Why have Evangelicals allied themselves with Israel & Zionists?

[JSmitty2005]

Fredricks:

Ok, I am…going to shut up I suppose. This has been interesting to say the least! I learn more everyday.

Don’t listen to me! I don’t even know what I believe w/ regard to the Jews. I’m just throwing stuff out there that I’ve read on the net. I’m having a hard time reconciling past Church teachings with present ones.

 

[Fredricks]

JSmitty2005:

There is a key word in what you wrote. Can you find it?

Acts 21
I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city. I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."

 

[Fredricks]

JSmitty2005:

Don’t listen to me! I don’t even know what I believe w/ regard to the Jews. I’m just throwing stuff out there that I’ve read on the net. I’m having a hard time reconciling past Church teachings with present ones.

Jsmitty, you are a Catholic! That is one of the benefits of being a Catholic, you do not HAVE to reconcile, you just need to find the churches teaching. You dont have to figure out what you believe. Quit soundling like one of us! You and a couple of other groups have the market cornered on certainity, that is why you guys are so fun, and frustrating to debate! I am sure it is in the Cathechism or someone can direct you to it. I am not an expert but there is an official teaching on most things it seems. Not saying I think it is right, but its official. Of course I see contradictions in Catholicism over the years but thats why I am a Protestant, well obviously not the only reason. But you know what I mean.
The Popes reaching out to other Christians is a good thing, Think what would have happened if Paul had not reached out to Corinth or Christ spoke to the different churches in Revelations!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fredricks:

Jsmitty, you are a Catholic! That is one of the benefits of being a Catholic, you do not HAVE to reconcile, you just need to find the churches teaching. You dont have to figure out what you believe.

It’s much harder than you think after Vatican II. That’s if you hold it as being a truly valid council. The ones that don’t do not have much of a problem in knowing what the Church taught since She was very clear before. Now, the question is whether or not the Church teaches what She always taught. If She doesn’t then the gates of Hell have prevailed which makes Christ a liar and not God so this is certainly something I’m struggling with because I have no intention of admitting that Christ is not God and that Catholicism is false. As for the Church’s former stance on the Jews, see here.

 

[Eden]

JSmitty: Look into the medieval history of Jews who were being persecuted and appealed to the Holy See for protection because they knew they would get it and to the numerous protestations of the popes against mob violence against the Jewish people. The SSPX sites you are reading are presenting an “extremist” type of message. When I Googled that quote from Padre Pio, one of the results was the Stormfront website, for heaven’s sake! Do you really want to be associated with that?!

In fact, look at the pre-Vatican II behavior of Pope Pius XII. He saved thousands of Jews!

 

[lcalise]

JSmitty2005:

I’m having a hard time reconciling past Church teachings with present ones.

What’s there to reconcile? In the whole idea of “no Salvation outside of the Church”, the ‘Church’ has never been defined dogmatically.

Personally, I believe that many Jewish people fall under the exemption of insurmountable ignorance and have the baptism of desire. You, or Padre Pio, could disagree with me and neither of us would be definitively wrong. Obviously, one would be right, we’ll only know that when the argument doesn’t matter.

Your page of quotes does not represent the Church’s opinion of the Jews, per se. It is mainly opinion. The only quotes that can be valid testaments of Church position are those from Popes and only if they were speaking infallibly. Many saints, btw, have contradictory opinions, like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine on the gravity of lying. Or St. Jerome’s belief in the virginity of St. Joseph. Saints, church fathers, and papal opinions have never been binding to Catholics.

 

[JSmitty2005]

lcalise:

What’s there to reconcile? In the whole idea of “no Salvation outside of the Church”, the ‘Church’ has never been defined dogmatically.

I don’t think that this is true, but I’ll have to look into it. Certainly the Church has dogmatically defined Herself!

 

[lcalise]

JSmitty2005:

I don’t think that this is true, but I’ll have to look into it. Certainly the Church has dogmatically defined Herself!

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

 

[JSmitty2005]

lcalise:

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Icalise, I’ve read that many times before. The Church Fathers are not infallible and you know that appealing to Vatican II or the Catechism means next to nothing to me.

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as “part” of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes thourghout the centuries.

