Israel vs. Palestine: Worldly Conflict

[Emun]

What distinguishes Christians from Muslims and Jews? The conflict in Israel shows it exactly. Christians know that their home is not here in this world. Muslims and Jews, on the other hand, believe that their home is here in this world. That is why they are willing to fight for a piece of land. Why fight when there is paradise? Why fight when the world will end one day anyway? Why take pride in something that is passing away?

Nationalism/Patriotism does not exist in Christianity. The nation of the Christian is Christendom, the flag of the Christian is the cross, the homeland of the Christian is paradise, and the King of the Christian is Christ.

The unbelievers are fighting each other. God is using them for His plans. He puts hatred in their hearts and sets them on each other and they do not realize it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I really despise this line of reasoning. It's an insidious line of reasoning which suggests Christians can and must be totally detached from the world, that fighting is beneath us instead of a practical necessity that cannot be avoided. If we as Christians cannot fight for nations and or communities, then we don't participate in those communities fully. Those communities represent centers of power which will enforce their will on the people to obey what the rulers desire. There is no neutrality in this world, there are only sides and Christians if we want to actually prosper, cannot abide by this attitude of pacifism and reluctance to participate in the world.

What is a nation except a large and rather extended family? Where we expect social obligations, loyalties and fulfilment of duty. Yet we shouldn't fight for these things at all? Under any circumstance? If Christians in history had followed your advice Enum, they would have been dominated by Pagans, Muslims, Tengrists and whoever else desired to rule over them. The Christian community would be a minority, if it even managed to survive at all.

This sort of attitude is fit only for the monastic within the monastic setting, but even the monk knows that his place as a monk is secured by the rest of the faithful who don't live the ascetic life. He is not as arrogant as to tell the people not to protect what's important to them. We are not all called to be monks and ascetics and pacifists. Some of us are called to be fathers, to have families and as a result think of their interests and what benefits them. This is what births society, nationalism and a people. Does it benefit Christians to abstain completely from the enterprise of nation building (that includes warfare and the imposition of force)? No, it can only be to the detriment of Christians.

 

[Lost Witness]

Christians can and must be totally detached from the world

we live here, we're "set apart" from the world,
we aren't of the world just as the LORD wasn't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

we live here, we're "set apart" from the world,
we aren't of the world just as the LORD wasn't.

How far do we want to take this line of reasoning? Part of the worldly existence is getting married and having children. Should Christian abstain from this in order to attain the ascetic virtue of dedicating oneself wholly to God?

 

[Emun]

I really despise this line of reasoning. It's an insidious line of reasoning which suggests Christians can and must be totally detached from the world, that fighting is beneath us instead of a practical necessity that cannot be avoided. If we as Christians cannot fight for nations and or communities, then we don't participate in those communities fully. Those communities represent centers of power which will enforce their will on the people to obey what the rulers desire. There is no neutrality in this world, there are only sides and Christians if we want to actually prosper, cannot abide by this attitude of pacifism and reluctance to participate in the world.

What is a nation except a large and rather extended family? Where we expect social obligations, loyalties and fulfilment of duty. Yet we shouldn't fight for these things at all? Under any circumstance? If Christians in history had followed your advice Enum, they would have been dominated by Pagans, Muslims, Tengrists and whoever else desired to rule over them. The Christian community would be a minority, if it even managed to survive at all.

This sort of attitude is fit only for the monastic within the monastic setting, but even the monk knows that his place as a monk is secured by the rest of the faithful who don't live the ascetic life. He is not as arrogant as to tell the people not to protect what's important to them. We are not all called to be monks and ascetics and pacifists. Some of us are called to be fathers, to have families and as a result think of their interests and what benefits them. This is what births society, nationalism and a people. Does it benefit Christians to abstain completely from the enterprise of nation building (that includes warfare and the imposition of force)? No, it can only be to the detriment of Christians.

I see you are Orthodox. I know from experience that Orthodox people are usually patriotically inclined. Therefore, I am not surprised at your way of thinking.

You would surely agree with me that if we are to learn how a Christian should live, we should look at the first Christians. Well, how did they live? The church was persecuted. What did the apostles do? Did they fight back? Did they take up arms? No they did not. They allowed themselves to be slaughtered. What did the beloved apostle Paul do when he was condemned to death? Did he stage a riot? Paul was not a nobody, he had certain power, he had thousands following him after all, and yet he did not resist. He allowed himself to be killed.

