Post by: Stand_watie on August 05, 2006, 02:50:48 PM
*****
from his website
http://davidbrog.com/index.php
About The Author
David Brog lives and writes in Washington, DC. He worked in the United States Senate for seven years, rising to be chief of staff to a senior United States senator and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to his time on Capitol Hill, Brog served as an executive at America Online and practiced corporate law in Tel Aviv, Israel and Philadelphia, PA. Brog is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
Preface
This is a book about politics and religion, Christians and Jews, anti-Semites and righteous Gentiles. It would be difficult to find more emotional and controversial topics about which to write. Anyone who wants to objectively analyze my ideas on these difficult subjects will need to factor in my background and the biases I may bring to my analysis. I thus owe it to you, the reader, to state at the outset just who I am and why I have written this book. Starting with religion, I am a Jew. I am not a Messianic Jew or a Jew for JesusI dont believe that the Messiah has ever appeared on Earth. Nor am I an alienated or self-hating Jew. I embrace my Jewish faith and seek knowledge of my Creator through the paths and texts provided to me by my Jewish ancestors. While I do not observe all of the Halacha (Jewish law), I do recognize the Halacha as a central component of my religion. If there be fault in my failure to observe it, the fault lies with me, not with the law. Moving on to politics, I am a Republican. Yet it is important to note that I spent my entire career in politics working for the most liberal of Republican senators, Arlen Specter. I worked for Senator Specter for more than seven years, first as his chief counsel and later as his chief of staff. Senator Specter is a vocal champion of causes that are anathema to the Christian Right, namely legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research. While I do not share my former bosss certainty on these issues, I represented him zealously the entire time I was in his employ. Thus I write this book not as a stalwart of the Christian Right, but as one who has seen difficult combat with the Christian Right. My curiosity about the topic of Christian Zionism stems from my years working on Capitol Hill. During this period, I was privileged to meet a number of Christian Zionists who impressed me by their devotion to Israel and their apparent love for the Jewish people. If there is one great theme to Jewish history, it is our lonely walk through the centuries. The Jews have known no great allies, no stalwart friendswe have lived and died facing a hostile world alone. Thus I found it intriguing to think that, finally, we had some very big friends standing on our side.
Yet the media told me not to get my hopes up. Television, newspapers, and magazines all informed me that Christian Zionists were not real friends of the Jews but enemies in disguise who supported Israel out of a sick desire to see the Jews killed or converted at the end of days. I started researching this book in a simple quest to discover the truth, to see if these purported friends were what they claimed to be.
What I learned in the course of my research far surpassed what I had expected to find. I became convinced that the evangelical Christians who support Israel today are nothing less than the theological heirs of the righteous Gentiles who sought to save Jews from the Holocaust. This book represents the fruits of my search for the truth. This book is also my attempt to thank those whom the truth has vindicated and exalted. It is my great hope that this book can contribute in some small way to a reconciliation between Christian and Jew, which is long overdue.
This book has been a labor of love. And like all expressions of love, it has left my heart bigger than it was before I began. I hope that it will have the same effect on you, dear reader.
Post by: roo_ster on August 05, 2006, 03:37:53 PM
Israel is a decent country in the midst of darkest depravity and savagery. It is not perfect, but its enemies are so foul as to make Israel shine like a diamond in a goat's ass.
To support Israel is merely an expression of Civilization, such as to favor:
Beauty over ugliness
Love over hatred
Gentility over savagery
Good over evil
Knowledge over ignorance
Wisdom over foolishnes
...(You get the picture)
My Christian faith does play some role, as well. It is supplementary, however, as I believed as I stated above before putting on the new man. (Unless you consider what is morally good and seeking to promote the same is inextricably linked to the Christian component of Western Civilization...)
To be specific, my faith tells me that those that don't do right by God's chosen people will not prosper. Also, more generally, that I am to seek and support that which is good an abjure what is evil.
Last, Israel is an expression of Western Civilization set amongst barbarity. I have enough pride and confidence in the superiority of Western Civilization to back it in the face of all comers.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 05, 2006, 06:00:56 PM
What I find fascinating about the current Israel/Lebanon fight is that the Hezbollah have managed to get the upper hand in the public relations fight.
They started the fight, they're the ones who are causing innocent Lebanese to be killed in attacks by Israel by hiding their missile batteries in civilian areas (unless you accept the premise that Israel should just sit back and not respond), yet almost the entire world blames Israel.
And then there's the issue of the Hezbollah sympathizers living within these neighborhoods. These people certainly know where the rockets are being launched from. Yet they claim victimhood status, and won't give up the terrorists who are raining down death to their neighbors.
I live in Milwaukee, which is about 90 miles north of Chicago. For sake of argument, let's say that Chicago is a sovereign country, and has the best-equipped and trained military in North America.
Now, if I know that a couple of my neighbors are launching rockets into Chicago and killing civilians, what would I do?
I'd pack my bags and get out of Dodge ASAP, because I would expect Mayor Daley to attack my neighborhood with full force.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 05, 2006, 06:05:17 PM
Quote from: jfruser
At its heart, my support for Israel (over its enemies) is pretty simple:
Israel is a decent country in the midst of darkest depravity and savagery. It is not perfect, but its enemies are so foul as to make Israel shine like a diamond in a goat's ass.
To support Israel is merely an expression of Civilization, such as to favor:
Beauty over ugliness
Love over hatred
Gentility over savagery
Good over evil
Knowledge over ignorance
Wisdom over foolishnes
...(You get the picture)
My Christian faith does play some role, as well. It is supplementary, however, as I believed as I stated above before putting on the new man. (Unless you consider what is morally good and seeking to promote the same is inextricably linked to the Christian component of Western Civilization...)
To be specific, my faith tells me that those that don't do right by God's chosen people will not prosper. Also, more generally, that I am to seek and support that which is good an abjure what is evil.
Last, Israel is an expression of Western Civilization set amongst barbarity. I have enough pride and confidence in the superiority of Western Civilization to back it in the face of all comers.
To put a more specific theological point upon your correct premise I'll add this reading and commentaryIsrael is a decent country in the midst of darkest depravity and savagery. It is not perfect, but its enemies are so foul as to make Israel shine like a diamond in a goat's ass.
To support Israel is merely an expression of Civilization, such as to favor:
Beauty over ugliness
Love over hatred
Gentility over savagery
Good over evil
Knowledge over ignorance
Wisdom over foolishnes
...(You get the picture)
My Christian faith does play some role, as well. It is supplementary, however, as I believed as I stated above before putting on the new man. (Unless you consider what is morally good and seeking to promote the same is inextricably linked to the Christian component of Western Civilization...)
To be specific, my faith tells me that those that don't do right by God's chosen people will not prosper. Also, more generally, that I am to seek and support that which is good an abjure what is evil.
Last, Israel is an expression of Western Civilization set amongst barbarity. I have enough pride and confidence in the superiority of Western Civilization to back it in the face of all comers.
Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed."
Point (from Christian zionist John Hagee): God has promised to bless the man or nation that blesses the Chosen People. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the nations that have blessed the Jewish people have had the blessing of God; the nations that have cursed the Jewish people have experienced the curse of God. (my own point, growing up in evangelical Christian churches, this is what I cut my teeth upon. This has been preached in evangelical Christian churches since at least the 1970's)
Again from Hagee
It is not possible to say, "I am a Christian" and not love the Jewish people. The Bible teaches that love is not what you say, but what you do. (1 John 3:18) "A bell is not a bell until you ring it, a song is not a song until you sing it, love is not love until you share it."
While some Christians try to deny the connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jews of the world, Jesus never denied his Jewishness. He was born Jewish, He was circumcised on the eighth day in keeping with Jewish tradition, He had his Bar Mitzvah on his 13th birthday, He kept the law of Moses, He wore the Prayer Shawl Moses commanded all Jewish men to wear, He died on a cross with an inscription over His head, "King of the Jews!"
Jesus considered the Jewish people His family. Jesus said (Matthew 25:40) "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren (the Jewish people& Gentiles were never called His brethren), ye have done it unto me."
Post by: roo_ster on August 06, 2006, 01:34:51 AM
Quote from: Monkeyleg
What I find fascinating about the current Israel/Lebanon fight is that the Hezbollah have managed to get the upper hand in the public relations fight.
They started the fight, they're the ones who are causing innocent Lebanese to be killed in attacks by Israel by hiding their missile batteries in civilian areas (unless you accept the premise that Israel should just sit back and not respond), yet almost the entire world blames Israel.
And then there's the issue of the Hezbollah sympathizers living within these neighborhoods. These people certainly know where the rockets are being launched from. Yet they claim victimhood status, and won't give up the terrorists who are raining down death to their neighbors.
The upper hand with whom? They started the fight, they're the ones who are causing innocent Lebanese to be killed in attacks by Israel by hiding their missile batteries in civilian areas (unless you accept the premise that Israel should just sit back and not respond), yet almost the entire world blames Israel.
And then there's the issue of the Hezbollah sympathizers living within these neighborhoods. These people certainly know where the rockets are being launched from. Yet they claim victimhood status, and won't give up the terrorists who are raining down death to their neighbors.
With muslims who would see Israel pushed into the sea and all Jews put to the sword? With Euro-weenies who have lost confidence in their civilization, who have harbored anti-semitism in their breast for decades (centuries?)...and are heartily sick of hiding it these years since the Nazi massacre of the Jews? With the same crowd in the US that backs the terrorists over our boys?
One way to judge folks' worth is by the character of their enemies...
Post by: Iain on August 06, 2006, 05:10:32 AM
Quote from: jfruser
With Euro-weenies who have lost confidence in their civilization, who have harbored anti-semitism in their breast for decades (centuries?)...and are heartily sick of hiding it these years since the Nazi massacre of the Jews?
I have to ask - why does this roll off the tongue so easily? It seems that so often in these debates Europeans are causally painted as anti-semites. There definitely are European anti-semites, and there definitely are Europeans who criticise Israel, they are not necessarily one and the same. That said, a recent editorial in the Independent was entitled 'You don't have to be anti-semitic to think that Israel shouldn't exist, but it does help' ( I possibly paraphrase) which did detail some of the mail the author had received since his last editorial on the subject of Israel - my eyebrows were certainly raised. Still, that's only some.
The interesting thing is that my pro-Israel friend has been upset by the BBC's coverage, yet a good number of responses to the BBC's Have Your Say debates have questioned the media's unquestioning acceptance of the Zionist agenda. Amuses me.
Post by: Guest on August 06, 2006, 05:54:42 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 06, 2006, 07:05:43 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 07:48:35 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote from: jfruser
With Euro-weenies who have lost confidence in their civilization, who have harbored anti-semitism in their breast for decades (centuries?)...and are heartily sick of hiding it these years since the Nazi massacre of the Jews?
I have to ask - why does this roll off the tongue so easily? It seems that so often in these debates Europeans are causally painted as anti-semites. There definitely are European anti-semites, and there definitely are Europeans who criticise Israel, they are not necessarily one and the same...In the case of myself, and I'm sure yourself, this overly broad brush painting of Christians by Jews (and the intellectual left) and Europeans by Americans (and Zionists) might be encapsulated in the expression regarding lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas. In my thread about questioners of holocaust numbers, I lay down a similar caveat.
Certainly one doesn't have to be an anti-semite to be an anti-zionist - there are very religious Jews who are anti-zionist by religious principle. More widespread than outright anti-Zionism, the moral equivalancy thinking of America's political far left (which I'd say is about the center of the European political spectrum) has plenty of Jews (ethnically speaking), and has come about I think from intelligentsia gravitating into the media. I read the english version Ha'aretz and think there is plenty of that even in the Israeli media.
*To speak fairly, my own personal knowledge of "Traditional Jewish attitudes" towards Christians is from reading, electronic media and internet discussions. To my knowledge, with the exception of several MD's and Psychiatrists who never offered comment, all the Jews who have known me to be a Christian personally have been Christians that I've known through church who were Jewish only in ethnicity.
Post by: Iain on August 06, 2006, 08:43:08 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Europeans are definitely anti-semites, as a general statement. The Germans, oddly or not so oddly, are the most friendly. The French among the worst. The English are no bed of roses, as I learned
during my stay at Oxford 1984-1985. Anti-semitism there has been traditionally an attitude of the Left.
I'm disappointed that such a general statement has been made, but if it truly matches your experience then than that is your experience and I am surprised and again disappointed. As a general statement, Americans...?during my stay at Oxford 1984-1985. Anti-semitism there has been traditionally an attitude of the Left.
Quote from: The Rabbi
And while I wouldnt say that anyone who criticizes Israel's policies is an anti-semite (and there is room for legitimate debate), it is amazing how often the two correlate.
They do, I entirely agree. I guess there seems to be a valid place in this discussion for comment on the historical existence of Christian anti-semitism. Unbelievers, Christ-killers, where does it stem from, and why the reversal? Revelation has been in the Bible for some time now, so if modern Christian support even partly stems from apocalyptic beliefs why not in the past?
Post by: lee n. field on August 06, 2006, 09:25:47 AM
Quote
The first chapter of the book -'The Rise of Replacement Theology' - might provide some enlightenment for you here. I know that for me it was a light bulb going off in my head which explained to me *traditional Jewish attitudes* toward Christians.
The use of the term "replacement theology" is a red flag. It's a derogatory term used only by dispensationalists, against anyone (like me) who disagrees with dispensationalism's "two people's of God, two seperate destinies" theology (which theology when worked through to it's logical conclusion has some soteriological consequences you probably wouldn't like).How does St. Paul treat the Abrahamic covenant?
(For those of you heathen who don't understand a word of this, it's an inhouse debate, one that often generates a lot of acrimony.)
