• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

US has struck three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump says

Ivan Hlavanda

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,774
1,155
33
York
✟151,752.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I know Jewish people, they're US citizens, they're my co-workers and neighbors. They don't have anything to do with the modern state of Israel.
I'm talking about physical descendants of Jacob. Most Jews today are physical descendants of Jacob. They are Israel.

And God knows who they are. And He will bring them back to the land He promised to Abraham's descendants, if He has not brought them already. This has been propecised in the Bible as I have shown already.

Yes, they are people who identify as Jews today, but are not. I'm not talking about them.


how is this not obvious anti-semitism
What's anti-semitism is Christians saying that the Church has replaced Israel. Or that Israel has forfeited the promises God gave them. Or that the modern state of Israel has nothing to do with the OT Israel. That's anti-semitic.

Yes it's true that Jews have done lot of evil to Christians, but so have Christians done lot of evil to Jews in the name of Jesus. But that of course does not get talked about, the Christian persecution of Jews. That's anti-semitism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry N.
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,634
29,227
Pacific Northwest
✟816,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm talking about physical descendants of Jacob. Most Jews today are physical descendants of Jacob. They are Israel.

And God knows who they are. And He will bring them back to the land He promised to Abraham's descendants, if He has not brought them already. This has been propecised in the Bible as I have shown already.

Yes, they are people who identify as Jews today, but are not. I'm not talking about them.

Are you saying that Jewish people who aren't moving to the modern state of Israel aren't actually Jews?

What's anti-semitism is Christians saying that the Church has replaced Israel. Or that Israel has forfeited the promises God gave them. Or that the modern state of Israel has nothing to do with the OT Israel. That's anti-semitic.

Yes it's true that Jews have done lot of evil to Christians, but so have Christians done lot of evil to Jews in the name of Jesus. But that of course does not get talked about, the Christian persecution of Jews. That's anti-semitism.

It's obvious that Christian violence against Jewish people is an historic evil, and continuing antisemitic sentiment among Christians today is a present evil. You aren't going to find me making an argument defending historic or modern antisemitism, because I believe antisemitism is a deplorable evil.

Now, again, I'm not going to debate theology in this thread. As I've said numerous times already. But perhaps you could explain how it is antisemitic to not believe the modern state of Israel is biblically or religiously significant. Wouldn't that render a good amount of the Jewish population as being antisemitic? There are millions of Jews, both religious and non-religious, who do not regard the modern state of Israel to having any religious or biblical significance. While different branches of Judaism have different views, and even within those branches of Judaism there can be wide diversity of views, a good percentage of Judaism does not subscribe to any form of Religious Zionism. Indeed, a prevailing view within Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism holds that the return of the Jewish diaspora and the restoration of Israel to the Jewish people does not and cannot happen until the Messiah comes, and from this perspective the modern state of Israel is either non-significant or worse, illegitimate. Now that isn't to say this is the view of all Orthodox and Hasidic Jews--because it's not. But it most certainly is a view held among religious Jews in Orthodox and Hasidic circles, and was the principle basis for early opposition against Secular Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th century among religious Jews of the Diaspora.

At any rate, is it your position, then, that Jewish people of this persuasion are antisemitic?

Or would these be the "not real Jews" you mentioned earlier? A statement that is, frankly, sending alarm bells. For a lot of reason, the most obvious is that "Jews are not real Jews" is a pretty classic antisemitic trope. But also, treating Jewishness as "physical descent from Jacob" is fraught with all manner of issues, not only does this seem to be an attempt to deny the Jewishness of Jewish people (which, again, gets us back to the problem of antisemitism in the statement); but it blatantly disregards that Judaism is a religion, and millions of people have converted to Judaism over thousands of years. Now given that I am trying to avoid explicitly theological (and by extension, biblical/hermeneutical/exegetical) debate in this thread as this is not the place for it, I'll only briefly bring this up: But from a theological/biblical perspective this "physical descent from Jacob" marker ignores poignant biblical data (the existence of Ruth, the Moabite who converted to Judaism, and there's a whole book of the Bible devoted to telling her story), and makes for a real problem when the biblical language isn't interested about genetics, but Covenant--Jews are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this is sealed at the Covenant made at Sinai. It's not about being physically descended from Jacob, it's about being a covenant child of Abraham. A Gentile that converts to Judaism is no less Jewish than anyone else.

At any rate, it would appear that your position is that people who don't agree with your particular religious view is antisemitic, while you are yourself engaging in classic and historic antisemitic tropes without realizing it. You'll forgive me for finding this quite ironic.

