved?

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, I know about the Christian foreign minister. I know his cousin, who fled Iraq some years before Saddam’s overthrow. Aziz lived in abject terror for himself and his family all day, every day. He participated in crimes of the regime because he was given no choice. Christians were tools of the regime in Iraq; those that Saddam didn’t kill, that is. Long history to that, predating Saddam. The present government in Iraq evidently doesn’t see their utility the same way.

And where are you getting it that the U.S. went to war with Iran?

Tariq Aziz will have to answer for what he did, like all people, especially politicians.

But just how evil was Saddam Hussein? The Kurd gas attack he was blamed for only killed 5,000. How many Iraqis did the US kill in a war of aggression without any justification? A lot more than 5,000. Oh, and our secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the estimated 500,000 Iraqi children who died due to our blockade was worth the price. How many suffer from depleted uranium poisoning? I’m reminded of something said about specks and logs in the eye.

The Jews were offered land for their own country in both North Africa and South America after WWII but they demanded Palestine…

The real question is why does a group of people deserve a land? According to most secular Americans and many religious leaders a racial country is immoral. How can the US support a country based on race?

An interesting note is that Emma Lazarus, who wrote the famous poem The New Colossus which has the words ‘Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ was a Zionist. We have to accept everyone but she wanted a racial homeland for her people.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to condemn anymore with all these mixed signals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Tariq Aziz will have to answer for what he did, like all people, especially politicians.

But just how evil was Saddam Hussein? The Kurd gas attack he was blamed for only killed 5,000. How many Iraqis did the US kill in a war of aggression without any justification? A lot more than 5,000. Oh, and our secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the estimated 500,000 Iraqi children who died due to our blockade was worth the price. How many suffer from depleted uranium poisoning? I’m reminded of something said about specks and logs in the eye.
Better estimates of the Iraqi casualties, including combatants, are far lower, and many were killed by the terrorists. If Madeline Albright doesn’t know any better than that, then she hasn’t researched it. And Saddam was responsible for the deaths of approximately a million people. You left out a lot here. Don’t whitewash that monster. And it wasn’t a “war of aggression”. Saddam invaded Kuwait and did not live up to the terms of the truce, among the violations were that he shot missiles at American and British planes.

The real question is why does a group of people deserve a land? According to most secular Americans and many religious leaders a racial country is immoral. How can the US support a country based on race? Except, of course, that most countries are “racial countries” every bit as much as Israel is.

An interesting note is that Emma Lazarus, who wrote the famous poem The New Colossus which has the words ‘Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ was a Zionist. We have to accept everyone but she wanted a racial homeland for her people.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to condemn anymore with all these mixed signals.

How about condemning those who deserve it; the dictators and the terrorists and the Islamists who will not tolerate Jews or Christians in their lands. And, along with them, you might condemn those who support those sorts, though i doubt you will.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Nice try…hardly Catholic though! Maybe a nice reading of the church fathers instead of this quack!

No, sir. The author of the book which I have mainly been referring to was a Catholic priest, and his book—“The Book of Destiny”—is considered a Catholic classic, available through Tan Books. It has the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur of Bishop Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa. That means there is nothing in it considered contrary in the matter of faith or morals of the Church.

It’s a line-by-line commentary on the whole book of Revelation, and he makes frequent reference to, and buttresses many of his arguments with, writings of the Church fathers. No intelligent Catholic is going to so blithely dismiss this book as you’re doing, which strongly suggests your own ignorance.

I challenge you to read it, ciero!

 

[exnihilo]

Better estimates of the Iraqi casualties, including combatants, are far lower, and many were killed by the terrorists. If Madeline Albright doesn’t know any better than that, then she hasn’t researched it. And Saddam was responsible for the deaths of approximately a million people. You left out a lot here. Don’t whitewash that monster. And it wasn’t a “war of aggression”. Saddam invaded Kuwait and did not live up to the terms of the truce, among the violations were that he shot missiles at American and British planes.