Didn't Jesus say that this world will pass away? Didn't Jesus say that it is useless to be proud of something that perish? Didn't Jesus say that Christians are not of this world? Didn't Jesus say that whoever strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the other? Didn't Jesus say to love your enemies? The apostles truly lived just like that.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I see you are Orthodox. I know from experience that Orthodox people are usually patriotically inclined. Therefore, I am not surprised at your way of thinking.

You would surely agree with me that if we are to learn how a Christian should live, we should look at the first Christians. Well, how did they live? The church was persecuted. What did the apostles do? Did they fight back? Did they take up arms? No they did not. They allowed themselves to be slaughtered. What did the beloved apostle Paul do when he was condemned to death? Did he stage a riot? Paul was not a nobody, he had certain power, he had thousands following him after all, and yet he did not resist. He allowed himself to be killed.

Didn't Jesus say that this world will pass away? Didn't Jesus say that it is useless to be proud of something that perish? Didn't Jesus say that Christians are not of this world? Didn't Jesus say that whoever strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the other? Didn't Jesus say to love your enemies? The apostles truly lived just like that.

Depends on the Patriotism. I am not very Patriotic about my country nor am I very nationalistic about my country or any country for that matter. As a matter of principle my belief in participation in the political process derives from my understanding of Christian history.

You mention the early Christians, whom I agree are an example we can look to but you are only presenting one half of the picture. Yes the early Christians did those things you say they did, but what other option did they have? The power of Rome, if deliberately confronted would have utterly destroyed the early Church had it been provoked too much. The early Christians were not in that aspect revolutionary, but neither were they pacifistic or above the system. Paul made use of his Roman citizenship, Paul justified the power of the Roman State as given to it by God. Here we see an acknowledgement of the system of power and it's fundamental legitimacy. Thus when Christians came into the power of the state, they didn't have the same compunctions you as a secularized liberal modern. They used the power of the state and enforced their views in law, outlawing pagan worship, systematically destroying their religious opposition.

Why not as well? The temples of Pagans were dedicated to idols and false gods and the Christian Emperors could no longer tolerate them. This is simply the natural of state of power and even we as Christians cannot escape it. If you want to see an example where power in the hands of non-Christians was successful, look at the Japanese. Should we desire the fate of the Japanese Christians? Should we have desired Islam to dominate Europe? Please answer these last two questions.

 

[Emun]

Depends on the Patriotism. I am not very Patriotic about my country nor am I very nationalistic about my country or any country for that matter. As a matter of principle my belief in participation in the political process derives from my understanding of Christian history.

You mention the early Christians, whom I agree are an example we can look to but you are only presenting one half of the picture. Yes the early Christians did those things you say they did, but what other option did they have? The power of Rome, if deliberately confronted would have utterly destroyed the early Church had it been provoked too much. The early Christians were not in that aspect revolutionary, but neither were they pacifistic or above the system. Paul made use of his Roman citizenship, Paul justified the power of the Roman State as given to it by God. Here we see an acknowledgement of the system of power and it's fundamental legitimacy. Thus when Christians came into the power of the state, they didn't have the same compunctions you as a secularized liberal modern. They used the power of the state and enforced their views in law, outlawing pagan worship, systematically destroying their religious opposition.

Why not as well? The temples of Pagans were dedicated to idols and false gods and the Christian Emperors could no longer tolerate them. This is simply the natural of state of power and even we as Christians cannot escape it. If you want to see an example where power in the hands of non-Christians was successful, look at the Japanese. Should we desire the fate of the Japanese Christians? Should we have desired Islam to dominate Europe? Please answer these last two questions.

I find it arrogant to claim that the apostles lived this way because they were too weak and therefore had no other choice. This belittles the wonderful behavior of the apostles. Are you really sure that this was the reason and not the obedience of Jesus' words?

However. If you have read the New Testament, you should know that there is not a single passage in which Jesus or an apostle gives permission to fight for worldly things. It is clearly the opposite.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I find it arrogant to claim that the apostles lived this way because they were too weak and therefore had no other choice. This belittles the wonderful behavior of the apostles. Are you really sure that this was the reason and not the obedience of Jesus' words?

I think it was part of it, but why think there is a contradiction here? We can obey Christ and be wise as serpents at the same time. The principles of the Apostles were not your worldview though, which sees earthly government as something wholly beyond the Christian. If that were true, Paul wouldn't have told us to submit to it, yet we know from Paul that the powers at be are instituted by God directly for our benefit. Even though the powers at be misuse their power constantly it is still there by the will of God. Your vision suggests a complete contempt for power or even worse, a complete submissiveness to it, so long as Christians aren't in power.

This is irresponsible and we should not be thinking this way about nation states or power.