Post by: Art Eatman on August 06, 2006, 09:47:26 AM
Easy enough to go along with the analogy of Israel standing out like a diamond in a goat's ass. One of the best I've heard.
This particular go-'round is easy; no religious thought required: A bunch of badasses spent years building up materiel to use in a manner best described as War Crimes. WC is attacking civilian targets in a "to whom it may concern" manner, even when it's not specifically deliberate--but, which in this case, it is.
So, the IDF is going in to kick butt and take names.
More power to them.
We already know from the last 58 years of photgraphed history that negotiation doesn't work, ceasefires don't work, land-for-peace doesn't work and recognition of a Palestinian state does not work. The Jihadists are gonna do their damndest to kill all the Jews and eradicate Israel.
Now let me digress: I find this "Palestinian" thing amusing. Let me offer a bit of doggerel from BEFORE there was any sort of "Israel" as came into being in 1948. I learned this bit of a song back in the mid-1940s, as best I recollect:
"Come all with big, long noses; come join the League of Moses; fight, fight, fight for Palestine.
Scorners of pork and gravy, come join the Yiddish Navy, fight, fight, fight for Palestine."
Sounds to me that Jews = Palestinians was The Way It Was, once upon a time.
, Art
Post by: Art Eatman on August 06, 2006, 09:52:24 AM
Elmer Keith was a generation ahead of me, or a bit more. Howsomever, I sorta feel at my 72 years that I have earned my own right to the "Hell, I was there!" bit. 'Cause I wuz, for a lot of stuff. Every now and then I sorta feel the need to tell somebody, "No, Sonny-boy, that AIN'T the way it was."
Adn while I'm grumping, lemme add that every time I hear that anti-Semitic phrase, "Zionist agenda", I wanna go off in the corner and puke.
Art
Post by: roo_ster on August 06, 2006, 11:46:25 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote from: jfruser
With Euro-weenies who have lost confidence in their civilization, who have harbored anti-semitism in their breast for decades (centuries?)...and are heartily sick of hiding it these years since the Nazi massacre of the Jews?
I have to ask - why does this roll off the tongue so easily? It seems that so often in these debates Europeans are causally painted as anti-semites. There definitely are European anti-semites, and there definitely are Europeans who criticise Israel, they are not necessarily one and the same.Euro-weenies/Antisemitism
My term, "Euro-weenie" combines two concepts: european-ness and weenie-ness. There are europeans who are weenies and europeans who are not. Those who are not weenies can be counted on to fight for their civilization. Those who are weenies not only will not fight, they don't think much of their civilization and can be counted on to take the enemies of civilizations' part.
Why do I think that antisemitism is pretty thick in Europe? Well, I ask Europeans. It is amazing what folks will tell you if you only ask*. It helps to grease the skids with a comment like, "Hey, it is not necessarily antisemitism to criticize Israeli policy." Give it a straight, earnest delivery and no telling what might fall out of someone's mouth. That's one way I figured out so many (not all, just a majority) of my muslim colleagues at work & school** were antisemites.
Why is it so easy to bring out the jew-hater in folks (euros, especially?)? I am not certain, but I suspect it is just the same feelings that existed pre-WW2 finally bubbling into the open, again. After WW2, people in polite company had to keep a lid on it, for fear of looking like a Nazi ogre.
But, hey, that was 60 years ago! I didn't send anybody to the gas chamber! Now, the Jews have their own country & have soundly whipped the Arabs. Repeatedly. Also, Jew-animosity can be cloaked in progressive secular (AKA, "Marxist") dogma: The Jews are the oppressor! They take land away form the poor and give it to other Jews! They are the worst sort of imperialists! They steal the labor of hte Palestinians and give nothing in return. Blah, blah, blah. [Insert marxist boilerplate repeatedly and liberally]
* A local newpaper guy got a local "moderate" muslim leader to admit he beats his wife on the record, with a defense that it is part of his culture. And helps keep their women in line. (You can't make this sh!t up)
** A mix of US citizens & foreigners
Post by: Iain on August 06, 2006, 12:03:16 PM
Perhaps the people you have discussed this issue with tend to be Europeans because you are an American, and my experience has been the reverse. Purely anecdotally I've come across more pseudo-Nazi nonsense from Americans, but I have talked to far more Americans on the net than Europeans.
Art, I use the term in the context that I see it used, although not by all who have this idea that the media is overly pro-Israel. It's not my sentiment.
Post by: grampster on August 06, 2006, 01:00:36 PM
Any other argument aside, why wouldn't any sane person take up for Israel?
Look at it from a purely secular political stance and understand that Israel has, for the most part, given in to world opinion, left wing world opinion I might add, whose basis is "Why don't we all just get along, Israel, and you, Israel, do as we suggest." Which has been glorious appeasment on a grand scale. I almost puked when I read the dreck and tripe coming out of that Peanut Farmer's mouth about how he and his ilk had brought stability to the area by being appeasors, and how George Bush screwed it all up. Hell, the truth of it is, those appeasors have been keeping a war going on in the Middle East for nearly 60 years. Most of the Middle East, except for Syria, Iran and probably Saudi Arabia, have grudgingly accorded Israel their place. The rest of the civilized world ought to wake up, unite and isolate those 3 places and offer them the opportunity to join the world community or face the dismantling of their aggegious political establishments.
In another thread, one of the posters mentioned if the same people were in power in the West, such as Jimma Cahtah and his ilk, in the West, united with the left wing drive-by media, during WWII, more than likely we would still be at war with Germany and Japan. Why? Because the convential wisdom of the left dictates that by standing up to Nazism and Japanese fuedal emporer worship that presented us with a muderous manifest German/Japanese destiny, we would be creating more subscibers to their insanity. That notion was proven nuts then, and is just as crazy today.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 01:20:13 PM
Quote from: lee n. field
You know, in other environments (I'm thinking particularly of freerepublic.com) this discussion can turn into a 400+ post flamefest. Threads get closed, people get banned over it. APS is probably too small a venue for that (I sincerely hope), and a bit of a strange place for it to come up.
Well considering that the very first time I heard the term was reading this book, written by a Jew, I'd say that statement might be overly broad. I'd be happy to use the term you prefer to refer to 'Replacement theology' if you have one you think preferable. Paul's treatment of the Abrahamic covenent reads to me that gentiles, through faith may be added to the Abrahamic covenant, not that Jews, by race, have had the covenant revoked by God, and in fact my reading from a common sense perspective appears that he goes out of his way to reject that notion, particularly in Romans 11:26 where a contextual reading of his statement seems to specify quite clearly that "Israel" is the Jewish state/ethnic decendants of Abraham - he draws a clear distinction between "Israel" and gentiles saved by faith.Quote
The first chapter of the book -'The Rise of Replacement Theology' - might provide some enlightenment for you here. I know that for me it was a light bulb going off in my head which explained to me *traditional Jewish attitudes* toward Christians.
The use of the term "replacement theology" is a red flag. It's a derogatory term used only by dispensationalists, against anyone (like me) who disagrees with dispensationalism's "two people's of God, two seperate destinies" theology (which theology when worked through to it's logical conclusion has some soteriological consequences you probably wouldn't like).How does St. Paul treat the Abrahamic covenant? ...I'm sure that (whatever you call yourself) and dispensationalists (of which I'm not sure that I myself am) argue that point. I don't intend to, I'm merely stating my opinion based upon reading Paul's words. Several germaine (I think) passages are excerpted below with some sections bolded/underlined by me.
**
Galatians 3:15 - 29
"Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Romans 11: 1 -32
The Remnant of Israel
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijahhow he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."
Ingrafted Branches
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If SOME of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in amongTHE OTHERS[/u] and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
All Israel Will Be Saved
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Post by: The Rabbi on August 06, 2006, 01:39:51 PM
On replacement theology, that was always my understanding of Christianity: The Jews rejected gods son and have been cast aside ever since. That seems consistent with a lot of things but if someone tells me I have the wrong idea about it I'll accept that. The "Two Covenant" strategy seems logically weak to me and raises many more issues than it solves.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 01:42:42 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
...On replacement theology, that was always my understanding of Christianity: The Jews rejected gods son and have been cast aside ever since. That seems consistent with a lot of things but if someone tells me I have the wrong idea about it I'll accept that. The "Two Covenant" strategy seems logically weak to me and raises many more issues than it solves.
What my reading of this book suggests Rabbi, is that that theology was the dominant theology of Christianity from Augustine through John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren of the mid-19th century. Understand if you can what a shock it is for a guy born in 1970, who's been through a HUGE spectrum of evangelical Protestant Christian churches and never heard that theology espoused as truth, but only as an example of "why the Catholics were wrong", to realize the breadth of the thinking throughout historical Christianity.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 01:57:42 PM
Which of you would actually be more interested in reading this book? I think the historical stuff alone is worth reading regardless of your theological background. If either of you is willing to promise me you'll read it, I'll mail it to you on my own dime. Ideally, whichever one of you I mail it to will mail it to the other to read after he finishes.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 01:59:42 PM
Post by: Iain on August 06, 2006, 02:17:00 PM
I am actually interested in reading the book, I missed the previously referred to friend's birthday last month so I was actually thinking about buying him a copy. He'll most likely appreciate it, and I'll be able to borrow it. Kind offer.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 06, 2006, 02:39:01 PM
Quote from: Iain
Philo-, -phile, -philia and others - from the Greek.
I am actually interested in reading the book, I missed the previously referred to friend's birthday last month so I was actually thinking about buying him a copy. He'll most likely appreciate it, and I'll be able to borrow it. Kind offer.
If you'll send me your mailing address, I'll get it into the mail in the next week. P.S. could you please put something similar to "This is Ian from APS" in the subject line of your email? I have a terrible time with spam, and delete an awful lot of stuff from that email account. I'll respond to you with my work e-mail account which is much more reliable in getting the message through. I am actually interested in reading the book, I missed the previously referred to friend's birthday last month so I was actually thinking about buying him a copy. He'll most likely appreciate it, and I'll be able to borrow it. Kind offer.
Browse through the first chapter before you wrap it. I think you'll be a little unhappy with your (our) heritage - at the same time I think it will open your eyes regarding skepticism of Jewish folk regarding people of a Christian background. Of course you might actually be an Indian or Arab living in England, I'm just taking a guess based on probabilities of your geographical region that you're somewhat Christian by culture if not by actual intellectual choice.
Post by: El Tejon on August 06, 2006, 04:50:23 PM
Europeans as a matter of political reality must be anti-Jewish, or at least only anti-Israel (for now until population shifts and sharia can be enforced). Hate the Jews so you can maintain ties with the Middle East to check the USA, right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 06, 2006, 08:57:49 PM
Rabbi, it is not as if Jews were tossed aside. This would not make any sense in light of the Jewish background of the first Christians. The following will be shocking to some and probably very offensive to Jews. I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but the question is under discussion. If you are Jewish and wish not to be offended, I have given you fair warning. Judaism as a race and as a national religion with a theocratic state was only a temporary phase of the Christian church which was established in the third chapter of Genesis. That is, all true believers, from Enoch to Abraham to Moses and right up to John the Baptist and Paul, were Christians because they trusted in the Messiah (the Christ) that God would provide. Once the promised seed (Jesus the Christ) was crucified, that phase was ended, and Christianity/Judaism outgrew the racial boundaries that began with Abraham.
Genesis Chap. 3
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
This is known as the protoevangelium - the first promise of the Messiah.
Stand_watie, I think you misunderstand Paul's teaching on this, which seems fairly clear to me. From Abraham until today, there have been two Israels - the actual (spiritual) Israel consisting of people who have trusted in God the Father and in His Messiah, Jesus; and the national (racial) Israel. The Messianic Jew of today is a member of both groups, while Gentile Christians are real, spiritual Jews. "Jews" who do not believe in Christ are members of the racial and/or national Israel, while denying the God and the Messiah which their patriarchs and prophets believed in.
Romans, Chap. 9
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
Galations, Chap. 3
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 03:49:46 AM
(I'll add that I am laughing too hard to be offended.)
Post by: Laurent du Var on August 07, 2006, 07:47:28 AM
- How does this work ? I always read Euro this Euro that, does it mean all the
Europeans are the same, like the Norvegian and the Greek would think together
about their attitude towards Israel ? Last time I checked most of us have lots of
confidence in our civilisation, otherwise we'd be Americans by now.
Europeans as a matter of political reality must be anti-Jewish, or at least only anti-Israel (for now until population shifts and sharia can be enforced). Hate the Jews so you can maintain ties with the Middle East to check the USA, right?
- Interesting. Really. I haven't thought about that. A matter of political reality,
no less. This is so wrong not even the contrary can be true. Say, what's your profession again ?
Europeans are definitely anti-semites, as a general statement.
- No, they are not, your general statement is wrong and I don't even know how I would tend you my other cheek after a slap like that. Maybe you would like to kiss my bigger ones in the meantime ?
Just to stay on this topics level, which is way below usual APS standard,
I, as a, antisemite and arabic sharia admiring catholic support Israel
because I love Matis Yahu, I have both his discs, bought and not pirated, and come the day he'll give a concert in the South of France I'll be the happiest Euroweenie
ever !
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 08:26:33 AM
Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.
French surplus military rifles: never fired and dropped only once
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys
Post by: Laurent du Var on August 07, 2006, 10:17:05 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2006, 10:35:16 AM
Quote from: Laurent du Var
Mel Gibson
And?
Post by: Laurent du Var on August 07, 2006, 11:03:03 AM
like The "wannabe" Rabbi did.
Could be that I'm just POed.