The death count for children was an estimate regarding the embargo, not the US war. The point was that to her that number was acceptable. I think that makes her a monster.

Saddam was not a nice guy, no doubt. But then again neither are the leaders we call allies. It is like how we condemend Hitler but praised ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin who killed far more than Hitler.

Many of the dead were killed because they revolted. Now I’m not saying this was right. But keep in mind the US killed 300,000 of its fellow citizens 150 years ago for ‘revolting’. Governments of any sort kill their own people when they rebel.

Yes, Saddam invaded Kuwait, possibly for good reason. But how him invading a neighbor who may have been stealing oil as alleged becomes a matter where the US, which is half a world away, has the right to intervene does not make sense to me. He probably did shoot missiles at planes that were invading his airspace. What would the US do if a foreign country flew planes in our airspace to shoot down our defenses? I apply the Golden Rule and find most of the arguments for war to be rubbish.

Except, of course, that most countries are “racial countries” every bit as much as Israel is.

Of course most countries are racial simply because the people in an area tend to be alike after enough time. But that is wholly different than purposefully creating a racial country. If I said I wanted to create a White Homeland I’d be ridiculed. If I tried to I’d probably end up on the wrong end of US and western power guns.

How about condemning those who deserve it; the dictators and the terrorists and the Islamists who will not tolerate Jews or Christians in their lands. And, along with them, you might condemn those who support those sorts, though i doubt you will.

I generally condemn terrorism. Which is why I condemn the terrorism that created Israel. But most Muslims will tolerate Jews and Christians. You seem to be misinformed about this. They are far less tolerant of people who are not of an Abrahamic religion. While condemning terrorism I fully realize that this is often just a label. We could just as easily call the American revolutionaries terrorists. In fact the British did.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

And by the way, ciero, you sound very much like an anti-semite to me, with your calls for an end to the state of Israel.

The fact that a new covenant obtains now does NOT change the fact that the Jews remain God’s chosen people. Go back and re-read Romans 11.

 

[exnihilo]

And by the way, ciero, you sound very much like an anti-semite to me, with your calls for an end to the state of Israel.

The fact that a new covenant obtains now does NOT change the fact that the Jews remain God’s chosen people. Go back and re-read Romans 11.

Whoa. That is uncalled for. Unless you mean it like Joe Sobran, the great Catholic writer, defined it:

“An anti-Semite is someone that the Jews hate.”

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Here is one, from Catholic Answers at catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp:

Amillennialism

The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized**, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church.**

Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. **The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming. **

**Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints. **

What’s the Catholic Position?

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been “amillennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. "

---

Its late and I 'll need some time, but I’ll get you some more sources in a bit.

-Chris

Here is the quote from Augustine, Chris, as passed along from Joseph Ianuzzi’s book. It is from The City of God, Book XX, ch. 7, from the 3rd printing of the Catholic University of America Press edition (1977):

“Those who, on the strength of this passage (of Revelation 20: 1-6), have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created…(and) there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God…But as they (carnal millenarians) assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may reproduce by the name of Millenarians…”

Perhaps it is with such in mind that the Holy Office decided premillenialism cannot “safely be taught” even as the Magisterium refrains from making any dogmatic pronouncement on the matter.

But I have yet to see anything declaring the teaching unworthy or verboten where belief is concerned.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The death count for children was an estimate regarding the embargo, not the US war. The point was that to her that number was acceptable. I think that makes her a monster. The “oil for food” program was designed to relieve that situation. Saddam, of course, appropriated it in order to arm his supporters and bribe UN officials. That was his responsibility, not ours. And I would not defend Albright on any subject that I know of.

Saddam was not a nice guy, no doubt. But then again neither are the leaders we call allies. It is like how we condemend Hitler but praised ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin who killed far more than Hitler.“Not a nice guy”??? He was well beyond being “not a nice guy”. I’ll agree that there were leftist ideologues in the U.S. who really believed in Stalin, but many despised him for the murderer he was. It has to be admitted that many were ambivalent because, until after the war, the media painted him in rosy colors. Some bought it and some didn’t.

