Young Israeli man facing prison

[smaneck]

Once your hatred of Jews becomes intense enough, everything is seen and interpreted in the light of that.

Sorry, but sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people whose land was stolen from them is not the same as antisemitism.

 

[smaneck]

I'd want to see more than just from that site.

You might chase down their sources, most of which are Israeli.

 

[HonestTruth]

Sorry, but sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people whose land was stolen from them is not the same as antisemitism.

Interestingly, when people bring up the subject of racism they are immediately accused of "playing the race card". But when someone complains of injustices committed against Palestinians they are accused of being Jew haters. Thus, those who defend Israel's policies are playing the anti-semitic card but, somehow, that's OK.

I have condemned injustices against Palestinians and have been accused of being a Jew hater even though I am of Jewish blood (converso). But those who accuse others of this type of bigotry more often than not are merely projecting their own sentiments.

As usual, the right wing has its double standards but God help anyone who mentions it.

 

[LoAmmi]

You might chase down their sources, most of which are Israeli.

I will check into it. I don't mean I deny it or anything, I just want more than one source for information like this.

 

[LoAmmi]

I only mention race when people start saying that "The Jews" are doing this instead of "The Israelis". I have never oppressed anybody and think oppression is bad. I do have trouble with the conflict here, because I do think Israel has taken a large brunt of blame and the Palestinians have successfully lead a PR campaign that has cast them as innocent sheep, but I don't call people racist until they prove themselves to be so.

Interestingly, when people bring up the subject of racism they are immediately accused of "playing the race card". But when someone complains of injustices committed against Palestinians they are accused of being Jew haters. Thus, those who defend Israel's policies are playing the anti-semitic card but, somehow, that's OK.

I have condemned injustices against Palestinians and have been accused of being a Jew hater even though I am of Jewish blood (converso). But those who accuse others of this type of bigotry more often than not are merely projecting their own sentiments.

As usual, the right wing has its double standards but God help anyone who mentions it.

 

[HonestTruth]

Director,

You know what grinds my gears?
Pacifists. And especially Christian pacifists. "People" who seem to think of the Gospel as merely a means to their political ends. You DO know, don't you, that God Himself commanded the people to go on a rather extensive campaign of conquest.
That means that military service cannot IN AND OF ITSELF be a sin; because God would not command something that is inherently sinful.
But, again, the desire to use the Gospel for political gain is probably stronger than logic here...

True, military service is not of itself "sin". As I pointed out previously Luke 3:14 shows that service is OK. But as is written in that verse a Christian soldier is FORBIDDEN from causing harm to anyone. Thomas Merton pointed out that Romans who converted to Christianity were restricted to constabulary duties as unarmed "peace officers". But they did not go to war.

Using Gospel for political gain is something done by Moral Majority types every day without objection from anyone on the right wing. But nowhere in the New Testament is war sanctioned. On the contrary, for the first 300 years of Christianity the religion was pacifist and obeyed the law which demands that you "keep peace with all men" Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14.

 

[HonestTruth]

I only mention race when people start saying that "The Jews" are doing this instead of "The Israelis". I have never oppressed anybody and think oppression is bad. I do have trouble with the conflict here, because I do think Israel has taken a large brunt of blame and the Palestinians have successfully lead a PR campaign that has cast them as innocent sheep, but I don't call people racist until they prove themselves to be so.

If you read my posts on the subject you will see me accuse Israel (not "Jews") of oppressing Palestinians. I fully realize that there are many hundreds of thousands of Jews who condemn zionism and who oppose the terrible repression of Palestinians. Being originally from Brooklyn, NY, I was well acquainted with Satmars and other Orthodox Jews who have actually read and understood the Bible's teachings that only the Messiah can reestablish the Kingdom. Further, as stated in the New Testament, the Promised Land belongs to all 12 tribes and to all who acknowledge Jesus/Yahshuah as Messiah. Therefore, under both Mosaic and Messianic law, there is no basis for zionism.

That is FACT based on biblical teaching. Not antisemitism.

