Should Christians support Israeli military action?

[Miller]

Posted by Rizotto (here)

Posted by Miller (here)

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Well said Miller, I agree with most of what you say. Except for the part that "both sides" are equally guilty.

I didn't say that, Rizotto.

My apologies Miller, you are correct. I just removed that incorrect sentence from my post.

I still feel strongly there's a need to discuss what options were available to Palestinians to defend themselves, given the fact that for decades Isreal has ignored countless UN resolutions trying to solve this conflict, and that Isreal has blockaded for decades, stealing more Palestiniand lands and killing them if they resist. That is the big question. What can Palestinian do to put an end to the hell they've been through since 1948. Seems like the October 7 Hamas operation is the only thing that moved the issue into international spolight. (This thread is probably not the best place to discuss this.)

Thanks Rizotto . . .

Firstly, this thread is "Should Christians support Israel?" and I think the answer must be no.  Although I'm not an expert on the Bible, I feel I'm making a safe assumption that Christ himself never went to war and opted instead for turning the other cheek. Ditto his Disciples, who didn't put up any resistance when he was taken by the Romans.  And so theoretically Christians should follow his example, no?

Israel's right to defend itself isn't just restricted to Israel.  All countries have that right and so do individuals.  Where the law gets hazy is the extent to which that defence is justified, and it's patently obvious, or should be, that Israel are disregarding innocent civilians - even their own (ie hostages) in their efforts to wipe out Hamas. 

But let's go back a bit to October 7th.   Hamas knew that Israel would react in this way, if only because of their terrible treatment of the Palestinians leading up to that day, yet they made no provision at all for their people who were already captive in Gaza and the West Bank.   This also took most of the attention away from what was going on in Ukraine.  I'd really like to know why Hamas chose this date and who else was behind it. ie Russia maybe, to dilute USA's presence and financial/weaponry backing in Ukraine?   You're right that Israel's unacceptable behaviour towards the Palestinians has been ongoing for decades, and has been completely ignored by USA/UK.  This is another reason I think Russia may have been influential because it was a similar situation to what was happening in Ukraine before Russia's "special military operation".  

In the meantime, whether Israel are supported by anyone doesn't seem to matter a jot to them, but for how long and how far this will be allowed to continue remains to be seen.

[Ernie Nemeth]

When you use history to excuse the behavior of a group of terrorists without pointing out the history of those other countries that did not resort to terrorism but had the same historic precedent, you are not being fair.

There have been many such claims over territory. For instance, Hungary. Hungary lost much of its historic lands, including its coastal areas long ago. Yugoslavia is another, even better example. Not only did they lose territory, they were split along race lines - proving that diversity does not work in reality, only in the minds of the globalists. And because of that diversity there was a bloody civil war, also along race lines that Hungary did not have to contend with.

Abomination is abomination, regardless of the excuses.

[Rizotto]

Isreal can only pursue that genocide operation as long as they get the okay and military aid from the USA. In other words, Isreal is NOTHING without the USA backing. And that backing has only been set up by Isreal's wheeling and dealing. They've literally bought the compliance fro USA congress with funding diverted from the USA taxpayers themselves. Isreal apartheid goal is based on notions of being the chosen people and god gave them the land. Nobody else in the world believes that nonsense. Such bizarre ideology is simply not sustainable. Especially when it involves the most brutal genocide.

Prior to October 7, Isreali militants did 1,000 times than Hamas ever did. Since October 7, Isreal has done 10,000 times worse than Hamas ever did.

Committing genocide has squarely placed Isreal into terrorist status. Let's be clear: Israel is a terrorist state. It has been conducting unprovoked attacks on neighbouring countries, and conducted assassinations of important political figures, and set up false flags to get USA into wars on their (Isreal) behalf.

https://www.haaretz.com/2008-04-16/t...f-ffff07ea0000
Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel
According to Ma'ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is 'benefiting from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion.'

[Rizotto]

"It's a huge honour to speak to Reverend Munther Isaac, Senior Pastor at the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church of Bethlehem, who delivered a hugely powerful Christmas message about Israel's onslaught on Gaza. We speak about Western complicity - including those who remain silent - and the refusal to describe Israel's actions for what they are."

Palestinian Christian Leader: "History Will Hold You Accountable" Over Gaza Genocide

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I7tAxR5mzUk

[shaberon]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
More Jews are for Jesus than ever.

Messianic Judaism is a recognized minority in Israel. It is a near-offshoot of Sabbatean Frankists or "Christian Jews".

Marcion was the first to point out that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are really entirely different beings.