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

 

[pro_universal]

lcalise:

Could you reference/ document this? You provided a link about the wall, and I’ve only ever heard of Israelis demolishing homes as a defensive action, albeit maybe too extreme, against people like Hamas members.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3526791.stm

lcalise:

To some extent, probably, but just don’t try and portray Palestinian Christians as brothers in arms with Palestinian Muslims. I’ve seen the way Christians are treated in the Middle East, and that would certainly be a ridiculous notion.

natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/112202/112202r.htm

lcalise:

That’s not true at all! How many Evangelicals have you asked about this issue? I had discussions like this with Evangelical/ other Christians and they absolutely care about ALL Christians in the Middle East. That is why they support Israel because it doesn’t demand second class citizenry for Christians and death or imprisonment for Muslim apostates!

Yes, it does demand just that. Palestinian Christians in the west bank have no citizenship, voting rights, or guarantee that they won’t be killed in an air strike.

lcalise:

Just wondering, what is your alternative? Give all lands to the Palestinians? How would that be good for Christianity in the Middle East? I can appreciate the argument that founding Israel and the annexation were not justified… but since they happened, what’s the alternative?

lcalise:

Hamas won. Hamas Hamas that espouses the extremist view of just treatment for non-Muslims. I think you should be more concerned about what that entails for the future of Palestinian Christians than whether a Christian might become collateral damage in an Israeli military op.

I’m certainly less worried about Hamas than about the settlement construction and wall. Hamas has religious freedom written into its charter, and has good relations with the Christian leadership in Bethlehem. Israel, regardless of its constitution, is willing to disenfranchise, bomb, and demolish the homes and lives of anyone in the west bank.

lcalise:

…you mean like freedom of religion, that human right that every other middle eastern country denies its citizens in some capacity or another?

I guess, I appreciate your argument against Israel as a “coulda, woulda, shoulda” but not for moving forward.

It’s ongoing. Israel continues to build settlements, it continues to use military arms against civilians, and it can pull back any time it wants. There will be no moving forward until it abides by the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions that call for a return to the pre-1967 borders, and until it recognizes the legitimate right of the Palestinians to live in their homes under a government that they participate in.

Certainly, absent a pull-out, I think a just resolution would be granting voting rights to all the Palestinians in the west bank. There’s a reason why, even though Israel claims the territory and builds on it, they don’t do that.

 

[lcalise]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3526791.stm

Um… that didn’t say anything about them tearing down Palestinian (Christian’s) homes. That just said the settlements grow despite Gaza pullout. That wasn’t what I was asking you to document.

natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/112202/112202r.htm

To begin, this person is exceedingly biased towards American conservatives and evangelicals-- that’s the whole point of the article! It’s just a gripe saying Israel sucks. And what about the PA and palestinian muslims?
“Hannan said Christians are now being treated as second-class citizens in the Holy Land because Islamists dominate the Palestinian Authority.”
“The PA police burst into a Jericho monastery and tried to seize
control of the building. Four nuns and monks were expelled. Two
American nuns – including Sister Maria…managed to remain in the monastery, and are refusing to leave. Sister Maria was injured by PA police officers during the course of the initial police invasion.” (Associated Press, Jan.18, 2000)
“Two American courts–one in Illinois, the other in North Carolina,
have granted asylum to Palestinian Christian Arabs on the grounds that they would be persecuted for their religious beliefs if they return to PA-controlled territory.” (Jerusalem Report, April 2, 1998)
"at least one hundred Christians who live in areas ruled by the Palestinian Authority have been arrested and imprisoned for holding church services or conducting public Christian practices without authorization.(FrontPageMag. Dec. 2003)

Yes, it does demand just that. Palestinian Christians in the
west bank have no citizenship, voting rights, or guarantee that they won’t be killed in an air strike.

No, palestinian christians don’t have citizenship in Israel because they aren’t Israelis. Did they vote in the Palestinian elections,
because that’s where they would vote, not in Israel, unless they
immigrated there and became citizens? In Palestine, all Palestinians are suject to Sharia law and that’s only going to get worse. Sharia law demands unequal status for non-Muslims; the Israelis don’t make that distinction as far as I know (You could point out some legal document to counter).
They also don’t hang gays for being gay or stone women for being raped (things justified by Sharia in other countries)… go figure.

Hamas has religious freedom written into its
charter, and has good relations with the Christian leadership in
Bethlehem.