But this does do a good job of illustrating one of my problems with Christian Zionism broadly, and Dispensationalism in particular. Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists often give the appearance of being philosemitic, but scratch a bit beneath the surface and what one sees is not a genuine concern or care about Jewish people as real actual human beings--but rather a patronizing view of Jewish people that dehumanizes them, and uses philosemitic masking to harbor genuinely antisemitic attitudes.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Ivan Hlavanda

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,774
1,155
33
York
✟151,752.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are you saying that Jewish people who aren't moving to the modern state of Israel aren't actually Jews?



It's obvious that Christian violence against Jewish people is an historic evil, and continuing antisemitic sentiment among Christians today is a present evil. You aren't going to find me making an argument defending historic or modern antisemitism, because I believe antisemitism is a deplorable evil.

Now, again, I'm not going to debate theology in this thread. As I've said numerous times already. But perhaps you could explain how it is antisemitic to not believe the modern state of Israel is biblically or religiously significant. Wouldn't that render a good amount of the Jewish population as being antisemitic? There are millions of Jews, both religious and non-religious, who do not regard the modern state of Israel to having any religious or biblical significance. While different branches of Judaism have different views, and even within those branches of Judaism there can be wide diversity of views, a good percentage of Judaism does not subscribe to any form of Religious Zionism. Indeed, a prevailing view within Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism holds that the return of the Jewish diaspora and the restoration of Israel to the Jewish people does not and cannot happen until the Messiah comes, and from this perspective the modern state of Israel is either non-significant or worse, illegitimate. Now that isn't to say this is the view of all Orthodox and Hasidic Jews--because it's not. But it most certainly is a view held among religious Jews in Orthodox and Hasidic circles, and was the principle basis for early opposition against Secular Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th century among religious Jews of the Diaspora.

At any rate, is it your position, then, that Jewish people of this persuasion are antisemitic?

Or would these be the "not real Jews" you mentioned earlier? A statement that is, frankly, sending alarm bells. For a lot of reason, the most obvious is that "Jews are not real Jews" is a pretty classic antisemitic trope. But also, treating Jewishness as "physical descent from Jacob" is fraught with all manner of issues, not only does this seem to be an attempt to deny the Jewishness of Jewish people (which, again, gets us back to the problem of antisemitism in the statement); but it blatantly disregards that Judaism is a religion, and millions of people have converted to Judaism over thousands of years. Now given that I am trying to avoid explicitly theological (and by extension, biblical/hermeneutical/exegetical) debate in this thread as this is not the place for it, I'll only briefly bring this up: But from a theological/biblical perspective this "physical descent from Jacob" marker ignores poignant biblical data (the existence of Ruth, the Moabite who converted to Judaism, and there's a whole book of the Bible devoted to telling her story), and makes for a real problem when the biblical language isn't interested about genetics, but Covenant--Jews are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this is sealed at the Covenant made at Sinai. It's not about being physically descended from Jacob, it's about being a covenant child of Abraham. A Gentile that converts to Judaism is no less Jewish than anyone else.

At any rate, it would appear that your position is that people who don't agree with your particular religious view is antisemitic, while you are yourself engaging in classic and historic antisemitic tropes without realizing it. You'll forgive me for finding this quite ironic.

But this does do a good job of illustrating one of my problems with Christian Zionism broadly, and Dispensationalism in particular. Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists often give the appearance of being philosemitic, but scratch a bit beneath the surface and what one sees is not a genuine concern or care about Jewish people as real actual human beings--but rather a patronizing view of Jewish people that dehumanizes them, and uses philosemitic masking to harbor genuinely antisemitic attitudes.

-CryptoLutheran
I'll say this one last time.

I'm talking about house of Israel.
Many of the Jews today are physical descendants of Jacob. They are Israel. Not all of the Jews that are physical descendants of Jacob live in Israel. Nevertheless, they are still of the house of Israel. And I do believe, a time will come when all the physical descenants of Jacob will be back in Israel. As Ezekiel 36 says, they were scattered, but now they are gathered back.

Then there are Jews who are not physical descendants of the House of Israel. These are not Israel.

Now being a physical Jew, being a physical descendant of Jacob does not give anyone any advantage when it comes to salvation. We are saved by grace, by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jews have every right to the Holy Land, mainly Biblically, but also politically.