Sorry
Post by: Guest on August 07, 2006, 11:07:11 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 11:28:54 AM
Post by: grampster on August 07, 2006, 11:30:00 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on August 07, 2006, 01:17:37 PM
Quote from: Laurent du Var
Mel Gibson
I assume you're referring to Gibson's anti-semitic remarks during his drunk driving arrest? From my limited reading about him (Mel Gibson is an 'old school' or at the least grew under the fatherhood of such) Catholic who are quite different theologically than the 'dispensationalist' Christians in America, although they share many religious tenets.I've already referenced (and been rebuked for) the term 'replacement theology', (which my dad told me on the phone this morning used to be called 'covenant theology') which the Catholic church didn't disasociate with until 1965.
For what it's worth from my perspective, until the war with Iraq, French bashing from Americans typically was of the lighthearted Monty Python humor type variety, rather than real dislike, and I suspect came from exactly the same source (IE English vs French rivalry of the 10 - 19th centuries).
I won't join into it myself, as I know what it's like to be an American on a British messageboard.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2006, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
That statement is essentially what my understanding of Christianity is.
(I'll add that I am laughing too hard to be offended.)
Rabbi, are you referring to my post, and if so, which statement? The whole thing? I am also curious about what amuses you.
(I'll add that I am laughing too hard to be offended.)
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 03:19:55 PM
I don't think you are misrepresenting Christianity. What you write is my impression of the theology. I just find it amusing as all get out because it is so alien. It is like someone reading the Declaration of Independence as a proto-Marxist document.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2006, 07:57:38 PM
Speaking of picking and choosing, how about this?
Quote
It sees an allusion to a redeemer which is nowhere found in the Pentateuch.
Why the Pentateuch? There's more than five books in Tanach, are there not? I searched the word "redeemer" on Bible Gateway and Blue Letter Bible and found about twenty uses of the word, all in the Old Testament, never in the New. Usually, they refer to "the Lord" or to "God," so it would seem Jews already believed God was a Redeemer. Why would not his instrument, the promised Messiah, also take part in this work of redemption? If justification is a concept unknown to your religion, I will take your word for it, but I wonder what is going on in this verse, if not justification:
Quote
Genesis 15:6
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
I don't know why you bring up Sinai (by which I assume you mean the Mosaic Law) or the eternal nature thereof. But I assure you we Christians are well aware of Jesus' statements that the Law shall never pass away.
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2006, 04:23:19 AM
As I understand it, Palestinian used to refer to Jews or to Jewish Israelis. But eventually, the world needed a term to refer to non-Jews living in, or refugees from, that area. Perhaps this is more correct, though, as "Palestine" apparently comes from "Philistia."
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 05:17:47 AM
Quote from: fistful
I should have added earlier that "replacement theology" comes from the misconception that non-dispensationalists believe that the object of God's promises, Israel, is replaced with the church. Not so. Rather, the promises have always been for believers, not for a nation or a race of people. This is why the promised land was not so promising when the Israelites were idolatrous. So, Rabbi, I don't think you can say that it "ignores...the covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and G-d." Rather, it interprets it differently.
Speaking of picking and choosing, how about this?
If justification is a concept unknown to your religion, I will take your word for it, but I wonder what is going on in this verse, if not justification:
Again, your comments ignore verses to the contrary. On the unique relationship between G-d and Israel: Deut 7:6, "ki am kadosh l'HaShem Elokecha b'cha bachar haShem Elokekha...mikol ho'amim." Or 4:7 "ki mi goy gadol asher lo Elokim krovim elav...." And many many others. Not one of these refers to belief. Virtually all of them speak of nationhood and Israel's chosen place.Speaking of picking and choosing, how about this?
Quote
It sees an allusion to a redeemer which is nowhere found in the Pentateuch.
Why the Pentateuch? There's more than five books in Tanach, are there not? I searched the word "redeemer" on Bible Gateway and Blue Letter Bible and found about twenty uses of the word, all in the Old Testament, never in the New. Usually, they refer to "the Lord" or to "God," so it would seem Jews already believed God was a Redeemer. Why would not his instrument, the promised Messiah, also take part in this work of redemption? If justification is a concept unknown to your religion, I will take your word for it, but I wonder what is going on in this verse, if not justification:
Quote
Genesis 15:6
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
I don't know why you bring up Sinai (by which I assume you mean the Mosaic Law) or the eternal nature thereof. But I assure you we Christians are well aware of Jesus' statements that the Law shall never pass away.Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
As for the Pentateuch, those 5 books are the word of G-d, and represent His will and His instruction. The rest of the Prophets and Writings do not change anything in the first 5 but merely amplify and clarify what is already there. For "savior" check Judges 3, on Osniel ben Kenaz. "Salvation" here always means a physical/political salvation. It is a Christian "innovation" to make that refer to spiritual matters.
And if Christians are aware that the Law will never pass away, why is it that among the most devout Christians I have met (and some of them wonderful people btw) virtually every one of them eats pork, shellfish, meat and milk, works on Satuday, etc etc? If that isnt an abrogation of the Law, I dont know what is.
I am not arguing that Christians need to observe the laws of the Torah (they dont) but it seems disingenuous to argue this way.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 08, 2006, 07:08:14 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
..And if Christians are aware that the Law will never pass away, why is it that among the most devout Christians I have met (and some of them wonderful people btw) virtually every one of them eats pork, shellfish, meat and milk, works on Satuday, etc etc? If that isnt an abrogation of the Law, I dont know what is.
I am not arguing that Christians need to observe the laws of the Torah (they dont) but it seems disingenuous to argue this way.
Perhaps you should look at the distinction between "The Law" as described by the Torah and "The Law" as described by Christ and Paul and the disciples at the first council of Nicea. I am not arguing that Christians need to observe the laws of the Torah (they dont) but it seems disingenuous to argue this way.
I won't speak for fistful, as you can see we don't even agree upon specifics of whom the Abrahamic covenant applied to, but my own Christian belief is that "The Law" of the Torah is a portion of "the Law" as a whole. The Law of the Torah was sufficient but unnecesary for those who observe the whole Law.
Abraham was made righteous by Faith 430 years before the law.
Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutbut not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringnot only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believedthe God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as deadsince he was about a hundred years oldand that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousnessfor us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 07:30:20 AM
In all this discussion shows, to me anyway, how Christianity is not a succesor religion to Judaism but something sui generis, just as Marxism is not a succesor to capitalism although it employs similar terms from economics. That isnt to say that Christianity is bad or invalid, but the self-image of its place in the world is not consistent with prior teachings.
Post by: Guest on August 08, 2006, 07:53:53 AM
Quote
And if Christians are aware that the Law will never pass away, why is it that among the most devout Christians I have met (and some of them wonderful people btw) virtually every one of them eats pork, shellfish, meat and milk, works on Satuday, etc etc? If that isnt an abrogation of the Law, I dont know what is.
I am not arguing that Christians need to observe the laws of the Torah (they dont) but it seems disingenuous to argue this way.
The "burden of the law" was "fulfilled", which means even though that Jesus character said that he didn't come to do away with it, it's done away with. Don't try to think about it logically or you'll get a headache.I am not arguing that Christians need to observe the laws of the Torah (they dont) but it seems disingenuous to argue this way.
It could be worse. You could be debating Messianics.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 08, 2006, 08:05:45 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
As I've mentioned, "The Law" as something distinct from what is contained in the Pentateuch is totally alien to our way of thinking.
I can certainly agree with that.Quote
"Justification" as a category of anything is also completely alien. I do not even know what word they are translating to get that. Further "Belief" as a substitute for action is totally without precedent in Judaism, as the numerous injunctions to follow the commandments makes clear.
Christianity doesn't teach "belief" as a substitute for action, it teaches "Faith" as a predicate for action. "Belief" is a component of "Faith" just as is action. See the reference Abraham's Faith above, and include the many teachings in the New Testament about action, particularly Christ's commandments, and the Book of James (see below)Quote
That isnt to say that Christianity is bad or invalid, but the self-image of its place in the world is not consistent with prior teachings.
Is there any group of people who are entirely consistent? Do you keep the entirety of the commandments in the Pentateuch as morally binding upon you? Or have subsequent Talmudic teachings altered your practice? I can't recall the last time I read a news article about a Jewish stoning (other than by Palestinians).James 2
Faith and Deeds
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatand shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 09:45:48 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote
That isnt to say that Christianity is bad or invalid, but the self-image of its place in the world is not consistent with prior teachings.
Is there any group of people who are entirely consistent? Do you keep the entirety of the commandments in the Pentateuch as morally binding upon you? Or have subsequent Talmudic teachings altered your practice? I can't recall the last time I read a news article about a Jewish stoning (other than by Palestinians).As far as later Rabbinic enactments, the Torah explicitly empowers the rabbis to make such enactments and follow them.
Quote
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?
So I guess Martin Luther was mistaken?
Post by: cosine on August 08, 2006, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
So I guess Martin Luther was mistaken?
Yes, he was.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 12:58:08 PM
Quote from: cosine
Quote from: The Rabbi
So I guess Martin Luther was mistaken?
Yes, he was.Post by: cosine on August 08, 2006, 01:33:48 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
But I'll bet millions of Protestants might beg to differ.
I'll bet that too.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2006, 01:34:18 PM
Post by: matis on August 08, 2006, 06:30:20 PM
I was following this thread without intending to post because it has degenerated into a theological contest.
I know you didn't intend this with your question, but this is what it has become, hasn't it?
I once posted that I thought that believing Christians and believing Jews must unite to fight the degeneracy that has overtaken Western society and the Islamo-fascist threat that will wipe us out unless we wake up and fight it together.
Christianity has grown out of Judaism and there are no other religions I know of that share values as closely as do these two.
I feel the urgency of the need for us to unite as strongly as ever.
But we must unite as followers of two separate religions who respect each others beliefs without having to reconcile them to each other. Jewish and Christian theology can never be reconciled. NEVER. Jews rarely seek to convert Christians but Christians usually cannot refrain from sharing their "good News".
Today in America any such attempt can lead only to acrimony.
But for almost 2 thousand years this has lead to the Jews being even more persecuted, expelled and killed.
Christian rulers have periodically down through the centuries compelled Jewish leaders to debate the merits of Judaism and to explain why Jews reject the divinity of Jesus. The Jews always sought ways to avoid such debates but were usually compelled to participate.
Since religious Jews had to learn Hebrew starting around age 3 and a half are exhorted to study Torah every single day as well as Talmud and the commentaries, the contest was never fair. It wasn't fair to the Christians because it was rare to find one who could compete in his knowledge of Torah. Only one who has immersed himself in the study of Torah in Hebrew all his life can even begin to comprehend its profundity. And it was grossly unfair to the Jews forced to participate because this brought them unspeakably horrible consequences.
We must unite as equals without trying to prove to each other that our own beliefs are better.
As a Jew I will never accept Jesus as the Messiah. Many Jews down through the ages have accepted Jesus -- on pain of death -- converted by the sword. Knowing what they faced it is not for me to judge them.
But I thank G-d that enough Jews chose death over conversion so that, paradoxically, the Jewish people live. And I and my children and my grand-children are here. And so is Israel.
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I have not the slightest wish to insult you or anyone else reading this. But if I approached you with the idea that you would burn in hell unless you converted to Judaism, you might begin to understand how the Jews feel about this.
Nothing wrong with any of these books. They simply are not a part of Judaism.
If this thread continues it can only end in acrimony and will most likely be shut down.
I think that believing Christians stand with and support Israel for the same reasons that I want us to unite to save our civilization.
It is not called a Judeo-Christian civilization for nothing.
But any attempts to reconcile Judaism to Christianity or vice-versa can only end badly. Nor is there any necessity for such attempts.
I am very grateful for Christian support of Jews and Israel. The irony is that such people do more for Israel than do most secular, leftist Jews.
But what good is such support if the price is that I must degrade my Judaism? True Judaism (which today means Orthodox Judaism) is a closed canon. All Halachic questions that Rabbis deal with is extrapolated from this. They must adapt their rulings to ever new circumstances -- without in ANY WAY compromising Torah. That is its glory. Thinking that one can "improve" Judaism, bring it up to date, so to speak is a desecration of G-d's name. If we could "improve upon G-d, then what did we need him for in the first place?
Do I make sense?
I am direct in what I say but I do mean it with the greatest of respect.
matis
Post by: cosine on August 08, 2006, 06:57:53 PM
Now, I hope this isn't too intrusive, and no offense intended, but I thought that you were Catholic. If I recall correctly (which I don't always do) aren't you the one who had a daughter enter a convent?
Post by: matis on August 08, 2006, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: cosine
Great post, matis. Your reason for staying out of the thread was why I held off from posting too (but eventually failed).
Now, I hope this isn't too intrusive, and no offense intended, but I thought that you were Catholic. If I recall correctly (which I don't always do) aren't you the one who had a daughter enter a convent?
No offense at all, cosine.Now, I hope this isn't too intrusive, and no offense intended, but I thought that you were Catholic. If I recall correctly (which I don't always do) aren't you the one who had a daughter enter a convent?
My daughter, who graduated a month ago (a valedictorian if you will allow me to boast) attended a Chassidic Yeshiva, which is an Orthodox Jewish religious school, roughly equivalent to high school.
As far as recalling correctly goes, I was telling a good friend who is around 68 about Rush Limbough's joke about having half his brain tied behind his back.
"Wait 'till he gets around our age", I told him, "and he won't be joking anymore."
matis
Post by: cosine on August 08, 2006, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: matis
Quote from: cosine
Great post, matis. Your reason for staying out of the thread was why I held off from posting too (but eventually failed).