 

[LoAmmi]

If you read my posts on the subject you will see me accuse Israel (not "Jews") of oppressing Palestinians. I fully realize that there are many hundreds of thousands of Jews who condemn zionism and who oppose the terrible repression of Palestinians. Being originally from Brooklyn, NY, I was well acquainted with Satmars and other Orthodox Jews who have actually read and understood the Bible's teachings that only the Messiah can reestablish the Kingdom. Further, as stated in the New Testament, the Promised Land belongs to all 12 tribes and to all who acknowledge Jesus/Yahshuah as Messiah. Therefore, under both Mosaic and Messianic law, there is no basis for zionism.

That is FACT based on biblical teaching. Not antisemitism.

The Bible makes no claim about someone establishing a democratic nation of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel would require a king, so it is not what the current modern nation of Israel is anyway. So, obviously the messiah has to come because the messiah is to be the king. However, it is HaShem, not the messiah, that does all these things required to bring forth the messianic age. If it is through the messiah or with His own power I am not sure.

I won't comment on the New Testament because I don't believe it is true.

 

[TheDirector]

True, military service is not of itself "sin". As I pointed out previously Luke 3:14 shows that service is OK. But as is written in that verse a Christian soldier is FORBIDDEN from causing harm to anyone. Thomas Merton pointed out that Romans who converted to Christianity were restricted to constabulary duties as unarmed "peace officers". But they did not go to war.

Using Gospel for political gain is something done by Moral Majority types every day without objection from anyone on the right wing. But nowhere in the New Testament is war sanctioned. On the contrary, for the first 300 years of Christianity the religion was pacifist and obeyed the law which demands that you "keep peace with all men" Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14.

Yeah, if you'd look at the context of those verses, and not just pull whatever random interpretation you want to impose on them out of the thing you sit on, that'd be great.
The "New Testament is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the OT and the OT is irrelevant"-nonsense is tired and old. Do you know what the first Christians called the OT? "The Scriptures." And that's where they went to check the validity of doctrine.
So, once again: The same God who walked around on Earth 2000 years ago, told the people of Israel to go to war 1500 years (give and take a century) before that. Ergo: Military service, including front-line service, isn't in and of itself sin.

If you wanna be a pacifist, fine. Pacifism ranks up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever thought up by man. It's a cowards and a moocher's ideology, but fine. In a democratic society, one has the right to be a coward and a moocher. But one does not have the right to hold the Gospel hostage to that nonsense.

 

[smaneck]

If you wanna be a pacifist, fine. Pacifism ranks up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever thought up by man. It's a cowards and a moocher's ideology, but fine. In a democratic society, one has the right to be a coward and a moocher. But one does not have the right to hold the Gospel hostage to that nonsense.

Then the Early Church Fathers should be included among your cowards and moochers. Before Constantine's conversion most Christians did not believe that military service was acceptable. Constantine's vision of "under this sign conquer" changed all that.

 

[TheDirector]

Then the Early Church Fathers should be included among your cowards and moochers. Before Constantine's conversion most Christians did not believe that military service was acceptable. Constantine's vision of "under this sign conquer" changed all that.

Again: Context is key.
Do you know WHY military service was deemed unacceptable?
Because before Constantine, and before Galerius' Edict of Toleration, the Legion was AN INSTRUMENT OF PERSECUTION! THAT'S why military service was incompatible with membership of the Church: Because the former was used as a tool against the church. Not because the first Christians were cowards and moochers (which pacifists rightly are, as is also indicated by their desperate attempts to use whatever they can as an excuse) who didn't want to defend the Empire. On the contrary - they made a point out of being loyal subjects of the Emperor, until, of course, they were called to worship him. This, they would not do.

But why do I bother? Pacifists rarely want to absorb their nonsensical "reasoning" being shot down...

 

[smaneck]

Again: Context is key.
Do you know WHY military service was deemed unacceptable?
Because before Constantine, and before Galerius' Edict of Toleration, the Legion was AN INSTRUMENT OF PERSECUTION! THAT'S why military service was incompatible with membership of the Church

You don't need Legionaries to arrest a handful of religious dissidents. They had vigiles for that purpose.