Marcion didn't really say anything about a New Testament, rather, the effort was to prevent it from happening.

The original would-be Christian fragments contain no Jesus or Christ. There is no proof that they were anything but later redactions to overturn Marcion, along with Simon, Serapis, and Apollonius.

The oldest known New Testament, Codex Siniaiticus, clearly shows "Christ" as an erasure/replacement of what was already written.


Of course, the only way I know to stay sane is to hold these things at arm's length, and review them as social engineering. They both pretty much threw validity out the window as soon as they started.

Again, if there needs to be much debate about what a Savior or Messiah is, that would be a self-announcement from Zoroaster. These are all regurgitations of what he said about himself. It has no other precursor. The Jewish temporal messiah acquired this theological mode during the Babylonian Captivity, and the idea was re-constructed by followers of Jesus.

The Greek Soter was not an individual, but a class--similar role, but, a job for everybody, if you choose to accept the mission.

Sorry that none of these ideas have proved useful for the progress of peace. The fruits of their actions should prove them to be false. The one thing we have never found in pagan literature is killing someone else for what they think, or who they biologically are. There was war for power, no tricks. As of now, we can barely manage a coherent conversation thanks to the Tower of Babel designed by these odd beliefs.

None of them are the only choices, they can barely be called legitimate choices.

Anyone want to explain why we should pay attention to a strange rumor about a corpse walking around?

Never mind.

It might turn into an excuse to steal land for those genetically affiliated to the losers of millennia ago.

[Ratszinger]

I often wonder if the the Jewish people ever feel guilty at all for how they have changed the face of war on this planet.
History says it all. Just look at the names of those involved in directly making mass destruction boms or carrying on the research at other times or to have advised or contributed somehow to what the USA did to Japan!
Hans Bethe,
Robert Oppenheimer,
Enrico Fermi,
Klaus Fuchs,
Glen Seaborg,
Ernest :Lawrence,
Eugene Gardner,
Richard Feynman,
Robert Bacher,
James Chadwick,
Pief Panofsky,
Victor Weisskopf,
Edward Teller,
Herman Von Helmholtz,
Otto Frisch
Albert Einstein.

And it isn't just the New Testament it's the Old Testament too that is just as much pagan.
The original ten commandments were surprising to me when Mauro Biglino showed me what the stone tablets really had written on them.
Write down these words, because with these words I contract an alliance with you and Israel.

Do not contract alliance with inhabitants of the country

Do not take woman of the country for Israel's children

Do not make divinities on fused metal

Observe the feasts

Reserve all your male first borns to me.

Respect Saturday

Every male will have to present himself to me three times a year

Do not offer the victims blood on bread.

Donate the firstlings of the land to me.

Do not cook the kid in the mothers blood

Don't murder

Don't wish

These are the fundamental laws of Yahweh, these are what is in your Bible but not in your bible.

You don't see those commandments in any Christian bible I've read. Mauro says the bible tells us that Elohim died also, and that further it states that "They" all die like us. Anyway, its hard to wrap your head around all the corruption in the religion but it's organized crime so no surprise here really.

[shaberon]

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
And it isn't just the New Testament it's the Old Testament too that is just as much pagan.

What, exactly, would this mean?


paganus = "country dweller"

The original ten commandments were surprising to me when Mauro Biglino showed me what the stone tablets really had written on them.

Has the Ark of the Covenant been found? Perhaps in the Yukon this time??

Granted, some form of Mosaic Law must have been the original stamp that separated Yhwh followers from the universe, but I am not aware of anything other than late editions of it. Actually, I'd be willing to start with any mention of Moses prior to the Babylonian Captivity, if there is any possibility of showing he was not invented 500 years after the events are supposed to have happened.

[Ratszinger]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
And it isn't just the New Testament it's the Old Testament too that is just as much pagan.

What, exactly, would this mean?


paganus = "country dweller"

The original ten commandments were surprising to me when Mauro Biglino showed me what the stone tablets really had written on them.

Has the Ark of the Covenant been found? Perhaps in the Yukon this time??

Granted, some form of Mosaic Law must have been the original stamp that separated Yhwh followers from the universe, but I am not aware of anything other than late editions of it. Actually, I'd be willing to start with any mention of Moses prior to the Babylonian Captivity, if there is any possibility of showing he was not invented 500 years after the events are supposed to have happened.