Now, I hope this isn't too intrusive, and no offense intended, but I thought that you were Catholic. If I recall correctly (which I don't always do) aren't you the one who had a daughter enter a convent?
No offense at all, cosine.Now, I hope this isn't too intrusive, and no offense intended, but I thought that you were Catholic. If I recall correctly (which I don't always do) aren't you the one who had a daughter enter a convent?
My daughter, who graduated a month ago (a valedictorian if you will allow me to boast) attended a Chassidic Yeshiva, which is an Orthodox Jewish religious school, roughly equivalent to high school.
As far as recalling correctly goes, I was telling a good friend who is around 68 about Rush Limbough's joke about having half his brain tied behind his back.
"Wait 'till he gets around our age", I told him, "and he won't be joking anymore."
matis
I'm not so sure it's funny to joke about losing half your brain though when you're only 18, especially when the joke hits home a little harder than it should.
I searched the forum, (something I should have done first) and it was MaterDei who's daughter entered the novitiate. My apologies.
Post by: matis on August 08, 2006, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: cosine
Congratulations to your daughter on her achievements.
I'm not so sure it's funny to joke about losing half your brain though when you're only 18, especially when the joke hits home a little harder than it should. wink big_smile I searched the forum, (something I should have done first) and it was MaterDei who's daughter entered the novitiate. My apologies.
Thank you, cosine.I'm not so sure it's funny to joke about losing half your brain though when you're only 18, especially when the joke hits home a little harder than it should. wink big_smile I searched the forum, (something I should have done first) and it was MaterDei who's daughter entered the novitiate. My apologies.
And no apoligies in the slightest necessary.
But I do have a proposition for you:
Since you mention a bit of concern about your memory at age 18, how about I'll trade you my memory for yours, even Steven.
(Feel any better, now?)
matis
Post by: grampster on August 09, 2006, 07:17:32 AM
Great post my friend. I had thought we'd pretty much beat this debate to death a few months ago.
Each person has a decision to make regarding his beliefs. There is a wealth of information available, as well as testimony. Beating the other guy over the the head with something, even if be the truth, is less effective than how one leads his own life.
Post by: matis on August 09, 2006, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: grampster
Matis,
Great post my friend. I had thought we'd pretty much beat this debate to death a few months ago.
Thank you grampster.Great post my friend. I had thought we'd pretty much beat this debate to death a few months ago.
Quote
Each person has a decision to make regarding his beliefs. There is a wealth of information available, as well as testimony. Beating the other guy over the the head with something, even if be the truth, is less effective than how one leads his own life.
Somehow, grampster, it takes me two pages to say what you can say in a short paragraph.matis
Post by: Stand_watie on August 09, 2006, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: matis
Stand_watie,
I was following this thread without intending to post because it has degenerated into a theological contest.
I know you didn't intend this with your question, but this is what it has become, hasn't it?
I once posted that I thought that believing Christians and believing Jews must unite to fight the degeneracy that has overtaken Western society and the Islamo-fascist threat that will wipe us out unless we wake up and fight it together.
Christianity has grown out of Judaism and there are no other religions I know of that share values as closely as do these two.
I feel the urgency of the need for us to unite as strongly as ever.
But we must unite as followers of two separate religions who respect each others beliefs without having to reconcile them to each other. Jewish and Christian theology can never be reconciled. NEVER. Jews rarely seek to convert Christians but Christians usually cannot refrain from sharing their "good News".
You're correct, I hadn't intended that. FWIW the theological stuff that I've posted has been in response.I was following this thread without intending to post because it has degenerated into a theological contest.
I know you didn't intend this with your question, but this is what it has become, hasn't it?
I once posted that I thought that believing Christians and believing Jews must unite to fight the degeneracy that has overtaken Western society and the Islamo-fascist threat that will wipe us out unless we wake up and fight it together.
Christianity has grown out of Judaism and there are no other religions I know of that share values as closely as do these two.
I feel the urgency of the need for us to unite as strongly as ever.
But we must unite as followers of two separate religions who respect each others beliefs without having to reconcile them to each other. Jewish and Christian theology can never be reconciled. NEVER. Jews rarely seek to convert Christians but Christians usually cannot refrain from sharing their "good News".
Quote
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I'm well aware of that, however I was referring 'The Rabbi' to what I believe and why I believe it, not expecting him to agree with it.Quote
I have not the slightest wish to insult you or anyone else reading this. But if I approached you with the idea that you would burn in hell unless you converted to Judaism, you might begin to understand how the Jews feel about this.
Well I think I begin to understand, because I've heard that from others, about my own beliefs.
Post by: matis on August 09, 2006, 11:06:28 AM
I don't in the slightest blame you for seeking answers to such questions.
It's just that this cannot be done on a public forum without its degenerating into a contest. The subject is just too hot. We're dealing with the very ground of our being here and I don't know how this can be kept cool and rational. For myself I have learned to NEVER discuss it with anyone of a different religion. Unless that is I'm pissed at him, I've lost it and I want to hurt him. (I have been know to do that [grin]).
I don't think we feel that way about each other here.
I think you need to research on the net, perhaps Orthodox Jewish and other sites. Perhaps discuss it in person or privately with knowledgeable Jews (kinda rare) who are willing to so. But please don't expect any kind of "resolution". Any resolution would simply be the conceding of issues that shouldn't be conceded by true believers on either side.
Be well, friend.
matis
Post by: Stand_watie on August 09, 2006, 11:12:01 AM
Quote from: matis
Stand_watie,
I don't in the slightest blame you for seeking answers to such questions...I think you need to research on the net, perhaps Orthodox Jewish and other sites. Perhaps discuss it in person or privately with knowledgeable Jews (kinda rare) who are willing to so. But please don't expect any kind of "resolution". Any resolution would simply be the conceding of issues that shouldn't be conceded by true believers on either side.
Be well, friend.
matis
I'm a little baffled here. To which post of mine are you referring?
I don't in the slightest blame you for seeking answers to such questions...I think you need to research on the net, perhaps Orthodox Jewish and other sites. Perhaps discuss it in person or privately with knowledgeable Jews (kinda rare) who are willing to so. But please don't expect any kind of "resolution". Any resolution would simply be the conceding of issues that shouldn't be conceded by true believers on either side.
Be well, friend.
matis
Post by: matis on August 09, 2006, 03:09:15 PM
Quote
But we must unite as followers of two separate religions who respect each others beliefs without having to reconcile them to each other. Jewish and Christian theology can never be reconciled. NEVER. Jews rarely seek to convert Christians but Christians usually cannot refrain from sharing their "good News".
You're correct, I hadn't intended that. FWIW the theological stuff that I've posted has been in response.
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I'm well aware of that, however I was referring 'The Rabbi' to what I believe and why I believe it, not expecting him to agree with it.
(Darn, the quote and bold functions aren't working for me. And it's YOUR fault Stand-watie because, as you may remember, you're the one who taught me how to use these. You're correct, I hadn't intended that. FWIW the theological stuff that I've posted has been in response.
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I'm well aware of that, however I was referring 'The Rabbi' to what I believe and why I believe it, not expecting him to agree with it.
Stand-watie, the thread veer started early, but seeking to understand why Christians support and stand with Israel on a mixed and public forum is not likely, it seems to me, to get you the understanding you want. It would be very difficult if kept strictly to political considerations. And it would be very difficult to keep the discussion to that.
And I guess I'm mixing in what I remember of some of your past posts.
You seem to have a large interest in understanding Judaism and in the differences between that and Christianity and even in differences of doctrine between various Christian points of view. And I have, from the beginning, felt your interest to be sincere and friendly. I just don't think such an endeavor has a prayer (grin) on a forum like this, excellent though APS is.
It's just too hot for some others to deal with on the same basis -- intellectual and not competitive. I'll admit that when I read some of the posts, I felt myself becoming a bit "warm" and wanting to answer in kind. (Actually, I DID, didn't I?)
I'm struggling for words to indicate that I'm not in any way criticizing YOU -- just wanting to point out that this endeavor doesn't work very well.
Without your meaning to it stirs up the kind of feelings that have led to acrimony between Christians and Jews gong all the way back.
Personally I believe that this kind of exchange CAN take place, but only in a SAFE space with each participant taking constant care to monitor his own reactions and to re-assure the other participants of his sincere intentions.
This ain't like discussing the weather or even baseball. It's just a very hot subject to which we each bring our own past experiences, associations, attitudes and emotions.
matis
(Edited to add that the functions didn't work in preview but did when I clicked on submit.)
Post by: Stand_watie on August 09, 2006, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: matis
Quote
But we must unite as followers of two separate religions who respect each others beliefs without having to reconcile them to each other. Jewish and Christian theology can never be reconciled. NEVER. Jews rarely seek to convert Christians but Christians usually cannot refrain from sharing their "good News".
You're correct, I hadn't intended that. FWIW the theological stuff that I've posted has been in response.
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I'm well aware of that, however I was referring 'The Rabbi' to what I believe and why I believe it, not expecting him to agree with it.
(Darn, the quote and bold functions aren't working for me. And it's YOUR fault Stand-watie because, as you may remember, you're the one who taught me how to use these. You're correct, I hadn't intended that. FWIW the theological stuff that I've posted has been in response.
I read the New Testament simply to try to understand what Christians believe. From a religious perspective, the NT is no more a divine book to me than is the Bahgavad Gita or the Upanishads. There is no use in quoting from the NT to a Jew when he accords the book no religious validity.
I'm well aware of that, however I was referring 'The Rabbi' to what I believe and why I believe it, not expecting him to agree with it.
Stand-watie, the thread veer started early, but seeking to understand why Christians support and stand with Israel on a mixed and public forum is not likely, it seems to me, to get you the understanding you want. It would be very difficult if kept strictly to political considerations. And it would be very difficult to keep the discussion to that.
And I guess I'm mixing in what I remember of some of your past posts.
You seem to have a large interest in understanding Judaism and in the differences between that and Christianity and even in differences of doctrine between various Christian points of view. And I have, from the beginning, felt your interest to be sincere and friendly. I just don't think such an endeavor has a prayer (grin) on a forum like this, excellent though APS is.
Post by: matis on August 09, 2006, 05:02:48 PM
Quote from: Stand-Watie
It's true that I do, but that wasn't at all my intent with this thread. I suppose the thread title perhaps appears as a question - when in fact it's the name of a book I was recommending, which answered those questions quite well. So far everything I've seen posted in the thread tends to confirm the author of the book's analysis.
I kind of did forget about the book once I got into the thread veer.I'm shopping for the book right now.
Best deal so far is at Overstock.com @ $12.34 + $1.40 shipping.
I look forward to reading it.
Thanks,
matis
Post by: Stand_watie on August 10, 2006, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: matis
Quote from: Stand-Watie
It's true that I do, but that wasn't at all my intent with this thread. I suppose the thread title perhaps appears as a question - when in fact it's the name of a book I was recommending, which answered those questions quite well. So far everything I've seen posted in the thread tends to confirm the author of the book's analysis.
I kind of did forget about the book once I got into the thread veer.I'm shopping for the book right now.
Best deal so far is at Overstock.com @ $12.34 + $1.40 shipping.
I look forward to reading it.
Thanks,
matis
Post by: matis on August 10, 2006, 03:44:18 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
I'm sure you'll find it quite informative. There was a particular citation in there, it was a quote from Hebrew language publication from the early Jewish zionist times (I want to say about the turn of the century) that reminded me of your thinking. I've got a flight to catch right now - I'll get back to you with that quote when I get back into town. Best regards.
Thank you, Stand_watie.matis
Post by: LAK on August 11, 2006, 04:55:54 AM
This is an intriguing subject for me, and I have a very difficult time wondering how many people could take such a book seriously. There are many subjects to address here - and there surely needs to be some continuity starting from the beginning to the present as it applies to each subject individually.
The State of Israel is not a "Jewish state". It is a secular and very socialist state. Many Christians seem to confuse the State of Israel with the Old Testament people Israel.
The Jewish religion and Christianity have nothing in common; other than that they were once the same religion until a time in history when they separated and went different directions from each other for one specific and irreconcilable reason. One recognized, and recognizes, the incarnation of God as His only Son, Jesus Christ - the Messiah - the Promise of the Old Testament, of whom the prophets spake - the New Covenant. The other rejected Him and continued practicing under the Old Covenant.
It's sort of like "Smith" & "Wesson" - except that they are literally antithesis to one another. It is incontrovertable Christian teaching - from Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself - that to reject Him means separation from God. Forever. On the otherhand to Jews, who practice the Old Testament religion, proclaiming Jesus Christ to be True God and True man is a blasphemy. All the rosey dialogue and "sharing" is never going to change that. It is alot of emotional filler and no substance. The only way it can be any other way is dissolve a significant part of one or both religions.
"Righteous Gentiles" is an interesting term - I can not find a single gentile mentioned in the Old Testament that is referred to as "righteous". Who invented that one?
Arabs are semites. It would seem to me that the problem is people who are not semites fomenting conflicts and bringing about the destruction of all semites - regardless of the which religion they practice and in which middle east country they live.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on August 11, 2006, 05:31:45 AM
Quote from: LAK
"Righteous Gentiles" is an interesting term - I can not find a single gentile mentioned in the Old Testament that is referred to as "righteous". Who invented that one?
"...Noach ish tzaddik tamim haya b'dorosav" -Gen 6:9I could find plenty of others, like Rachav in Yehoshua but I wont spend the time. As for the rest of the post, it is of similar quality.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 11, 2006, 07:03:05 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: LAK
"Righteous Gentiles" is an interesting term - I can not find a single gentile mentioned in the Old Testament that is referred to as "righteous". Who invented that one?