You call me antismetic for believing that every physical Jew has Biblically right to the land of Israel. Because they do. Not that the people who call themselves Jews that are not physical descendants of Jacob cannot live there, of course they can. But the land belongs to the House of Jacob.

What's worrying is Christians saying that the Church has replaced Israel.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,229
2,592
✟267,474.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I'll say this one last time.

I'm talking about house of Israel.
Many of the Jews today are physical descendants of Jacob. They are Israel. Not all of the Jews that are physical descendants of Jacob live in Israel. Nevertheless, they are still of the house of Israel. And I do believe, a time will come when all the physical descenants of Jacob will be back in Israel. As Ezekiel 36 says, they were scattered, but now they are gathered back.

Then there are Jews who are not physical descendants of the House of Israel. These are not Israel.

Now being a physical Jew, being a physical descendant of Jacob does not give anyone any advantage when it comes to salvation. We are saved by grace, by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jews have every right to the Holy Land, mainly Biblically, but also politically.

You call me antismetic for believing that every physical Jew has Biblically right to the land of Israel. Because they do. Not that the people who call themselves Jews that are not physical descendants of Jacob cannot live there, of course they can. But the land belongs to the House of Jacob.

What's worrying is Christians saying that the Church has replaced Israel.
Who is a Jew is he who is circumcised according to the law. We don't get to decide who we think should be a jew. We also don't get to decide who wins land in war all of a sudden. Isreal came back in the land that was given to them. By whom? Those having won the land by war, or agreement.
They both gave land to each party. Israel has been attacked and went to war and won land. But, there are those that want to deny them the land they won to defend themselves.
A consistent righteous judgement on these matters is lacking. It is ok for one, but not the other. that land has been under the hand of MANY in the past. It has always been taken by force of war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry N.
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,634
29,227
Pacific Northwest
✟816,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'll say this one last time.

I'm talking about house of Israel.
Many of the Jews today are physical descendants of Jacob. They are Israel. Not all of the Jews that are physical descendants of Jacob live in Israel. Nevertheless, they are still of the house of Israel. And I do believe, a time will come when all the physical descenants of Jacob will be back in Israel. As Ezekiel 36 says, they were scattered, but now they are gathered back.

Then there are Jews who are not physical descendants of the House of Israel. These are not Israel.

Ruth was a Moabite who converted to Judaism. Converts to Judaism are Jews, and are made sons and daughters of Jacob through Covenant. Your deciding who is and who isn't a "real Jew" is, to be frank, deeply antisemitic. Jewishness is not determined by genetics, it never has been. And you are not the arbiter of who is and who isn't a "real Jew".

Now being a physical Jew, being a physical descendant of Jacob does not give anyone any advantage when it comes to salvation. We are saved by grace, by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jews have every right to the Holy Land, mainly Biblically, but also politically.

You call me antismetic for believing that every physical Jew has Biblically right to the land of Israel. Because they do. Not that the people who call themselves Jews that are not physical descendants of Jacob cannot live there, of course they can. But the land belongs to the House of Jacob.

What's worrying is Christians saying that the Church has replaced Israel.

I'm sure there are some Christians who think "the Church has replaced Israel", but in my experience this tends to be a pejorative position that either does not understand historic Christian theology on the subject, or else is a deliberate misrepresentation of it. But, for the nth time, I'm not here to debate theology on this thread. I'm not here to argue Ecclesiology.

I see no reason, given this most recent set of statements you've made, to change or modify the conclusion from my previous post.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,633
45,754
Los Angeles Area
✟1,016,649.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
That's a firing.

Hegseth fires general whose agency’s intel assessment of damage from Iran strikes angered Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired a general whose agency’s initial intelligence assessment of U.S. damage to Iranian nuclear sites angered President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the decision and a White House official.

[And of course he fired the BLS head for bad jobs numbers.]
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,209
22,784
US
✟1,738,037.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a firing.

Hegseth fires general whose agency’s intel assessment of damage from Iran strikes angered Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired a general whose agency’s initial intelligence assessment of U.S. damage to Iranian nuclear sites angered President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the decision and a White House official.

[And of course he fired the BLS head for bad jobs numbers.]
Reminds me of the march into the Iraq War.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,209
22,784
US
✟1,738,037.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Stomping on subject matter experts in intel and military whos findings didnt 100% validate the pre-decided mission?
Yep.

Something I note in this case:

The DIA does not brief the president; CIA briefs the president. That means Trump found out about the DIA assessment by some other means. It's not as though DIA assessments are particularly kept hidden from the president, it's just that Trump was told by someone outside the normal process.