What does it mean? Seriously? You can't look up "Pagan" on your own? I don't get the question. Pagan=making sacrifices of victims to their god(s) usually the surrounding country folk they were told to avoid or take women from for their children and Moses certainly knew that was no God when he made his deal on the top of that mountain! Biglino backs that up, and he's a biblcial scholar that translated no less than 17 of the Vatican pubications still used today as well as many other Christian texts. Alexander the Great was a pagan conqueror btw.

Before all this tho, Vegetation cults are believed to have started religion according to Mauro and, it seems, are older than stellar or solar cults but were later blended with them and later with Christian belief when Rome began it's "Approved State Religion"
Anyway, In the primitive vegetation-god sacrifice, the victim was, it is believed, originally the king, or head chief, or head man of the tribe who in some cases gave himself up voluntarily for the people. It was at one time believed by ancient man that the prosperity of the tribe depended on the well-being of the ruler. So, if the King became old and feeble or ill it was believed, well, it was a forgone conclusion really, at least to the people, that the tribe would certainly suffer and probably in a similar decline as their leader unless they did something to prevent it. So in early vegetation cults the king would be sacrificed.
Then the king would be replaced with a more youthful and healthy replacement usually of his own family. It is believed at times that someone wanting the King dead caused his sickness in the first place for the throne.
Later in time the king eventually figured out how to make the sacrifice one of his sons. This led to the, "Son of God" belief's in Mauro's speech because of course most considered the king to be god in human form. The son of the king being substituted in the ritual, and being of divinity himself would properly be thought of as the son of god. At a still later periods criminals would be selected, often from country tribes defeated in battle for whatever reason. These were most often condemned prisoners. The culprit was usually given royal treatment for a time and then put to death! These victims were most often secured to a sacred tree and their arms outstretched in the form of a cross which later led to hangings on the cross. Still later 'Scape Goat" rituals where a goat or pack animal was selected and laden down with the guilty pleasures of the village would be released and taken out of the village so as to remove their sins or guilt to make attonement of them to the gods.

Later by the time of Charlamagne of course Rome wanted a singular religion in the empire due to all the infighting between belief system leaders in the empire, burning each others temples and places of worship, killing the leaders and so on. Roman government didn't care really what people believed they just wanted people to produce and pay their taxes and stop all the religious violence hence the need for a new one religion shutting down all others. Of course it just led to more violence but that isn't the point really. The end result was nothing like Jesus taught or what was presented as his teachings. And today the Roman Catholic Church is just that, a "Roman" creation run by organized crime families.

[DeDukshyn]

Responding to the OP ... (sorry for the interruption )

I heard that in a think-tank video the other day on the topic of the Isreali / Palestinian conflict, where a woman claimed that, as a Christian, she was obliged to support whatever actions Isreal wants to take no matter how horrific, because the bible said the Israelis are God's "chosen ones" ...

And I thought to myself .. "That's the biggest load of horse **** I've ever heard in my life!"

Don't get me wrong, Hamas IS a terrorist organization, and the Palestinians deserve better leadership, but if you want to ignore what Israel has put the general population of Palestinians through, and ignore the international war crimes, chemical weapons attacks, mass bombings, and over-retaliation, scheming and strategizing of the Isreali government to inflict as much continuous pain on the Palestinian people as possible, in the name of "god" - I really wonder what god it is that you worship?

I don't support either side - both sides have virtues and atrociousness. Where I used to live there is a high Lebanese / Palestinian population and some of those people are just so full of hate, its disturbing ... but, I can understand some of it. They need to get their sh!t together and learn that in Canada we generally don't appreciate that level of hate, and, many get themselves into a lot of trouble because of it. I did have a good Lebanese friend that I worked with and he had PTSD from surviving the BS over in the middle east - he had some good stories, but he was an example of a great loving person, that just wished for nothing more than to have peace over there.

In my view, any good Christian, that actually followed the teachings of Jesus should have no tolerance for violence of any kind. You don't need to support anyone, you don't need to condemn anyone. You need to learn to love as Jesus did - once you've achieved that, come back and see if you want to tell me who's violence you choose to support -- pretty sure it would be no one's ...

[Bruce G Charlton]

I am not sure how many of the commenters on this thread explicitly regard themselves as A Christian (as I do); but it makes a difference whether or not one sees the world from the perspective of desiring Salvation above all - which is, minimally stated; to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected eternal Heavenly life, after death.

I notice a recurrent theme on this thread that asserts that Christians cannot, or should not, support war or violence. Well, it of course depends on what is meant by Christian - but this kind of pacifism was not seen in Christianity until the late 1700s (at first among Quakers - but even Quakers did not start out as pacifists) - therefore late in the history of the faith. And I would regard pacifism as an early sign of the corruption of Christianity towards a this-worldly-focused "progressive" and political basis, that has now all-but displaced the spiritual from all the major Christian churches.