"...Noach ish tzaddik tamim haya b'dorosav" -Gen 6:9I could find plenty of others, like Rachav in Yehoshua..
The term used in the book I think, is referring to gentiles who endangered themselves sheltering Jews during the holocaust.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shtetl/righteous/
* And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high Gd.
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
**For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high Gd, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of Gd; abideth a priest continually.Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
Post by: LAK on August 14, 2006, 01:59:53 AM
And who precisely bestowed the honor to those deemed "righteous gentiles" in these Old Testament passages - and who bestowed the honor from the end of the OT period through 1963?
This raises another question though; if a "non-jew" can be declared a "righteous gentile" - what is the opposite? Since all "non-jews" are expected to abide and be subject to the Noahide law, what are those considered on the outside?
If you are going to quote scripture defining "righteous gentiles", what does your law and tradition say about those who are not, and do not subject thelselves to the Noahide law?
Rabbi,
I see. So the State of Israel is not a secular socialist state? What is it then, a theocratic republic?
--------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Stand_watie on August 14, 2006, 03:56:35 PM
Quote from: LAK
Stand_watie,
And who precisely bestowed the honor to those deemed "righteous gentiles" in these Old Testament passages..
From my reading, G-d.And who precisely bestowed the honor to those deemed "righteous gentiles" in these Old Testament passages..
Quote
- and who bestowed the honor from the end of the OT period through 1963?
I've no idea.Quote
This raises another question though; if a "non-jew" can be declared a "righteous gentile" - what is the opposite? Since all "non-jews" are expected to abide and be subject to the Noahide law, what are those considered on the outside?
The Bible is certainly rich with examples. Try I Kings.Quote
If you are going to quote scripture defining "righteous gentiles", what does your law and tradition say about those who are not, and do not subject thelselves to the Noahide law?
I would be hard pressed to put it down without taking a great deal of time and bandwidth. I suppose the first 16 verses of the 2nd Chapter of Romans is as good a synopsis as any.G-d's Righteous Judgment
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that G-d's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape G-d's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that G-d's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of G-d's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
G-d "will repay everyone according to what they have done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For G-d does not show favoritism.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in G-d's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law). They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when G-d judges everyone's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Post by: LAK on August 14, 2006, 10:34:49 PM
So there were no "righteous gentiles" from the time of the last book of the OT through those bestowed the title in 1963?
[LAK]"If you are going to quote scripture defining "righteous gentiles", what does your law and tradition say about those who are not, and do not subject thelselves to the Noahide law?"
[Stand_watie]"I would be hard pressed to put it down without taking a great deal of time and bandwidth. I suppose the first 16 verses of the 2nd Chapter of Romans is as good a synopsis as any"
What has the writing of a christian like St. Paul (a traitor as far as the jews of the period would be concerned) to the christian church in Rome have to do with jewish law and tradition concerning my question?
---------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Stand_watie on August 15, 2006, 12:59:20 AM
Quote from: LAK
Stand_watie,
So there were no "righteous gentiles" from the time of the last book of the OT through those bestowed the title in 1963?
You asked who bestowed the honor, not whether there were any or not. I don't know who bestowed the honor. Of course there were many who were.So there were no "righteous gentiles" from the time of the last book of the OT through those bestowed the title in 1963?
Quote from: LAK
What has the writing of a christian like St. Paul (a traitor as far as the jews of the period would be concerned) to the christian church in Rome have to do with jewish law and tradition concerning my question?
You didn't ask what Jewish law and tradition dictated, and I don't know the answer if that was your intended question. You asked what "your" law and tradition says - being a Christian myself, I gave the answer from my perspective.
Post by: LAK on August 15, 2006, 01:22:16 AM
Beggin your pardon, I did mean jewish law and tradition.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstaes.org
Post by: Stand_watie on August 15, 2006, 01:46:05 AM
Quote from: LAK
Stand_watie,
Beggin your pardon, I did mean jewish law and tradition.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstaes.org
No problem; I'd have to defer you to Rabbi or Matis on that.
Beggin your pardon, I did mean jewish law and tradition.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstaes.org
Post by: Paddy on July 16, 2007, 04:59:26 PM
Quote
We already know from the last 58 years of photgraphed history that negotiation doesn't work, ceasefires don't work, land-for-peace doesn't work and recognition of a Palestinian state does not work. The Jihadists are gonna do their damndest to kill all the Jews and eradicate Israel.
Now let me digress: I find this "Palestinian" thing amusing. Let me offer a bit of doggerel from BEFORE there was any sort of "Israel" as came into being in 1948. I learned this bit of a song back in the mid-1940s, as best I recollect:
"Come all with big, long noses; come join the League of Moses; fight, fight, fight for Palestine.
Scorners of pork and gravy, come join the Yiddish Navy, fight, fight, fight for Palestine."
Sounds to me that Jews = Palestinians was The Way It Was, once upon a time.
Repeated for truth, with a big 'thank you' to Art. Clearly, this comes from 70 odd years observing the real world rather than some religious or political dogma.
Now let me digress: I find this "Palestinian" thing amusing. Let me offer a bit of doggerel from BEFORE there was any sort of "Israel" as came into being in 1948. I learned this bit of a song back in the mid-1940s, as best I recollect:
"Come all with big, long noses; come join the League of Moses; fight, fight, fight for Palestine.
Scorners of pork and gravy, come join the Yiddish Navy, fight, fight, fight for Palestine."
Sounds to me that Jews = Palestinians was The Way It Was, once upon a time.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2007, 09:13:15 PM
Actually, I do agree that Jews were Palestinians. There is simply no way to argue that point. It is also true that most of the population that founded Israel were recent immigrants from Europe. But there were also Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with roots there just as long as those of their Jewish neighbors-perhaps longer in the case of some of the Christians. Israel was not founded by religious authorities, and this is not a religious conflict. It never has been.
Islam and Judaism, from what I gather of Judaism, have very similar ideas about the return of Jews to Jerusalem and the rule of the Messiah there. Most Muslims, however, do not believe that Israel is in any way a religious phenomenon-and interestingly, there seem to be a good number of religious Jews who agree. (Interestingly, there are a few Muslims who believe that Israel's existence is actually part of the messianic prophecies.)
Debate the conflict all you want (I know I do), it's not a theological one. And I think it is highly dangerous for it to be interpreted this way by the world; should the cards change in the near future and Israel becomes less important for European and American purposes, there will be a rapidly increasing number of people saying "HEY! Why are we paying the price for the Jews!!!???"...a common refrain throughout history that always precedes a barbaric episode.
Seeing the conflict in terms of theology lays the groundwork for a return to the well entrenched Christian theological tendency towards anti-semitism.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 02:58:12 AM
Yeah, the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians have been a remarkable success. They're so good that the Christians who pioneered anti-Israel terrorism have magically become "Jihadists"-I mean, do you not admire a policy that by power of magic wand turns everyone who fights Israel into a Muslim?
This is incomprehensible to me.
The policies have been successful in their goals to contain terrorism. When was the last bus bombing you heard about? They arent 100%, no policy is.
As for Christians pioneering anti Israel terrorism, I have no idea what this is about.
Post by: Paddy on July 17, 2007, 08:48:41 AM
Quote
Yeah, the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians have been a remarkable success. They're so good that the Christians who pioneered anti-Israel terrorism have magically become "Jihadists"-I mean, do you not admire a policy that by power of magic wand turns everyone who fights Israel into a Muslim?
'Christians who pioneered anti-Israel terrorism'? Care to explain that? And please come up with something other than the 12th century crusades and/or any revisionist history propaganda from the madrasah.Quote
Actually, I do agree that Jews were Palestinians. There is simply no way to argue that point. It is also true that most of the population that founded Israel were recent immigrants from Europe. But there were also Palestinian Christians and Muslims, with roots there just as long as those of their Jewish neighbors-perhaps longer in the case of some of the Christians.
Uh, at the time Christians came into existence, Judaism had been alive for about 4000 years, and had a long history in the area. And since Islam wasn't founded until about 600 a.d. how do you figure Muslims have some claim that predates that of the Jews?Quote
Israel was not founded by religious authorities, and this is not a religious conflict. It never has been.
You just got through referring to Jews, Christians, and Muslims (all three clearly religions) in the context of the dispute. Now you say it has nothing to do with religion. 'Israel was not founded by religious authorities'? What does that mean? The founders were all Jews, some were even Rabbis, founding the first Jewish state. Quote
Islam and Judaism, from what I gather of Judaism, have very similar ideas about the return of Jews to Jerusalem and the rule of the Messiah there. Most Muslims, however, do not believe that Israel is in any way a religious phenomenon-and interestingly, there seem to be a good number of religious Jews who agree. (Interestingly, there are a few Muslims who believe that Israel's existence is actually part of the messianic prophecies.)
Again,you're referring to Judaism, clearly a religion, as though it is not in any way connected to Israel? 'splain, please?Quote
Debate the conflict all you want (I know I do), it's not a theological one. And I think it is highly dangerous for it to be interpreted this way by the world; should the cards change in the near future and Israel becomes less important for European and American purposes, there will be a rapidly increasing number of people saying "HEY! Why are we paying the price for the Jews!!!???"...a common refrain throughout history that always precedes a barbaric episode.
Sounds like you're hopeful that the world will soon turn on Israel. Who's 'anti semitic' now? 
Quote
Seeing the conflict in terms of theology lays the groundwork for a return to the well entrenched Christian theological tendency towards anti-semitism.
More absurdity, right out of the madrasah. Honestly, ss, I think you're wigging out.
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2007, 01:55:43 PM
Yeah, the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians have been a remarkable success. They're so good that the Christians who pioneered anti-Israel terrorism have magically become "Jihadists"-I mean, do you not admire a policy that by power of magic wand turns everyone who fights Israel into a Muslim?
This is incomprehensible to me.
The policies have been successful in their goals to contain terrorism. When was the last bus bombing you heard about? They arent 100%, no policy is.
As for Christians pioneering anti Israel terrorism, I have no idea what this is about.
The policies didn't contain terrorism-that was mostly the function of a Palestinian decision to both collaborate in destroying the terrorists and of the terrorists themselves to end the tactic. Before they decided to do it, the terror campaign was running strong, and Israel's measures against it were mostly ineffective. Killing leadership can't really disrupt a few retards from strapping on a bomb and crossing a fence, which is all that a suicide attack requires.
The Christian pioneering of terrorism is referring to the PFLP and the Black September movements, in which George Habash and coreligionists played a leading role. Christian Palestinians have been some of the most ardent and militant opponents of Israel's existence.
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2007, 02:01:00 PM
who pioneered anti-Israel terrorism'? Care to explain that? And please come up with something other than the 12th century crusades and/or any revisionist history propaganda from the madrasah.
Uh, no-I was talking about the Christian Palestinians who have been key players in some of the most ruthless terrorist groups of Israel's past.
Quote
You just got through referring to Jews, Christians, and Muslims (all three clearly religions) in the context of the dispute. Now you say it has nothing to do with religion. 'Israel was not founded by religious authorities'? What does that mean? The founders were all Jews, some were even Rabbis, founding the first Jewish state.
It was generally opposed by religious groups-I referred to all three to identify the groups, and to note that they do not align for religious reasons. There are not Christian terrorists against Israel because of Islam, and there are not Rabbinical radical anti-Israel schools because these same Rabbis hate Judaism. It is not a religious conflict.
Quote
Again,you're referring to Judaism, clearly a religion, as though it is not in any way connected to Israel? 'splain, please?
You are missing the point: Religion as identifier, not as the driving force behind the conflict, is how I am using it. They are not fighting because they are Jews and Muslims; they are fighting because they want the same piece of land.
Quote
Sounds like you're hopeful that the world will soon turn on Israel. Who's 'anti semitic' now?
Nice way to play the race card. Review my post history-I have absolutely nothing but disgust for anti-semitism, and I support the right of Israelis to remain in their homes AND to have a safe haven for Jews around the world. I do not believe that the policy of dispossession and military occupation of Palestinian inhabited lands provides that, and I also believe that it is grossly immoral. But despite my view that it is immoral, I don't make the insane conclusion that Israelis somehow deserve to be punished for it...even though that is exactly the kind of thing I see you ranting on about for the Palestinians.
Also: I've been a consistent supporter of the right of return and compensation for the multitude of Jews that were wrongly expelled from their ancient Arab homelands in response to the creation of Israel. It should be a part of any debate on solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and it's too little discussed in my opinion.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 02:03:33 PM
Terrorists abandoned the tactic because Israel was exacting too high a price. It was not some moron strapping on explosives. That was part of a coordinated movement, not the actions of individuals.
George Habash is a communist from a Christian family. Arafat's wife is also Christian. That does not support your initial statement. The PFLP is a communist/nationalist movement that engages in terrorism, just like jihaddis do. Hardly a difference there.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2007, 02:07:43 PM
Your statements are becoming ever more absurd.
Terrorists abandoned the tactic because Israel was exacting too high a price. It was not some moron strapping on explosives. That was part of a coordinated movement, not the actions of individuals.
George Habash is a communist from a Christian family. Arafat's wife is also Christian. That does not support your initial statement. The PFLP is a communist/nationalist movement that engages in terrorism, just like jihaddis do. Hardly a difference there.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
Terrorists abandoned the tactic because Israel was exacting too high a price. It was not some moron strapping on explosives. That was part of a coordinated movement, not the actions of individuals.