Many of the dead were killed because they revolted. Now I’m not saying this was right. But keep in mind the US killed 300,000 of its fellow citizens 150 years ago for ‘revolting’. Governments of any sort kill their own people when they rebel.Actually, most of it was faction-on-faction after Saddam was deposed.

Yes, Saddam invaded Kuwait, possibly for good reason. But how him invading a neighbor who may have been stealing oil as alleged becomes a matter where the US, which is half a world away, has the right to intervene does not make sense to me. He probably did shoot missiles at planes that were invading his airspace. What would the US do if a foreign country flew planes in our airspace to shoot down our defenses? I apply the Golden Rule and find most of the arguments for war to be rubbish.I realize the “stealing oil” assertion was Saddam’s argument, but that has pretty much been discounted. The more likely thing was that he had gone into debt in the Iran war and demanded that Kusait pay for some of his debt. Kuwait wouldn’t, and he invaded.

Of course most countries are racial simply because the people in an area tend to be alike after enough time. But that is wholly different than purposefully creating a racial country. If I said I wanted to create a White Homeland I’d be ridiculed. If I tried to I’d probably end up on the wrong end of US and western power guns.That’s exactly what the Soviet Union did when it created all of the “stans” out of the Soviet Central Asian provinces. That’s what the Sudan partition did. It’s not all that odd.

I generally condemn terrorism. Which is why I condemn the terrorism that created Israel. But most Muslims will tolerate Jews and Christians. You seem to be misinformed about this. They are far less tolerant of people who are not of an Abrahamic religion. While condemning terrorism I fully realize that this is often just a label. We could just as easily call the American revolutionaries terrorists. In fact the British did.

If you told Sudanese Christians they are well tolerated by Muslims, I think they would tell you a very different point of view. And the de facto Christian slaves in Saudi Arabia would as well. And, of course, it’s Muslims who are bombing churches in Iraq and Egypt, and shooting Christians down.

The American Revolution was virtually a civil war-a secession. Remember how the revolutionaries initially called for their “rights as Englishmen”?

 

[GEddie]

Modern Israel was born out of terror. If a person does just a minimal amount of research they can learn of how settlers engaged in deadly terrorism against the British in order to get them to give up control of the land of Palestine. The King David Hotel Bombing is one of the worst examples. In this incident the Jewish settlers dressed as Arabs in an attempt to pin the blame for the deadly terrorist act on Arabs.

Modern Israel is hostile to Christianity. The cross is a much hated symbol. It was removed from official cityscape pictures of Jerusalem where they rose above the buildings. The plus symbol is avoided in math because it is a type of cross. There are many stories of Orthodox and Catholic priests suffering terrible treatment in modern Israel including being assaulted and spat upon.

I can think of no good reason to support Israel as a nation as a Christian. Many folks do, particularly Christian Zionists, who believe that modern Israel will bring about the end times. This is particularly terrible and wrong idea that came from dispensationalism.

I doubt very much that the Muslim Palestine State (everybody seems to think that “Palestinians” as a group are Christian, but they were overwhelmingly Muslim in 1948, and more so now) would be any friendlier to Christianity than is Israel.

Israel has made every concession to allow religious expression of other faiths within it’s territory (whatever individual Israelis may do or say). Compare that to religious policy in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

If Israelis really avoid the + sign, what do they use in it’s place???

 

[exnihilo]

The “oil for food” program was designed to relieve that situation. Saddam, of course, appropriated it in order to arm his supporters and bribe UN officials. That was his responsibility, not ours. And I would not defend Albright on any subject that I know of.