However. If you have read the New Testament, you should know that there is not a single passage in which Jesus or an apostle gives permission to fight for worldly things. It is clearly the opposite.

Let's take this reading of the New Testament and apply it in the real world then. We'll even use historical examples. Do you believe it would have been better had the Christians in the East and West not fight the Muslims and instead submit to them and their claim to rule? Take in mind, the Muslims launched countless Jihads into Europe at one time or another, they conquered Spain, they would have conquered France had they not met resistance. They were held back by the Byzantines for about seven hundred years. Should Christians, understanding themselves to not be worldly, surrender their power to the Muslims who claimed to have a divine right to rule according to the law of Allah?

 

[Emun]

I think it was part of it, but why think there is a contradiction here? We can obey Christ and be wise as serpents at the same time. The principles of the Apostles were not your worldview though, which sees earthly government as something wholly beyond the Christian. If that were true, Paul wouldn't have told us to submit to it, yet we know from Paul that the powers at be are instituted by God directly for our benefit. Even though the powers at be misuse their power constantly it is still there by the will of God. Your vision suggests a complete contempt for power or even worse, a complete submissiveness to it, so long as Christians aren't in power.

This is irresponsible and we should not be thinking this way about nation states or power.

Let's take this reading of the New Testament and apply it in the real world then. We'll even use historical examples. Do you believe it would have been better had the Christians in the East and West not fight the Muslims and instead submit to them and their claim to rule? Take in mind, the Muslims launched countless Jihads into Europe at one time or another, they conquered Spain, they would have conquered France had they not met resistance. They were held back by the Byzantines for about seven hundred years. Should Christians, understanding themselves to not be worldly, surrender their power to the Muslims who claimed to have a divine right to rule according to the law of Allah?

The New Testament is valid yesterday, today and tomorrow. A Christian should live like the apostles, a Christian should live according to the words of Jesus.

You have typical orthodox thinking in you. I am a Protestant, I do not think like you. I am not worldly. I don't care if Muslims conquer the world.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The New Testament is valid yesterday, today and tomorrow. A Christian should live like the apostles, a Christian should live according to the words of Jesus.

You have typical orthodox thinking in you. I am a Protestant, I do not think like you. I am not worldly. I don't care if Muslims conquer the world.

Yes the New Testament is valid, but my line of thinking isn't exactly anti-protestant either. Protestantism was forged in the resistance to Catholic power and in order to assert itself as a force within the world it had to overcome Catholic hegemony in the thirty years war. Protestantism was built in part on the struggle of men willing to fight for something they believed in, a vision of Christianity where Catholicism did not dominate. Now I don't agree with the Protestants here, but the point is that they weren't above worldly power politics. Luther sought to work with any Prince who would listen to him and Calvin ruled directly in Geneva for a time according to his Protestant principles. They did what was necessary in order to secure the future Protestant movement and if they had listened to you, the Catholic princes would have wiped out Protestantism entirely.

You say you don't care about Muslims conquering the world but you can only say that as a result of what Christians before you, who actually prevented the Muslims from conquering Europe in the first place, did. You or I might not be Christians today if not for their willingness to actually resist Islam and it's claims to divine rule. We also know the cost of being ruled by Islam or a force utterly hostile to Christianity. Christianity will diminish and might even disappear entirely, as it did in North Africa.

All I suggest is you re-evaluate your position, not in light of your current ideals, but in light of the experience of Christians throughout history. We don't have only the lives of the Apostles to look to and as long as power, nations and states exist we will as Christians have to interact with them in some capacity. If you are going to suggest that it is wrong and too worldly to engage with this power, then you need to ask yourself how radically you're willing to disavow worldliness and the things which lead to these associations of states. My contention is that the state, the nation begins with smaller units, like the family, the tribe, the town. As Christians we are encouraged to have families and that implies we have interests in this world. We accrue resources for the benefit of children, relatives, friends and spouses. We think of them in our decision making process and select on this basis. There will be those we don't think about first or maybe those who go against our interests and then we are introduced to the concept of the political, the friend and the enemy.

This analysis which suggests we can be beyond these attachments only works when you have embraced a concept like asceticism/monasticism. When you have foresworn ties and have God and only God as the first concern above any earthly attachment to family, friends and the like.

 

[Emun]

Yes the New Testament is valid, but my line of thinking isn't exactly anti-protestant either. Protestantism was forged in the resistance to Catholic power and in order to assert itself as a force within the world it had to overcome Catholic hegemony in the thirty years war. Protestantism was built in part on the struggle of men willing to fight for something they believed in, a vision of Christianity where Catholicism did not dominate. Now I don't agree with the Protestants here, but the point is that they weren't above worldly power politics. Luther sought to work with any Prince who would listen to him and Calvin ruled directly in Geneva for a time according to his Protestant principles. They did what was necessary in order to secure the future Protestant movement and if they had listened to you, the Catholic princes would have wiped out Protestantism entirely.