George Habash is a communist from a Christian family. Arafat's wife is also Christian. That does not support your initial statement. The PFLP is a communist/nationalist movement that engages in terrorism, just like jihaddis do. Hardly a difference there.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
Unfortunately, the evidence does not support your conclusion about the suicide campaign. Israel began attacking the cells in the 90's-but the campaign did not become effective until AFTER arafat and Dahlan began to attack Hamas, and Hamas itself issued a directive ending the practice to its members. That's a pretty strong correlation-years of Israel attacks did not stop the bombings nor the second intifada, but it dropped dramatically when Palestinians began to infiltrate and Hamas decided it was not terribly effective.
My point about Habash and the PFLP is that there is no religious command that is causing this conflict-as evidenced by the fact that some of the original anti-israel terrorists were not "jihadists" or even Muslim. Hence, you have to find an explanation for the fight other than "Muslims hate Jews", which is plainly not the case.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 04:20:43 PM
Arabs hate Jews.
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2007, 05:04:20 PM
Right.
Arabs hate Jews.
Arabs hate Jews.
Weird, considering the large number of Arab Jews and the fact that Jews lived in every single Arab province for who-knows-how-many centuries, and continue to do so in Syria and Yemen.
Don't you think it's a problem for your thesis here that this hatred only took root after the 30's, when large numbers of immigrants arrived from Europe? Basic racism does not explain the conflict either-although there is certainly plenty of bare racism amongst the factions now to keep it going.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 05:26:43 PM
I suppose when Jews became powerful enough and had their own state is when the enmity started. Although truly there were periods where things were bad in every one of those countries.
Jews left Saudi Arabia about the time Mohammed raised an army and slaughtered them all.
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2007, 08:58:04 PM
There are no Arab Jews. There were Jews who lived under Arabic (and Moslem) rule, and who spoke Arabic (or Judeo-Arabic).
I suppose when Jews became powerful enough and had their own state is when the enmity started. Although truly there were periods where things were bad in every one of those countries.
Jews left Saudi Arabia about the time Mohammed raised an army and slaughtered them all.
I suppose when Jews became powerful enough and had their own state is when the enmity started. Although truly there were periods where things were bad in every one of those countries.
Jews left Saudi Arabia about the time Mohammed raised an army and slaughtered them all.
I use the term (as do the Arab Jews) in the same way I would use the term "American Jew" to describe a Jewish person born and raised in America. There's a whole organization for them that rightly points out the lack of attention Arab Jews have received: http://www.jimena.org/
This is what I found to be a particularly good article on the Jews of Iraq and their experience with Israel:http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/PAPERS/shenhav1.htm
As for Muhammad (saws), your history a little rusty. Instead of generalizing about Islam and its history, you should make an effort to investigate before you level accusations of mayhem. Saudi Arabia did not have defined borders in his time, and he did not slaughter/expel all the Jews.
There is absolutely zero room for doubt in Islam that Jews and Judaism are to be respected-even though the disease of anti-semitism has encouraged many to try and wiggle out of the tradition of respect. The trend towards demonizing Judaism is truly recent: a traditionalist will have none of it.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 03:48:20 AM
As for Mohammed, here he is in peaceful interaction with a Jewish group in Medina.
Quote
Whether or not the incident is historical, its inclusion shows the biographer's need to provide a pretext for Muhammad's actions against the Qaynuqa. Muhammad besieged them and in two weeks forced them to surrender unconditionally - at best, an act of collective punishment. He would have killed them all, but spared their lives only at the behest of the leader of a neighboring Arab tribe, who pleaded on their behalf (Ibn Ishaq, 546). Muhammad then exiled the Bani Qaynuqa from Medina, eventually driving them out of Arabia completely.
Post by: Paddy on July 18, 2007, 05:49:11 AM
Quote
You are missing the point: Religion as identifier, not as the driving force behind the conflict, is how I am using it. They are not fighting because they are Jews and Muslims; they are fighting because they want the same piece of land.
Quote
Hence, you have to find an explanation for the fight other than "Muslims hate Jews", which is plainly not the case.
Then how do you account for these kinds of statements from Arabs:"Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet....... for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty."-King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia
"Israel has had malicious intentions since ancient times. Its objective is the destruction of all other religions....They regard the other religions as lower than their own and other peoples as inferior to their level. And on the subject of vengeance they have a certain day on which they mix the blood of non-Jews into their bread and eat it. It happened that two years ago, while I was in Paris on a visit, that the police discovered five murdered children. Their blood had been drained, and it turned out that some Jews had murdered them in order to take their blood and mix it with the bread that they eat on this day. This shows you what is the extent of their hatred and malice toward non-Jewish peoples."-King Faisal, Saudi Arabia
"Have no mercy on the Jews no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them - and those who stand by them..."-Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya (in a 'sermon' from a mosque, no less)
"The battle with the Jews will surely come... the decisive Muslim victory is coming without a doubt, and the prophet spoke about in more than one Hadith and the Day of resurrection will not come without the victory of the believers [the Muslims] over the descendents of the monkeys and pigs [the Jews] and with their annihilation."-Sheikh Muhammed Abd Al Hadi La'afi
and the conspiracy theories, the Jew hating indoctrination of Arab children, holocaust denial, etc.,
and of course the list goes on and on infinitum ad nauseum. You will not find anti Arab statements like coming from Jewish leaders. For the Jews, it is about land; for the Arabs, it's about Jew hatred. Arabs had no interest in 'Palestine' before the Jews began to arrive.
Anti semitism of a level and intensity indistinguishable from Nazism. In fact, Arab/Muslim anti semitism is worse-there are public displays of the carnage done to Jewish men, women and children after some homicide bombing. So your statement
Quote
"Muslims hate Jews", which is plainly not the case.
is absolutely and completely ludicrous in the extreme.Later, I'll explain why Christians support Israel.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 10:37:41 AM
I have never heard the term "Arab Jew", certainly not from any Jew. I dont know where you got the term, but it doesnt exist as a self description.
As for Mohammed, here he is in peaceful interaction with a Jewish group in Medina.
As for Mohammed, here he is in peaceful interaction with a Jewish group in Medina.
Quote
Whether or not the incident is historical, its inclusion shows the biographer's need to provide a pretext for Muhammad's actions against the Qaynuqa. Muhammad besieged them and in two weeks forced them to surrender unconditionally - at best, an act of collective punishment. He would have killed them all, but spared their lives only at the behest of the leader of a neighboring Arab tribe, who pleaded on their behalf (Ibn Ishaq, 546). Muhammad then exiled the Bani Qaynuqa from Medina, eventually driving them out of Arabia completely.
I got it from Haaretz, when they did a piece on Amir Peretz and general discrimination against Arab Jews in Israel. I recently reread it in an interview with an Iraqi Jewish professor in America.
And what is your source for this information on Muhammad (saws)?
Not a historical account or an Islamic one, but: http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad06.htm. And you have to love any story that begins with "Whether or not this incident is historical...."
Here's an Islamic account of what happened (and thus, a relevant one for the purposes of determining what is or is not Islamic teaching):http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-qaynuqa/
The wars with the Jewish tribes were based on violations of the Charter of Medina-they were literally treaty violation wars, not Muslims chasing Jews because they didn't like them. Here's the treaty that bound Jews and Muslims, breaches of which led to the various conflicts: http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/documentview.cfm?ID=12
Quote
Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.
Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).
No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.
The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.
Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).
No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.
The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.
Does a person who wants to slaughter Jews write this into the law of the land?
The example for Islamic teaching is pretty clear: Jewish people and religion are to be respected.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 10:41:44 AM
Note that your sources do not come from Islamic religious documents, but from the modern day, US supported House of Saud.
That's like citing David Duke as an authority on what Christianity teaches. It's silly.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 12:04:31 PM
I have met Iranian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Egyptian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Yemenite Jews, Sefardim, Oriental Jews, Jews from Eida Mizrachi, etc. But not a single one of them ever, ever, described himself as an Arab Jew. And no way could they. Arab is an ethnic term. One that excludes Jews.
And I note there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia, and have not been in any historical memory. This was not the result of a treaty dispute.
As for respecting Jews, while Islam seems to make that clear, no Jew is allowed in Saudi Arabia, no matter his nationality. Even US servicemen stationed there become something else--I can't remember the PC term used.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 12:23:15 PM
Note to SS: Stop reading Haaretz.
I have met Iranian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Egyptian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Yemenite Jews, Sefardim, Oriental Jews, Jews from Eida Mizrachi, etc. But not a single one of them ever, ever, described himself as an Arab Jew. And no way could they. Arab is an ethnic term. One that excludes Jews.
I have met Iranian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Egyptian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Yemenite Jews, Sefardim, Oriental Jews, Jews from Eida Mizrachi, etc. But not a single one of them ever, ever, described himself as an Arab Jew. And no way could they. Arab is an ethnic term. One that excludes Jews.
That is your opinion and experience, and no doubt some agree with you. But there is similarly no doubt that there are Jews who call themselves Arabs. Arab is a linguistic and cultural term-it is not anything remotely like a race...at least in the opinion of those who use it in this way. I think we can agree that it's a disagreement about what the term Arab means, not what the term Jew means. Here's an article I found on this point that you might be interested in:http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/arab_jew.html
Quote
And I note there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia, and have not been in any historical memory. This was not the result of a treaty dispute.
As for respecting Jews, while Islam seems to make that clear, no Jew is allowed in Saudi Arabia, no matter his nationality. Even US servicemen stationed there become something else--I can't remember the PC term used.
As for respecting Jews, while Islam seems to make that clear, no Jew is allowed in Saudi Arabia, no matter his nationality. Even US servicemen stationed there become something else--I can't remember the PC term used.
Saudi Arabia also regularly bulldozes houses and religious sites from the time of the Prophet to make way for malls and hotels. When it was founded, they tried to destroy his own gravesite. It has never been a model Islamic state, and there is a reason why it is hugely unpopular in the Islamic world. It's unfair in the extreme to hold up a country like that as an example of Islamic religiosity when we all know full well what is going on there: corruption and oppression, justified on whatever grounds they can come up with.
Post by: Paddy on July 18, 2007, 01:28:42 PM
Quote
Note that your sources do not come from Islamic religious documents, but from the modern day, US supported House of Saud.
First, you declare that religion has nothing to do with the Israeli-Pali conflict. Then you demand a religious source. Then you seem to say Saudi Arabia (alone) is anti Jewish because it is somehow 'U.S. supported'
Quote
Saudi Arabia also regularly bulldozes houses and religious sites from the time of the Prophet to make way for malls and hotels. When it was founded, they tried to destroy his own gravesite. It has never been a model Islamic state, and there is a reason why it is hugely unpopular in the Islamic world. It's unfair in the extreme to hold up a country like that as an example of Islamic religiosity when we all know full well what is going on there: corruption and oppression, justified on whatever grounds they can come up with.
Quote
The example for Islamic teaching is pretty clear: Jewish people and religion are to be respected.
OK. Give an example of a 'model Islamic state' that 'respects Jews and their religion'.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 01:42:22 PM
I dunno, ss. You're sounding increasingly radical with every post. This one, in particular, places you with some extremist Islamic views:
First, you declare that religion has nothing to do with the Israeli-Pali conflict. Then you demand a religious source. Then you seem to say Saudi Arabia (alone) is anti Jewish because it is somehow 'U.S. supported'
Quote
Note that your sources do not come from Islamic religious documents, but from the modern day, US supported House of Saud.
First, you declare that religion has nothing to do with the Israeli-Pali conflict. Then you demand a religious source. Then you seem to say Saudi Arabia (alone) is anti Jewish because it is somehow 'U.S. supported'
Uh, no. Rabbi was making a point about Islam when he referred to the historical events in question. I was pointing out that, in the context of my statements about what Islam teaches about Judaism, it would be best to use sources that Muslims find authoritative. That is pretty obvious-you can't figure out what Islam teaches without referring to things Muslims find authoritative.
You're trying hard to make the conflict religious, but unfortunately for you this is clearly not the direction the conversation took.
What is "increasingly radical" about every post here? The fact that I rightly point out that the anti-semitic, corrupt house of Saud is a US funded and supported institution?
Quote
OK. Give an example of a 'model Islamic state' that 'respects Jews and their religion'.
Sure: The Ottman Caliphate and the Umayyad Spanish states. Jews were some of the most important administrators, had their property and religious rights respected, and were generally well regarded and integrated into the society. Rambam was a product of this time period.
The tradition continues today in the only Islamic theocracy in the world, Iran, which demonstrates that the principle of tolerance for Judaism is unambiguous and shared across the sectarian divides in Islam. The right to practice the Jewish faith is enshrined in the constitution there-and it's recognized pretty much everywhere except Saudi Arabia.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 01:52:12 PM
I was not holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of anything other than the fact that they don't want Jews there.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 01:56:14 PM
No one legitimately uses the term "Arab Jew" except as an act of politics, like the website you linked to. Even she recognizes how bizarre that is, and adds a more descriptive, and accurate, Israeli-Iraqi woman. And look at her affiliations and you will see this is pure politics. And thus pure BS.
I was not holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of anything other than the fact that they don't want Jews there.
I was not holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of anything other than the fact that they don't want Jews there.
Well, you can evaluate it however you want: suffice to say yours is not the only opinion out there, and "Arab Jew" is used as a self-descriptive term by at least some of the group we're talking about here. The author of that piece wrote the article to, in so many words, call your claims about Arab/Jewish dichotomy "pure politics" designed to serve the Yiddish speaking community.