To have pacifism (rejection of violence, including war) as a fundamental principle is Not therefore a Christian doctrine - although some real Christians have had this conviction - indeed pacifism (in a broad sense) is probably much more an Eastern, e.g. Buddhist or Hindu (some sects like Jainism) religious ideal.

Christianity is ultimately "not of this world", and the Christian Heaven is on the other side of death. The worst thing, for a Christian, is (or should be) spiritual not material; it is to reject or exclude Love.

Attitudes to physical violence and war should not, therefore, be made fundamental to Christianity. Whether violence/ war are justified or necessary will depend on circumstances and (especially) motivations, and on the alternatives.

The specific issue of whether Christians "ought to support" Israel is therefore a different question from whether all Christians "ought to be" pacifists, and the two questions should be kept separate if we are not to become confused.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Maybe Related?

• video source

[AutumnW]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Ewan (here)
In my experience most, if not the majority, of Christians - or followers of any relegious denomination really - are good at 'paying lip service' to their chosen belief system. Very few can 'walk the walk' though.

Personally I cannot begin to comprehend the mental gymnastics required to conclude one had to support any side in a 'Hell in microcosm' conflagration because they are a Christian (or any other). In fact it seems to me that would go against the prime teachings of Jesus, they're not exactly throwing the moneylenders out of the temple here - it is more like the fire and brimstone of a yahweh jealous god. Perhaps it comes down to that, do you as a Christian subscribe to New Testament thinking or Old Testament thinking. I don't think you can pick and choose depending on circumstance.

Marcion (85—160 AD) was the first scholar to point out that the angry, vengeful, ruthless, punishing God of the Old Testament (Jehovah) and the loving God of the New Testament seemed to be two entirely different beings — with entirely different teachings and value systems.

For this inconvenient truth (which I'm personally persuaded is very valid), despite having been a wealthy financial donor to the early Roman Church, he was immediately excommunicated.

It appears that Netanyahu's militant political convictions are entirely Old Testament based. Many have argued, following from where Marcion left off, that the Old Testament Jehovah is not only a different being than the New Testament God (who Jesus is claimed by many to have represented), but is actually what Gnostics call the Demiurge.

The Demiurge is a fundamentally materialistic, self-serving and evil being. Many might suspect that Netanyahu is woven from similar cloth.

The old testament is about and for those who worship a small g God, imo. You can't possibly appreciate a universal God or creator, while paying homage to a small g god who has a chosen people, and that aint you, if you're Christian. Or for that matter, if you are anything else.

In the time of the old testament, many tribal people had their own tribal god. Yahweh just happened to be the god of one tribe. I can't think of a more repulsive religion than hard core Judaism.

[shaberon]

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
What does it mean? Seriously? You can't look up "Pagan" on your own? I don't get the question. Pagan=making sacrifices of victims to their god(s) usually the surrounding country folk they were told to avoid or take women from for their children and Moses certainly knew that was no God when he made his deal on the top of that mountain!

Yeah, seriously.

I am a pagan and was curious to know what was being thrown around this time.

Was the Ark of the Covenant found?

Is there any empirical evidence for Moses whatsoever?

That's what I was getting at.

Alexander the Great was a devotee of Aristotle who said:


Non-Greeks are animals, kill them all.

Aristotle is the foundation of Christianity and western philosophy, which is a cause for concern.

[Ratszinger]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
What does it mean? Seriously? You can't look up "Pagan" on your own? I don't get the question. Pagan=making sacrifices of victims to their god(s) usually the surrounding country folk they were told to avoid or take women from for their children and Moses certainly knew that was no God when he made his deal on the top of that mountain!

Yeah, seriously.

I am a pagan and was curious to know what was being thrown around this time.

Was the Ark of the Covenant found?

Is there any empirical evidence for Moses whatsoever?

That's what I was getting at.

Alexander the Great was a devotee of Aristotle who said:


Non-Greeks are animals, kill them all.

Aristotle is the foundation of Christianity and western philosophy, which is a cause for concern.

Alexander is known as a GRECO ROMAN PAGAN, King of Macedon, the CONQUEROR of Achaemenid Persia, with his death marking the start of the Hellenistic period according to the history I've had, one of many other. Niall of the Nine Hostages, my direct ancestor was another Pagan leader, a Celt also. I didn't write the history I was taught that in classes.