You’re standing on your head and telling the world it’s upside-down. Religious ‘tolerance’ in the Hamas charter can only happen under the ‘wind of Islam’ meaning that Christians and Jews have to live under ‘sovereign’ Islam. Sharia law gives them second-class status. And people have different opinions!
" “It is becoming impossible for Christians to live under the extremist Hamas-led government in Bethlehem,” a Palestinian Christian businessman, who asked to remain anonymous, told israel today."

Israel, regardless of its constitution, is willing to
disenfranchise, bomb, and demolish the homes and lives of anyone in the west bank.

Maybe if Hamas and other Palestinian extremists didn’t hide themselves in the masses and follow that same Geneva Convention you hold to Israel then few if any innocents would be killed. Blame the Palestinians who don’t give a damn whether their countrymen are bombed for their actions, not Israel for retaliating.

it continues to use military arms against civilians

Civilians are not targets! Civilian establishments lose their protective status when they house combatants. Should Israel be more precise? Probably, but I’d be pretty damn frustrated if every time my people were attacked I had to pussyfoot to get only the attackers. I’m not saying that’s right, but it’s a fact of warfare. People get sloppy when desperate.

and it can pull back any time it wants.There will be no moving forward until it abides by the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions that call for a return to the pre-1967 borders,

To what end? Hamas won’t stop until there is no Israel. Arabs fought a war because they wanted Israel gone. How will pulling back do anything except lower the buffer of security?

There’s a reason why, even though Israel claims the territory and builds on it, they don’t do that.

Um, duh. Palestinians want the annihilation of Israel, as shown in their election of Hamas.

 

[lcalise]

Icalise, I’ve read that many times before. The Church Fathers are not infallible and you know that appealing to Vatican II or the Catechism means next to nothing to me.

Well, if Vatican II isn’t a legitimate council then Catholicism is wrong and there’s no point in arguing anyway!

I don’t know where to get access to English translations of these things, so I don’t know how to put them in context. I mean, take enough quotes and you could make Michael Moore look like an anorexic conservative

 

[JSmitty2005]

lcalise:

Well, if Vatican II isn’t a legitimate council then Catholicism is wrong and there’s no point in arguing anyway!

I know this, but there’s also the issue of intellectual honesty. It seems like quite a stretch to reconcile post V2 teachings with previous ones. Actually, I was thinking about this last night and it hit me - there shouldn’t even be a need to reconcile any kind of teachings. The very fact that there’s even a question of reconciling the 2 disproves the Church. I understand that the claims of infallibility and never-changing doctrine are hard to live up to but the Church did it for 1960+ years…until Vatican II. It’s really quite obvious when you read the encyclicals of the popes prior to John XXIII. The Church has changed. It is not the same no matter how much She claims otherwise.

 

[Alfie]

JSmitty2005:

Why have Evangelicals allied themselves so closely with the Zionist Jews? I don’t understand this. Christians in the Holy Land have more favorable views of Muslims than they do Jews, so why do these American Christians feel so drawn to them?

Have you ever heard of Chuch Missler? He has a website called

66/40

He could give you a good perspective on why Evangelicals support Israel

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alfie:

Have you ever heard of Chuch Missler? He has a website called

66/40

He could give you a good perspective on why Evangelicals support Israel

That link doesn’t work. :nope:

 

[lcalise]

JSmitty2005:

It’s really quite obvious when you read the encyclicals of the popes prior to John XXIII.

Well what about Pius IX’s encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), which states, “We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.” And Fr. Feeney was excommunicated before Vatican II.

Regardless, the fact is that Judaism is more in line with Christianity than Islam and Israel is better ideologically (the physically is debatable via pro_universal ) for middle eastern Christianity.

 

[Alfie]

JSmitty2005:

That link doesn’t work. :nope:

Try this one
http://www.khouse.org/

 

[Alfie]

Alfie:

Try this one
http://www.khouse.org/

OK what am I doing wrong? Don’t I have to put the website name in the hyperlink box or just hightlight the link and than put it in the hyperlink box?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alfie:

OK what am I doing wrong? Don’t I have to put the website name in the hyperlink box or just hightlight the link and than put it in the hyperlink box?

khouse.org/ <----That one works!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alfie:

OK what am I doing wrong? Don’t I have to put the website name in the hyperlink box or just hightlight the link and than put it in the hyperlink box?

I think that you put the address in the “text” box rather than the “URL” box. When using the hyperlink option, you first type what you want to be displayed then you hit okay. Next you type the actual address that you want the link to go to.