There's no dispute on Saudi Arabia-it's an anti-semitic state. It also has a pretty warm relationship with Israel and the United States, which makes sense. Racists and bigots like those in the royal family don't really care about principles, they just care about their own bottom lines. They don't care about Palestinians or Israelis or Jews, they just want to rob their country blind and kill anyone in the region (or world) that might disrupt the ferrari-buying, London party paying cash flow.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 01:58:08 PM
I dunno, ss. You're sounding increasingly radical with every post. This one, in particular, places you with some extremist Islamic views:
First, you declare that religion has nothing to do with the Israeli-Pali conflict. Then you demand a religious source. Then you seem to say Saudi Arabia (alone) is anti Jewish because it is somehow 'U.S. supported'
Quote
Note that your sources do not come from Islamic religious documents, but from the modern day, US supported House of Saud.
First, you declare that religion has nothing to do with the Israeli-Pali conflict. Then you demand a religious source. Then you seem to say Saudi Arabia (alone) is anti Jewish because it is somehow 'U.S. supported'
Uh, no. Rabbi was making a point about Islam when he referred to the historical events in question. I was pointing out that, in the context of my statements about what Islam teaches about Judaism, it would be best to use sources that Muslims find authoritative. That is pretty obvious-you can't figure out what Islam teaches without referring to things Muslims find authoritative.
You're trying hard to make the conflict religious, but unfortunately for you this is clearly not the direction the conversation took.
What is "increasingly radical" about every post here? The fact that I rightly point out that the anti-semitic, corrupt house of Saud is a US funded and supported institution?
Quote
OK. Give an example of a 'model Islamic state' that 'respects Jews and their religion'.
Sure: The Ottman Caliphate and the Umayyad Spanish states. Jews were some of the most important administrators, had their property and religious rights respected, and were generally well regarded and integrated into the society. Rambam was a product of this time period.
The tradition continues today in the only Islamic theocracy in the world, Iran, which demonstrates that the principle of tolerance for Judaism is unambiguous and shared across the sectarian divides in Islam. The right to practice the Jewish faith is enshrined in the constitution there-and it's recognized pretty much everywhere except Saudi Arabia.
While "Islam" might have tolerance, and it is just tolerance, not equality, with Judaism and Christianity, the Wahhabi strain sees Jews and Christians as no different than idol worshippers. Actually it sees other forms of Islam as idol worshippers as well.
As far as Iran, it is an oppressive country, especially with regard to the Jews there. Which is why you find so many in LA, NY, and other major areas. I have yet to talk to an Iranian Jew who harbors any hope of returning.
I'll add that whatever school you are attending, you need to stop going there right away before they make an intellectual cripple out of you. Your posts have taken the worst kinds of propaganda from the Palestinians and other Arab sources and treated it as fact.
If I call myself a "Native-American Jew" that doesnt mean that the term is normative for Jewish people born in the U.S. Nor does it mean there are groups of people for whom that is a legitimate appelation. It means that one person, or even 2 or 3, have taken on a title meant to make a political statement. This is all the "Arab Jew" label is.
I cannot believe you are disputing me on this. I have visited dozens of places and met people from scores of countries. My real-life experience trumps any piddling BS website from some self-hating Israeli woman who wants to make a point about "oppression" at home.
Saudi Arabia does not have a warm relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia has no relationship with Israel, following on the Arab boycott.
Post by: Paddy on July 18, 2007, 01:59:35 PM
Quote
The Ottman Caliphate
That's been gone for 80 years.Quote
Umayyad Spanish states
That one's been gone for a thousand years and Sulieman is long dead.Quote
The tradition continues today in the only Islamic theocracy in the world, Iran, which demonstrates that the principle of tolerance for Judaism is unambiguous and shared across the sectarian divides in Islam.
Puh-leeze! Do you actually want me to recount some of the more egregious (and plentiful) anti Israel, anti Jew remarks of the Iranian leadership, clerics and press?
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 02:05:58 PM
Quote
The tradition continues today in the only Islamic theocracy in the world, Iran, which demonstrates that the principle of tolerance for Judaism is unambiguous and shared across the sectarian divides in Islam.
Puh-leeze! Do you actually want me to recount some of the more egregious (and plentiful) anti Israel, anti Jew remarks of the Iranian leadership, clerics and press?But you won't find that on the official Iranian propaganda sites, so it is useless arguing.
THis reminds me of all the arguments during the Cold War to the effect that the Russians were really interested in peace and pursued their expansionist interests only because of US aggression. After the cold war that was shown to be the nonsense that anyone outside of a university knew it to be.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 03:07:20 PM
Quote
While "Islam" might have tolerance, and it is just tolerance, not equality, with Judaism and Christianity, the Wahhabi strain sees Jews and Christians as no different than idol worshippers. Actually it sees other forms of Islam as idol worshippers as well.
As far as Iran, it is an oppressive country, especially with regard to the Jews there. Which is why you find so many in LA, NY, and other major areas. I have yet to talk to an Iranian Jew who harbors any hope of returning.
As far as Iran, it is an oppressive country, especially with regard to the Jews there. Which is why you find so many in LA, NY, and other major areas. I have yet to talk to an Iranian Jew who harbors any hope of returning.
Iran is oppressive generally, and there is precisely zero evidence that it singles out Jews for special treatment in that regard. Most of the evidence I've seen points to the poor economy as the number one reason for Iranian Jews to leave-and America is the number one destination.
Quote
I'll add that whatever school you are attending, you need to stop going there right away before they make an intellectual cripple out of you. Your posts have taken the worst kinds of propaganda from the Palestinians and other Arab sources and treated it as fact.
Yeah, I'll write the department on that sometime soon to let them know. Perhaps instead of labelling my points, you should review your own and consider why it is that you're stuck citing wikipedia to contradict Ehud Barak's own words, and basically calling names instead of presenting an argument or evidence.
I do respect your opinions and your willingness to defend them-unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in labelling everything you disagree with "pure politics", rather than in elaborating your own position. Which is fine, but it's of course not something that you would find in an academic setting no matter what the slant, nor can it be called an intellectually rigorous pursuit.
Quote
If I call myself a "Native-American Jew" that doesnt mean that the term is normative for Jewish people born in the U.S. Nor does it mean there are groups of people for whom that is a legitimate appelation. It means that one person, or even 2 or 3, have taken on a title meant to make a political statement. This is all the "Arab Jew" label is.
Again, your opinion, but debateable.
Quote
I cannot believe you are disputing me on this. I have visited dozens of places and met people from scores of countries. My real-life experience trumps any piddling BS website from some self-hating Israeli woman who wants to make a point about "oppression" at home.
Saudi Arabia does not have a warm relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia has no relationship with Israel, following on the Arab boycott.
Saudi Arabia does not have a warm relationship with Israel. Saudi Arabia has no relationship with Israel, following on the Arab boycott.
Ah yes, Haaretz is part of the conspiracy, and so is everyone else who disagrees. This is the classic conspiracy theorist tactic: whenever someone comes out and disputes your points, you just expand the conspiracy to include them. Thus, all those who would argue the split between Arab and Jew are "self hating", as are all those who would question Israeli policy towards the Palestinians (and apparently the entire editorial staff of Haaretz.)
Maybe they don't view the facts like you do-and maybe they've spent more time looking into it than you have. Perhaps you should consider those possibilities before you include them in the apparently large conspiracy of Israelis and Jews and to hate Israel and Jews for the benefit of Arabs.
Saudi Arabia most certainly has a relationship with Israel-they are both involved in Lebanon, and they've had a series of high level meetings the past few years mediated by Jordan. Of course they don't advertise it, just like they don't advertise the hooker and wine parties they like to throw in London. They are criminals and narrow minded bigots, and they behave like it.
Post by: De Selby on July 18, 2007, 03:11:03 PM
Quote
The Ottman Caliphate
That's been gone for 80 years.Quote
Umayyad Spanish states
That one's been gone for a thousand years and Sulieman is long dead.Quote
The tradition continues today in the only Islamic theocracy in the world, Iran, which demonstrates that the principle of tolerance for Judaism is unambiguous and shared across the sectarian divides in Islam.
Puh-leeze! Do you actually want me to recount some of the more egregious (and plentiful) anti Israel, anti Jew remarks of the Iranian leadership, clerics and press?Yes, they've been gone for a long time. So what? How does that have any bearing to the point I was making about Islam and its relationship to Judaism?
As for Iran, it's in the constitution. Of course there are anti-semites in Iran, just like there are in Europe and America. But the law protects their religion, they have a guaranteed seat in the government, and they are actually respected on the ground. If you look for reports, you will find that they have their own hospitals (which Ahmadinejad has donated large sums of money to himself), schools, and often visit Israel to see relatives.
The fact of the matter is, the Iranian religious law on this is without dispute: Jewish religious practice is to be protected Iran. And the facts on the ground show that this law is followed in practice, not just in theory.
Post by: Paddy on July 19, 2007, 07:28:15 AM
Quote
Yes, they've been gone for a long time. So what? How does that have any bearing to the point I was making about Islam and its relationship to Judaism?
Because.......(quite obviously).........if Islam is the peaceful religion you claim it is Quote
The example for Islamic teaching is pretty clear: Jewish people and religion are to be respected.
why can't you proffer even one exampleof an Islamic state that practices that 'tenet'? Quote
The fact of the matter is, the Iranian religious law on this is without dispute: Jewish religious practice is to be protected Iran. And the facts on the ground show that this law is followed in practice, not just in theory.
I can't believe you actually believe this. Do the Imams at your madrassa really think none of you students will fact check? "The Holocaust, or the slaughter of Jews during of WWII by German Nazis, is a myth and a contrived story.
The myth of the Holocaust is an excuse [used by] West to establish the illegal Zionist regime, and denial of it is an irrefutable attestation - in addition to many other attestations - that clearly testify to the illegality of the existence of the Zionist regime."-Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Iranian daily Kayhan
In December 2006, Ahmadinejad held a 'holocaust denial conference in Teheran, where they established a 'world foundation for holocaust studies' and appointed Presidential Advisor Mohammad-Ali Ramin as its secretary-general. Here are some of his remarks:
"Throughout History, This Religious Group [i.e. the Jews] has Inflicted the Most Damage on the Human Race "among the Jews there have always been those who killed Gods prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Throughout history, this religious group has inflicted the most damage on the human race, while some groups within it engaged in plotting against other nations and ethnic groups to cause cruelty, malice and wickedness."
'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people."
Ramin added that the aim of the Holocaust conspiracy was to facilitate the establishment of the state of Israel, which would, in turn, provoke the Muslims to rise up, confront the Jews, and massacre them. 'This [conspiracy],' he said, 'conducted by Europe and America, would lead to the total annihilation of global Jewry." Ramin added that 'as a religious Muslim, who believes in the equality of all nations, he must alert [people] to the fact that the state of Israel was established as the result of a conspiracy against the Jews..."
Ramin claimed that the Holocaust was the main reason why Palestine was occupied, while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel exists in the region,' he said, 'there will never be peace and security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'
And it goes on an on. It's clear that all this holocaust denial is necessary to pave the way for a new genocide against Jews. So extreme is the antisemitism coming out of Iran, it is even criticized by other Arabs! The Conference Was Not Academic; It Harmed Iran and the Muslims
British Arab journalist 'Adel Darwish wrote in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "The extremist Iranian president [Ahmadinejad] may have gained some points [in terms of] vocal propaganda in the hate[-mongering] satellite channels, but diplomatically, he only caused damage to his country, which is [going through] a difficult period in [terms of] its foreign [relations]. He also caused severe damage to the Muslims by creating a political-cultural climate in which feelings of hate drown out the Muslims' noble and humane sentiments.
Saudi journalist Yousef Al-Sweidan wrote in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa: "The new extremist Nazis in turbans were not ashamed to open that wretched conference in Tehran on December 11, 2006 [with the intent] of spreading hate and tendentious propaganda and defending the heinous crimes of the Nazis...
"The turbaned extremists and terrorists ceaselessly threaten with [their] Shihab missiles and with the [Iranian] nuclear program, calling to exterminate the Jews and to wipe Israel off the map. They spread the [pathetic] delusion that 'Israel will soon disappear just as the Soviet Union [disappeared].'
Kuwaiti journalist Dr. Khaled Al-Janfawi wrote in Al-Siyassa: [5] "Holding a conference devoted to Holocaust denial reflects a lack of cultural and human sensitivity which may exacerbate hatred among human beings.
Holding a Holocaust [denial] conference in Iran is adding fuel to the fire... Some of the participants were agitators, and [others] were [individuals] involved in racist discrimination against [minorities] other than the Jews, such as the African-Americans in the U.S...."
Former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "Western leaders today who say they are shocked by the conference of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran denying the Holocaust need to wake up to that reality. For the majority of Muslims in the world, the Holocaust is not a major historical event that they deny; they simply do not know [about it] because they were never informed. Worse, most of us are [brought up] to wish for a Holocaust of Jews.
Iranian TV regularly runs rabid anti Jewish programs, some about 'blood rituals' (As kf you don't know, there is a persistent myth in the Islamic world that Jews kidnap & murder non-Jews, especially children. They then use their blood to make matzoh balls)
And of course Ahmadinejad's continuing anti Jewish, anti Israel, anti western statements are legendary.
The reality is that Jews in Iran have a ghetto mentality. "We are a minority, just stay quiet, we have to be treated as second-class citizens. So what if they don't employ us in the government sector or in the army or in high posts? We have our trading businesses, and we can become doctors or engineers.'" Frighteningly like Germany in the 1930's.
Iran may be a 'model Islamic state', but it's no way near Jew friendly.
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Quote
why can't you proffer even one exampleof an Islamic state that practices that 'tenet'?
There is only one Islamic theocracy: Iran. It does enshrine the principle of tolerance in its laws. The problem is that you choose not to believe the evidence. I will provide below pretty serious articles, rather than a collection of quotes that you no doubt cribbed from someone else's site without citing the original compiler.