You say you don't care about Muslims conquering the world but you can only say that as a result of what Christians before you, who actually prevented the Muslims from conquering Europe in the first place, did. You or I might not be Christians today if not for their willingness to actually resist Islam and it's claims to divine rule. We also know the cost of being ruled by Islam or a force utterly hostile to Christianity. Christianity will diminish and might even disappear entirely, as it did in North Africa.

All I suggest is you re-evaluate your position, not in light of your current ideals, but in light of the experience of Christians throughout history. We don't have only the lives of the Apostles to look to and as long as power, nations and states exist we will as Christians have to interact with them in some capacity. If you are going to suggest that it is wrong and too worldly to engage with this power, then you need to ask yourself how radically you're willing to disavow worldliness and the things which lead to these associations of states. My contention is that the state, the nation begins with smaller units, like the family, the tribe, the town. As Christians we are encouraged to have families and that implies we have interests in this world. We accrue resources for the benefit of children, relatives, friends and spouses. We think of them in our decision making process and select on this basis. There will be those we don't think about first or maybe those who go against our interests and then we are introduced to the concept of the political, the friend and the enemy.

This analysis which suggests we can be beyond these attachments only works when you have embraced a concept like asceticism/monasticism. When you have foresworn ties and have God and only God as the first concern above any earthly attachment to family, friends and the like.

Gee. There have been bloody stories within Protestantism that I condemn, but what does that have to do with theological understanding?

And again you come with Islam. Yes I know you Orthodox and Muslims have such an unsweet history there, but you shouldn't let emotions get the best of you. In fact, you can live in an Islamic state as a Christian, it is possible if you pay the Jizyah tax. I would even say that Christians lived better in the Islamic Empire than in the Pagan Roman Empire.

As I said, I don't care who conquers the world. A Christian is not worldly. The New Testament makes a clear statement about how a Christian should live, and you don't seem to disagree with that at all, but you are trying to suggest that the teachings of the New Testament are unworkable. I cannot agree with this way of thinking. A Christian should live as the apostles did, even if it costs him his life, for dying is gain (Philippians 1:21).

You are Orthodox and I have talked to Orthodox people several times. You are just different, not only in this respect, but in other important things as well. We will not agree.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Gee. There have been bloody stories within Protestantism that I condemn, but what does that have to do with theological understanding?

I've already laid down the theological understanding from Paul. I've then tried to demonstrate how we think about the political and how you can't just avoid it. If you allow families, if you allow bonds, if you allow distinctions to exist between peoples you will always have multiple sides to any given issue. Who rules us, what should state policy be, etc. You seem focused on being above this world, yet if you are going to condemn your own tradition of Protestantism for doing what was necessary to secure it's existence, why call yourself a Protestant? What else do you disagree with those who came before you and what they did? Because as far as I can tell, even though I don't agree with the Reformers and I think their doctrines were ultimately harmful to Christendom, they it because there was no other option.

The Catholics wouldn't just leave the Protestants alone, they viewed Protestantism to be a dangerous heresy which must be expunged lest it spread.

And again you come with Islam. Yes I know you Orthodox and Muslims have such an unsweet history there, but you shouldn't let emotions get the best of you. In fact, you can live in an Islamic state as a Christian, it is possible if you pay the Jizyah tax. I would even say that Christians lived better in the Islamic Empire than in the Pagan Roman Empire.

I actually disagree with this assessment. Both Islam and Rome show us two types of tolerance, one was beneficial to Christianity, one was not. Christians managed to thrive in the Roman context because they were given too much tolerance by the authorities. Persecutions were not consistent and severe persecutions lasted only for a time during the reign of a specific Emperor. This allowed Christians enough stability to grow in between the good times while at the same time being staunchly opposed to any sort of effort to integrate Christians into the Empire via sacrifices to Caesar or some other practice. Christians were still able to proselytize and this reaped much fruit.

The Islamic context is different. Yes Christians were tolerated but their position in society clear, they were Dhimmis, utterly subject to the Ummah. Any hint of proselytization invited reprisal and you could expect the community or the proselytizer to be executed. This is why Christianity didn't spread in Islamic contexts as it did in Rome. This is why you see a gradual diminishment of Christianity in places where Christianity was at one time dominant. Christianity disappeared entirely from North Africa and was drastically reduced in places like Egypt, Syria and the Asia Minor when under Islamic rule.