In any case, I don't see any of the church fathers making the argument you make below, instead they insist:

Origen (182-254)

“And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to ‘cut down our hostile and insolent “wordy” swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.’ For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed.”[2]

“…for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked.”

Justin Martyr (100-165)

“We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”[4]

“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,— our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage, —and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”
(which pacifists rightly are, as is also indicated by their desperate attempts to use whatever they can as an excuse)[/SIZE] who didn't want to defend the Empire. On the contrary - they made a point out of being loyal subjects of the Emperor, until, of course, they were called to worship him. This, they would not do.

Tertullian (160-220)

“To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oathto be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ?... Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?... Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life…”

But why do I bother? Pacifists rarely want to absorb their nonsensical "reasoning" being shot down...

Actually, I'm not a pacifist. I'm a historian who knows what the early church taught. That doesn't mean I think it was entirely practical but I certainly would not call Christians who accept the teachings of the early church father moochers and cowards.

 

[ContraMundum]

But why do I bother? Pacifists rarely want to absorb their nonsensical "reasoning" being shot down...

Pacifism is Christian. Plain and simple. Militarism and nationalism are not. Those are concepts absooutely foreign to the NT. Defense of the helpless or defense against the overthrow of a godly government are about the only time a Christian can use violence. Even then, it's not that easy to justify.

 

[Supreme]

Although I don't agree with compulsory military service, that's just the way it is in Israel, and for kinda obvious reasons for a country where war is just round the corner. Couldn't the Israelis find a better use for this guy, though? Surely prison is just a waste. There must be another useful job he could be doing?

 

[TheDirector]

Pacifism is Christian. Plain and simple.

No, it isn't. Plain and simple.

Militarism and nationalism are not.

Nationalism as in "My nation has a legitimate right to rule everyone else!" - no, quite right.
"Nationalism" as in "On Earth, I am a citizen of this nation, bound by its laws and a product of its history and culture; a nation which I love as a second home and will fight to protect against its enemies, be they internal or external" - you're dead wrong.

Those are concepts absooutely foreign to the NT.

Not foreign to the Bible at all, no.

Defense of the helpless or defense against the overthrow of a godly government are about the only time a Christian can use violence.

= Completely arbitrary and convenient "exceptions" which you just pulled out of the thing you sit on.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Pacifism is Christian. Plain and simple.

Hardly!

You overlook the many other such groups such as the Baha'is, to name just one!

And I myself have had officlal status as a noncombatant conscientious objector for over 44 years, both as a Christian and as a Baha'i!

So I'm afraid you overstate.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[LoAmmi]

Although I don't agree with compulsory military service, that's just the way it is in Israel, and for kinda obvious reasons for a country where war is just round the corner. Couldn't the Israelis find a better use for this guy, though? Surely prison is just a waste. There must be another useful job he could be doing?

The problem is that if you make an exception for him then you have to make an exception for the next guy and the next guy until there really isn't compulsory military service. It'd just be a bunch of people who want to do another job.

As I've said before, I find pure pacifism to be an evil.

 

[TheDirector]

As I've said before, I find pure pacifism to be an evil.

This.
It is the coward's way of enjoying the benefits of a free society, without wanting to do anything to uphold and protect it.

 

[LoAmmi]

This.
It is the coward's way of enjoying the benefits of a free society, without wanting to do anything to uphold and protect it.

No, I wouldn't say that. I cannot call someone a coward or a mooch if they are unwilling to fight. I just think far more than 12 million people would have died in the Holocaust were the Allies to have adopted a pure pacifist point of view. Not to mention the countless others who would have died once it moved into those other nations.

If you do not lift a finger to stop evil you are complicit in that evil.

 

[Zeek]

Perhaps you don't see it as an occupying force but I, and millions world wide, do. And while we are free to disagree, Arab Palestinians do not see the presence of the IDF as peace keepers. Same for this particular young man. On that basis I applaud his actions as I did for those who objected to the Vietnam war.

What part of Israel or the disputed territories are you saying that Israel is occupying and how are they doing this?