A decent review of available evidence shows that not only are Jews in Iran treated like other Iranians, they vocally condemn Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial (via their elected parliament member!), and participate in Iranian society to the extent that they served the Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, and now disgust at projects to offer them money to leave Iran.
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html
Quote
Take it from me, the Jewish community here faces no difficulties. If some people left after the revolution, maybe it's because they were scared," says Farangis Hassidim, a forceful but good-humored woman who is charge of the only Jewish hospital in Iran. She adds: "Our position here is not as bad as people abroad may think. We practice our religion freely, we have all our festivals, we have our own schools and kindergartens."
For her, the well-equipped hospital in central Tehran is a model of religious harmony. "We have about 200 staff, 30 percent of them Jewish," she says. "These days, I'd say about 5 percent of our patients are Jewish, the rest are Muslims." A sign outside the hospital reads in Hebrew: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
For her, the well-equipped hospital in central Tehran is a model of religious harmony. "We have about 200 staff, 30 percent of them Jewish," she says. "These days, I'd say about 5 percent of our patients are Jewish, the rest are Muslims." A sign outside the hospital reads in Hebrew: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p01s03-wome.html
Quote
Anti-Semitism historically 'rare'
Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives. Still, the Jewish community has thinned by more than two-thirds since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, to some 25,000; the largest exodus took place soon after the Islamic Republic was formed, though a modest flow out continues.
"Our problem is that the Israel issue is not solved, and that affects us here," says one Iranian Jew who asked not to be named.
Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives. Still, the Jewish community has thinned by more than two-thirds since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, to some 25,000; the largest exodus took place soon after the Islamic Republic was formed, though a modest flow out continues.
"Our problem is that the Israel issue is not solved, and that affects us here," says one Iranian Jew who asked not to be named.
Quote
Part of that coexistence has been gratitude for the Dr. Sapir Hospital, a Jewish charity hospital that would have closed years ago, but for subsidies from Jews inside and outside Iran, doctors say.
During the 1979 revolution, the hospital refused to hand over those wounded in clashes with the security forces of the pro-West Shah Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Khomeini later sent a personal representative to express his thanks. Ahmadinejad, too, has made a $27,000 donation.
During the 1979 revolution, the hospital refused to hand over those wounded in clashes with the security forces of the pro-West Shah Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Khomeini later sent a personal representative to express his thanks. Ahmadinejad, too, has made a $27,000 donation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
Quote
Mr Ahmedinejad has repeatedly used rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric - slogans like "wipe Israel off the map" - and most controversially he has questioned the number killed in the Holocaust during World War II.
Mr Mohtamed has been outspoken in his condemnation of the president's views - in itself a sign that there is some space for Jews in Iran to express themselves.
President Ahmedinejad has repeatedly used anti-Israeli rhetoric
"It's very regrettable to see a horrible tragedy so far reaching as the Holocaust being denied ... it was a very big insult to Jews all around the world," says Mr Mohtamed, who has also strongly condemned the exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust organised by an Iranian newspaper owned by the Tehran municipality.
Despite the offence Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital.
Mr Mohtamed has been outspoken in his condemnation of the president's views - in itself a sign that there is some space for Jews in Iran to express themselves.
President Ahmedinejad has repeatedly used anti-Israeli rhetoric
"It's very regrettable to see a horrible tragedy so far reaching as the Holocaust being denied ... it was a very big insult to Jews all around the world," says Mr Mohtamed, who has also strongly condemned the exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust organised by an Iranian newspaper owned by the Tehran municipality.
Despite the offence Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital.
Nice try RileyMc-you should read what the Jews of Iran have to say for themselves before you conclude what is or is not the law and custom of Iran.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 19, 2007, 03:14:47 PM
OK, so they aren't. In fact, the best that can be said is that the gov't isnt rounding them up and killing them. I guess that's something.
In fact Jews are barred from different areas of life, including gov't and other "sensitive" areas, like banking. Travel is severely restricted, especially to Israel.
They are not free citizens, in the sense we understand the term.
Post by: Paddy on July 19, 2007, 03:41:51 PM
Quote
There is only one Islamic theocracy: Iran. It does enshrine the principle of tolerance in its laws. The problem is that you choose not to believe the evidence. I will provide below pretty serious articles, rather than a collection of quotes that you no doubt cribbed from someone else's site without citing the original compiler.
Here are quotes directly from your 'serious articles' demonstrating the 'principle of tolerance':"Privately, there are grumbles about discrimination, much of it of a social or bureaucratic nature"
A woman teacher says she has been passed by for promotion several times because she is Jewish and now hopes to emigrate to Los Angeles. A car-parts dealer says Jews have to wait much longer for travel documents and exit visas.
The most pressing complaint is that, despite many petitions to parliament, Jewish schools must open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath.
Contacts with the Jewish state are banned, although some visit through third countries, while mail is usually routed through London.
At an antiques shop in central Tehran, Isaac, the elderly owner, says many Jews who once owned shops along the broad, bustling avenue have left in the past 20 years.
Because Iran is so 'tolerant', that's why they left
The continuous Jewish presence in Iran predates Islam by more than a millennium.
Seems to me Islamic radicals are occupying Jewish land in Iran
Still, the Jewish community has thinned by more than two-thirds since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, to some 25,000; the largest exodus took place soon after the Islamic Republic was formed, though a modest flow out continues.
Again, they're leaving because Iran is such a great place for Jews.
Strong anti-Zionist undercurrents developed in Iran and across the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948. Those views came to a boil in Tehran after the 1967 war, when Israel crushed Arab foes and occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai. That war marked a turning point in Iranians' attitudes toward the Jewish state, and sometimes toward Iranian Jews.
"Jews here have great Iranian roots they love Iran," says chairman Moresadegh. "Personally, I would stay in Iran no matter what. I speak in English, I pray in Hebrew, but my thinking is Persian."
He's Persian before he's Jewish, but the Islamofascsits don't care. It's not about nationalism, it's about religion
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.
See my comment above
"Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers.
See comment above (again, Muslims occupying Jewish land)
Jews have lived in Persia for nearly 3,000 years - the descendants of slaves from Babylon saved by Cyrus the Great.
Ditto above
But there are legal problems for Jews in Iran - if one member of a Jewish family converts to Islam he can inherit all the family's property.
Jews cannot become army officers and the headmasters of the Jewish schools in Tehran are all Muslim, though there is no law that says this should be so.
More 'tolerance' and 'respect'
"Whatever they say abroad is lies - we are comfortable in Iran - if you're not political and don't bother them then they won't bother you," he explains.
"We are Iranian and we have been living in Iran for more than 3,000 years," says the Jewish hospital director Ciamak Morsathegh.
"I am not going to leave - I will stay in Iran under any conditions," he declares.
That pretty much says it all
You have been hoisted with your own petard, shootinstudent.
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2007, 06:31:50 PM
Yes, the comments of people published with their names under shadow of a totalitarian regime are always reliable and truthful.
OK, so they aren't. In fact, the best that can be said is that the gov't isnt rounding them up and killing them. I guess that's something.
In fact Jews are barred from different areas of life, including gov't and other "sensitive" areas, like banking. Travel is severely restricted, especially to Israel.
They are not free citizens, in the sense we understand the term.
OK, so they aren't. In fact, the best that can be said is that the gov't isnt rounding them up and killing them. I guess that's something.
In fact Jews are barred from different areas of life, including gov't and other "sensitive" areas, like banking. Travel is severely restricted, especially to Israel.
They are not free citizens, in the sense we understand the term.
Great, just provide some evidence to support that Iranian Jews are singled out for special oppression amongst Iranians. It's true that Iran is an oppressive country-but that is true whatever religion you are in Iran, not just for Jews.
You have plenty above that indicates they are not singled out, and that they in fact are quite well represented as far as minorities go-is the Christian Science Monitor part of the conspiracy now too?
And what of the protections they receive and the guaranteed member of parliament? How does that fit in with a grand Iranian scheme to kill all Jews?
Post by: De Selby on July 19, 2007, 06:38:03 PM
Yeah, that is in the article. What exactly is your point? They get passed over for promotions and somehow that's a sign of an ugly oppressive plan to eliminate Jews? Get serious. Absolutely zero in these articles (or anywhere) indicates that there is an Iranian plot to kill all Jews. If they hated all Jews, the Muslims who founded and continue to run Iran could easily just amend the constitution, not recognize their property rights, and expel them all to Israel like the Arab states did. How you can reconcile your belief that Iranian Muslims must hate Jews with the fact that Jews have hospitals, schools, and MP's in Iran is really quite shocking.
The interviewees said exactly why people left in the article: the Economy in Iran is crap. That's not too shocking, that they would leave because there are no job opportunities, is it? Most of Iran would probably come to America if they had a choice. That's hardly proof of special hatred for Jews.
Quote
He's Persian before he's Jewish, but the Islamofascsits don't care. It's not about nationalism, it's about religion
Except that the Islamic constitution says specifically that Jews are Iranians and have a right to practice their religion. How do you explain that?
The Islamists took over Iran and established a theocracy and then...inserted some anti-Muslim stuff into the constitution to fool the rest of us? Or what?
And how do you explain the, oh, hospitals and donations to hospitals and Jewish religious schools!? Is that a sign that Islam commands Muslims to attack Jews?
It's really quite amazing. You have to read the articles for any discrimination at all, and then conclude that it's proof Muslims are commanded to hate Jews. If that's not letting your preconceptions determine what you see, I don't know what is.
The fact is, it is better to be Jewish in Iran than to be Muslim in Saudi Arabia. You have more freedoms and more security being Jewish in Tehran than being an average Muslim in Jeddah. There is no rational way you can twist that into "Islam persecutes Jews"
Post by: The Rabbi on July 20, 2007, 03:54:25 AM
Yes, the comments of people published with their names under shadow of a totalitarian regime are always reliable and truthful.
OK, so they aren't. In fact, the best that can be said is that the gov't isnt rounding them up and killing them. I guess that's something.
In fact Jews are barred from different areas of life, including gov't and other "sensitive" areas, like banking. Travel is severely restricted, especially to Israel.
They are not free citizens, in the sense we understand the term.
OK, so they aren't. In fact, the best that can be said is that the gov't isnt rounding them up and killing them. I guess that's something.
In fact Jews are barred from different areas of life, including gov't and other "sensitive" areas, like banking. Travel is severely restricted, especially to Israel.
They are not free citizens, in the sense we understand the term.
Great, just provide some evidence to support that Iranian Jews are singled out for special oppression amongst Iranians. It's true that Iran is an oppressive country-but that is true whatever religion you are in Iran, not just for Jews.
You have plenty above that indicates they are not singled out, and that they in fact are quite well represented as far as minorities go-is the Christian Science Monitor part of the conspiracy now too?
And what of the protections they receive and the guaranteed member of parliament? How does that fit in with a grand Iranian scheme to kill all Jews?
I dont need to provide any evidence that Jews are singled out for minority status among other minorities because I never claimed that. Your claim was the Jews were respected and well treated under the Islamic regime. That is obviously not true. It might be that every minority is ill treated, but that is irrelevant to your initial claim.
I will mention the Jews are kings in comparison to how the Bahai's are treated.
Post by: Paddy on July 20, 2007, 08:09:20 AM
Iran's problem is that it's ruled by backwards 7th century religious fanatics. There's no way of determining how many, but a large percentage of Iranians want to overthrow the mullahs and ayatollahs and form a democracy. They want to westernize. If an 'Islamic state' is such a great way to live, answer me this: Why, with over 1 billion Muslims worldwide, are there no other Islamic states?
How is it that the overwhelming majority of those 1 billion seem to live peaceably all over the world under various kinds of governments? Why are there only a really small percentage of those 1 billion engaged in violent extremism in the name of Islam?
Post by: De Selby on July 20, 2007, 07:55:38 PM
Quote
If an 'Islamic state' is such a great way to live, answer me this: Why, with over 1 billion Muslims worldwide, are there no other Islamic states?
There's an easy answer to that: Most Muslim countries aren't functioning democracies. If they were, they would be voting for Islamic governments like they did in every single country that has ever held a vote with a Muslim population.
Who said, btw, that Iran was a great way to live? What I said was that Islamic law is clear on the point that Jews and Judaism are to be respected. Have we settled that question finally?
Quote
How is it that the overwhelming majority of those 1 billion seem to live peaceably all over the world under various kinds of governments? Why are there only a really small percentage of those 1 billion engaged in violent extremism in the name of Islam?
Because Islam clearly forbids the kinds of things terrorists do. It should not be surprising that most religious Muslims don't do these things.
Nice of you to quit claiming anything about Iran-it was starting to get silly.
Rabbi,
Quote
I will mention the Jews are kings in comparison to how the Bahai's are treated.
True. The treatment of Bahai's has been savage, and Israel has been good to give them a relatively safe headquarters.
I should have said "Jewish religion is respected" instead. They are allowed to practice their faith as they see fit; hence, the abuse against them is by virtue of their being Iranians, not because of their Jewish identity.
Post by: Paddy on July 23, 2007, 02:56:49 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on July 28, 2007, 07:08:10 PM
We've gotten way off track, but matis' in post #50 explained the close relationship between Jews and Christians IMO. fistful completely ignores the legitimate and continuing covenants God has with the Jews, even though Rabbi tried to explain it to him. His claim regarding 'replacement theology' is completely bogus, there is no such thing because the original covenants still prevail. Jews have some very good, scriptural reasons for not recognizing Jesus as Messiah. This in no way excludes them from God's kingdom. To so assert is exclusionary and legalistic, has no scriptural basis, and does not represent true Christendom.
A "covenant" is by definition a Covenant. Obviously a covenent of G-d's is eternal.