So to say Christianity was better under Islam than under Pagan Rome, is simply false.

As I said, I don't care who conquers the world. A Christian is not worldly. The New Testament makes a clear statement about how a Christian should live, and you don't seem to disagree with that at all, but you are trying to suggest that the teachings of the New Testament are unworkable. I cannot agree with this way of thinking. A Christian should live as the apostles did, even if it costs him his life, for dying is gain (Philippians 1:21).

And there are real implications to that. Power won't cease to exist simply because you refuse to take it or let your brothers and sisters in Christ take it. There will always be Rulers and they will change the destiny of the people they rule. Power has that effect and if you surrender it, then you can't complain about the consequences of what your enemies will do when they have power and you foolishly have denied yourself any legitimacy to wield it.

You are Orthodox and I have talked to Orthodox people several times. You are just different, not only in this respect, but in other important things as well. We will not agree.

We don't have to agree, but you're simply mistaken. If you desire a life free of worldliness, free of bonds of loyalty, kinship, then go live in the forest away from humanity. That is the only way you can be consistent with your view.

 

[Diamond7]

What distinguishes Christians from Muslims and Jews?

The Muslims are descended from Abraham & Hagar the Egyptian Handmaid. The "Jews" are descended from Abraham and Sarah his wife and half-sister from their father. Christians for the most part are not descended from Abraham but we are adopted into the family. Still, we are gentiles. Jesus never told His disciples that the Gentiles would be able to receive the Holy Spirit and be saved. It was a big surprise for them. At first, there was a lot of fighting because the "Jewish" believers said they had to be circumcised and follow the Law to be saved. There is still confusion over this today. We have to keep the righteous requirements of the law, but not the ceremonial law that the "Jews" still keep today, like the Kosher laws. Also there is no temple to keep the law in. The Law is just a teacher to show people the way of righteousness and how to live Holy before God.

 

[Emun]

The Muslims are descended from Abraham & Hagar the Egyptian Handmaid. The "Jews" are descended from Abraham and Sarah his wife and half-sister from their father. Christians for the most part are not descended from Abraham but we are adopted into the family. Still, we are gentiles. Jesus never told His disciples that the Gentiles would be able to receive the Holy Spirit and be saved. It was a big surprise for them. At first, there was a lot of fighting because the "Jewish" believers said they had to be circumcised and follow the Law to be saved. There is still confusion over this today. We have to keep the righteous requirements of the law, but not the ceremonial law that the "Jews" still keep today, like the Kosher laws. Also there is no temple to keep the law in. The Law is just a teacher to show people the way of righteousness and how to live Holy before God.

Justin Martyr
The true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham…are we (Christians) who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.

Matthew 21:43
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit.

Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations.

Galatians 3:28-29
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

 

[Diamond7]

Matthew 21:43
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit.

Paul does talk about this. Romans 11 "17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you".

 

[Emun]

Paul does talk about this. Romans 11 "17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you".

The broken branches are the Jews who fell away through unbelief (Romans 11:20), but a Jew can be grafted back in if he believes (Romans 11:23).

Faith is crucial. If you believe, then you are a descendant of Abraham; if you do not believe, then your father is the devil. Jesus called the God of the Jews the devil (John 8:44) and their synagogues he called devilish (Revelation 2:9).

Paul denounces in chapter 11 the arrogance of some Christians who apparently thought that Jews were incapable of conversion. They probably thought that the Jews were cast out like Pharaoh was cast out, and like Pharaoh were destined to perish. Paul contradicts this and clarifies that Jews can also accept the truth if they want to. In fact, the first Christians were ethnic Jews, Paul himself was an ethnic Jew.

 

[ralliann]

The broken branches are the Jews who fell away through unbelief (Romans 11:20), but a Jew can be grafted back in if he believes (Romans 11:23).

Faith is crucial. If you believe, then you are a descendant of Abraham; if you do not believe, then your father is the devil. Jesus called the God of the Jews the devil (John 8:44) and their synagogues he called devilish (Revelation 2:9).

Paul denounces in chapter 11 the arrogance of some Christians who apparently thought that Jews were incapable of conversion. They probably thought that the Jews were cast out like Pharaoh was cast out, and like Pharaoh were destined to perish. Paul contradicts this and clarifies that Jews can also accept the truth if they want to. In fact, the first Christians were ethnic Jews, Paul himself was an ethnic Jew.

Yes, Pharaoh perished in Judgement. But Egypt as a nation and people were not utterly destroyed having their names blotted out. Jew's were under a curse. The wrath of God was coming.