Well that is US propaganda. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not. But what was the justification for the embargo? It was that Iraq invaded Kuwait for which they might have had justification. You are free to think American politicians had a particular insight into the truth of the matter. Personally given their universal incompetence I doubt it. We do know that the US government supported lies in their original justification for war. A Kuwaiti officials daughter testified in Congress that Iraqi soldiers were disconnecting babies from life support machines in the hospital. This alleged barbarity was supposedly a chief reason for attacking Iraq. So when you go back to the very beginning of the US’s decision to attack Iraq, and it was an attack since they did nothing to us, you find lies. Why would I believe the official story after that? The whole stance against Iraq was built on lies.

Seems to me this is one of those matters that is best left up to the countries in that region. Of course Kuwait has a lot of oil which makes their sovereignty very important to the US.

“Not a nice guy”??? He was well beyond being “not a nice guy”. I’ll agree that there were leftist ideologues in the U.S. who really believed in Stalin, but many despised him for the murderer he was. It has to be admitted that many were ambivalent because, until after the war, the media painted him in rosy colors. Some bought it and some didn’t.

He was a terrible person, like most politicians including those in the US. He killed people. We kill people. We are always justified though of course.

The media lied about Stalin *because * the US was partnered with him. Supposedly the government always has the real info. But here their intelligence failed and they were relying on newspaper reports? That seems unlikely and mighty convenient.

I have books published from the time documenting Stalin’s evil from a Christian author. It was known by people in power what was going on. But the government got its court media to participate in the lie. The media, then as now, are mouthpieces for the government.

That’s exactly what the Soviet Union did when it created all of the “stans” out of the Soviet Central Asian provinces. That’s what the Sudan partition did. It’s not all that odd.

And the British created countries like Iraq, which is composed of many ethnicities - leading to tension and strife, and gave Arabia to the House of Saud. But the point isn’t what happens but the fact that racial thinking is condemned by society and our government. If it is wrong then it should be wrong everywhere and always. I didn’t make that rule up or even defend it. But those who do need to provide an answer for why it is OK sometimes to create racial homelands. Why does our government investigate its own citizens who want racial homelands for its people while giving billions of those same citizen’s money to a country that exists for just that reason?

If you told Sudanese Christians they are well tolerated by Muslims, I think they would tell you a very different point of view. And the de facto Christian slaves in Saudi Arabia would as well. And, of course, it’s Muslims who are bombing churches in Iraq and Egypt, and shooting Christians down.

The American Revolution was virtually a civil war-a secession. Remember how the revolutionaries initially called for their “rights as Englishmen”?

I’m not saying Christians are always and everywhere in Muslim lands treated well. But if you look at it from their perspective the US interferes through politics and war in all of their countries. What is it when we launch missiles from the sea and kill people in aspirin factories we claim are terrorist targets? When we do it is peace keeping. When they do it is terrorism.

The Brits referred to it as the war of colonial insurrection. They killed their countrymen because they were rebelling as all governments do almost without exception.

I doubt very much that the Muslim Palestine State (everybody seems to think that “Palestinians” as a group are Christian, but they were overwhelmingly Muslim in 1948, and more so now) would be any friendlier to Christianity than is Israel.

Israel has made every concession to allow religious expression of other faiths within it’s territory (whatever individual Israelis may do or say). Compare that to religious policy in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

My position is to not interfere with these people’s lives. As to how it would be under other circumstances none can say. I agree Saudi Arabia is very anti-Christian. Which makes the US’s support for them very hard to explain and deeply disturbing. Iran is not that bad - though they get weary of US instigated rebellions and puppets.

If Israelis really avoid the + sign, what do they use in it’s place???

An inverted ‘T’: ﬩

Plus sign

 

[GEddie]

We support the KSA because we need the oil. Full stop. Energy is not a luxury to a modern nation, it is a necessity.

If you don’t like it, blame our citizens who are afraid of nuclear power and don’t want birds disturbed by windmills or caribou disturbed by oilrigs in Alaska, etc.

If Anybody living in the USA says Israel should not exist because injustices were committed to form it, logically they should give their house keys to an Indian and leave for England/Spain/Germany, etc.

ICXC NIKA

(PS, thanx on the plus sign info.)