I witnessed numerous disagreements between DIA and CIA on various matters. When there is a disagreement that can't be resolved, it's the CIA version that goes to the Situation Room. Most of the time, the CIA will at least attach caveats along the line of, "....however, the converse of this assessment cannot be discounted." But Condolezza Rice told us after the Iraq War, "We never read the caveats."

One disagreement I was directly involved in was a case when my team discovered a very hot-button "thing" in a certain nation that they claimed not to have and would spark a serious international crisis if the world found out. We reported it as normal to our military chain of command and to the intelligence community.

We got a quick response from CIA: Stop reporting that. The State Department, under presidential direction, was trying to cozy up to that country, and they didn't want the Congressional Intelligence committees to get wind that country was doing something dirty.

My admiral (I'll name him: Admiral Lowell Jacoby...he's in Wikipedia) told the CIA: "Nuts." The CIA sent a rep out to speak to us personally. Jacoby was in the room along with the Navy captain, Air Force colonel, and my immediate supervisor who made up my chain of command...and me.

The CIA rep told Jacoby again: Stop reporting this. Jacoby told him again, "Nuts. We're not going to know about something like this going on in our back yard and not tell our operational commanders. We work too hard to maintain the trust of our operators." A week later, I got a message from my desk-level CIA colleague: "Thanks for reporting that. They won't let me report it."

The big difference between civilian intel (CIA on up) and military intel (DIA on down) is that for the CIA, politicians can afford to be deluded (most of the time). Politicians want to be deluded; they don't want anything bursting their bubbles. So, CIA intelligence is often tainted by the political concerns of their politician consumers.

But for military intelligence, our commanders always want the unvarnished truth even if they don't like hearing it, because there is a real enemy aiming to prove us wrong in the rudest way possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tinker Grey
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,679
19,359
Colorado
✟540,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Yep.

Something I note in this case:

The DIA does not brief the president; CIA briefs the president. That means Trump found out about the DIA assessment by some other means. It's not as though DIA assessments are particularly kept hidden from the president, it's just that Trump was told by someone outside the normal process.

I witnessed numerous disagreements between DIA and CIA on various matters. When there is a disagreement that can't be resolved, it's the CIA version that goes to the Situation Room. Most of the time, the CIA will at least attach caveats along the line of, "....however, the converse of this assessment cannot be discounted." But Condolezza Rice told us after the Iraq War, "We never read the caveats."

One disagreement I was directly involved in was a case when my team discovered a very hot-button "thing" in a certain nation that they claimed not to have and would spark a serious international crisis if the world found out. We reported it as normal to our military chain of command and to the intelligence community.

We got a quick response from CIA: Stop reporting that. The State Department, under presidential direction, was trying to cozy up to that country, and they didn't want the Congressional Intelligence committees to get wind that country was doing something dirty.

My admiral (I'll name him: Admiral Lowell Jacoby...he's in Wikipedia) told the CIA: "Nuts." The CIA sent a rep out to speak to us personally. Jacoby was in the room along with the Navy captain, Air Force colonel, and my immediate supervisor who made up my chain of command...and me.

The CIA rep told Jacoby again: Stop reporting this. Jacoby told him again, "Nuts. We're not going to know about something like this going on in our back yard and not tell our operational commanders. We work too hard to maintain the trust of our operators." A week later, I got a message from my desk-level CIA colleague: "Thanks for reporting that. They won't let me report it."

The big difference between civilian intel (CIA on up) and military intel (DIA on down) is that for the CIA, politicians can afford to be deluded (most of the time). Politicians want to be deluded; they don't want anything bursting their bubbles. So, CIA intelligence is often tainted by the political concerns of their politician consumers.

But for military intelligence, our commanders always want the unvarnished truth even if they don't like hearing it, because there is a real enemy aiming to prove us wrong in the rudest way possible.
Very interesting and slightly depressing.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,695
14,020
Earth
✟246,399.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
That's a firing.

Hegseth fires general whose agency’s intel assessment of damage from Iran strikes angered Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired a general whose agency’s initial intelligence assessment of U.S. damage to Iranian nuclear sites angered President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the decision and a White House official.

[And of course he fired the BLS head for bad jobs numbers.]
Apparently, if one heads an information sector of a department or agency and one’s data conflicts with the pronouncements of the President, it’s obvious that one’s data is “incorrect”.

This state of affairs always ends well.
 
Upvote 0