Martyr or Maniac ?

[NamVet4]

Mother's only wish was to die a martyr (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/15/1073877969979.html) "I always wanted to be the first woman to carry out a martyr attack, where parts of my body can fly all over," she said, smiling. "That is the only wish I can ask God for."



Someone, anyone, please explain to me what religion can elicit that kind of devotion? Is it truly religious belief, fanaticsm, hysteria or brain washing mental disruption?



Raiyshi left behind a three-year-old son, Obedia, an 18-month old daughter, Doha, and a video recorded just before her death. Cradling an assault rifle and flanked by green Hamas flags, the young woman said she had dreamt of martyrdom from the age of 13.

[SkinsKY]

I never could understand suicide bombings. It just never seemed to make practical sense in any way. But then again, it is hard for me to understand the Palestinian/Israeli rivalry that has been running for millenia. Suicide bombing may be glorious for them, but it never accomplishes anything significant.

[jporterweb]

It just hurts their cause. But I think it's a little bit of all of the above NamVet.

[RedskinsDave]

"Is it truly religious belief, fanaticsm, hysteria or brain washing mental disruption?"

Yes

[Minnesota Mike]

It seems to me like an act of desperation. Those in power have taken everything from you and denied you any other way to have your grievances aired. And ultimately the last thing you lose is hope.

As the song says, "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

[Spence]

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is brutal and short-sighted. It sacrifices the interests of millions of Israelis and Palestinians for the greed of a relatively small number of land-hungry Jewish settlers. [Not to mention the fundamentalist Dispensationalist Christians who support the occupation because they hope it will lead to war--and from war to the Second Coming.]

Nevertheless, nothing excuses these suicide bombings. They are inevitable and I think any people would eventually resort to them under such circumstances, but they are inexcusable. It is the deliberate slaughter of innocent human beings. No explanation is sufficient and no excuse is possible.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence
. [Not to mention the fundamentalist Dispensationalist Christians who support the occupation because they hope it will lead to war--and from war to the Second Coming.]

It seems as if there is a double standard in here. Not OK to bash Gays or minorities (not that I think that way, but I'm trying to prove a point) but it is OK to attack religious beliefs?

I'm offended Spence. Don't attack what you clearly don't understand.

This is extremely upsetting to me.

[BigCountry]

Why is this offensive? The occupation is a terrible thing and he stated people that are wrong to support it for any reason. It's not the religion he's criticizing but the support of the atrocities being done by Israel over there.

[NamVet4]

Who and/or what are
fundamentalist Dispensationalist Christians ?

And what is thier interest in the Israeli Palestinian issue?
And what is their position on suicide bombings?
Anyone....?

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Why is this offensive? The occupation is a terrible thing and he stated people that are wrong to support it for any reason. It's not the religion he's criticizing but the support of the atrocities being done by Israel over there.


It's the part where he thinks that Christians support Israel in order to speed up the End times war so that we can have the second coming.

No one is denying that war (anywhere) is a terrible thing. What I take offense at is Spence's nasty little shot to those of us on this site that he knows to be Christians.

You all would be outraged had he said something derogatory about a minority or a Gay! I see his statement the same way.

[BigCountry]

No he was talking about a group that exists over there. Sorry but that wasn't a shot at anyone...

[Gump84]

When considering the Israel - Palestine situation, think about it this way:

If the Palestinians had no weapons and no defense, the Israeli's wouldn't be killing them. If the Israeli's had no weapons and defense, the Palestinians (not all of them, just some of them) would absolutely slaughter them. Also, if you are going to object the the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, perhaps you should research the reason why these territories were occupied in the first place. The answer is the Six-Day War.

Believe it or not, I think both parties are wrong in the entire conflict and should do nothing but work towards resolution, but when the entire world is against Israel, what exactly do you want them to do?

[RedskinsDave]

Loree, unless you are a dispensationalist I don't think you should be offended here. I do agree that there is a double standard and Christians seem to be fair game in being slammed while other groups are overly protected but that's not the case here. The fundamentalist dispensationalist Christians are a pretty distinct group and hold pretty different beliefs on how the world will end than most Christians.

[Spence]

There is no double standard. I don't take unfair shots at Christians. I am a Christian. Just as much a Christian as AGibbsGirl or Skinzaholic or anyone else. The point I made was aimed at Dispensationalists, those who favor war in the Middle East because they think it will bring on the Rapture. Those people exist and all Christians [and plenty of non-Christians] know this. What I wrote is no more an attack on Christianity than criticizing the Nation of Islam is an attack on all African-Americans.

Read what I wrote again, AGibbsGirl. If I'd meant to attack all Christians I would have done so. [And then I would have become an atheist or converted to a different religion.] I specifically mentioned Dispensationalists because I know they support violence in the Middle East. The vast majority of Christians [such as myself] do not.

I've come across this before--where people who are "born again" believe they have a greater claim to Christianity than the rest of us. I utterly reject it. Not all "born agains" are like that, but I've met enough of them who are to be familiar with the routine and more than a little sick of it.

[Spence]

Originally posted by NamVet4
Who and/or what are
?

And what is thier interest in the Israeli Palestinian issue?
And what is their position on suicide bombings?
Anyone....? Here (http://answers.org/theology/dispensationalism.html) is an introduction to Dispensationalist theology. Read it and you will notice the focus on Israel and its importance in the "imminent" return of Christ, the End of Days, the extermination of unbelievers.

[Spence]

I will reprint an article from Salon [I have a subscription to the magazine and pay for full access] on the subject here: PART ONE Antichrist politics
For many fervent Christians, support for Israel has less to do with Ariel Sharon than preparing for Armageddon.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg



May 24, 2002 | From the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., preached what was essentially a sermon about Israel last December. "The Bible says that Abram [Abraham] removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord," he said. "Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, 'I am giving you this land' ... This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."

As Inhofe's speech suggested, for elements of the Christian right, pro-Israel fervor has ascended to the realm of the sacred. Christian leaders Ralph Reed and Gary Bauer both say that their support of Israel -- and Israeli expansionism -- is partly rooted in biblical injunction. Bauer says, "There are a variety of Old Testament scriptures in which God is saying to Abraham that the people of Israel will occupy all the land between the sea and the river," which he says means the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. "There's a belief that this is covenant land," he adds.

Such views have concrete consequences -- as Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times, evangelical internationalism is a "broad new trend that is beginning to reshape American foreign policy." Many Jewish leaders have welcomed evangelical support on Israel. Yet despite feel-good talk of ecumenical alliances, conservative Christians aren't just acting as backup for their Jewish brothers and sisters. They have an agenda of their own. For now, it coincides with mainstream Jewish concerns. It won't always.

Put baldly, millions of evangelical Christians see forewarnings of Armageddon in the crisis in the Middle East. Followers of dispensationalism, a major strain within American evangelical Christianity, they believe that the return of Jews to Israel and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount is a precondition for the rapture, the apocalypse and the return of Christ.

"I believe that Jesus can only return when all of the Jews have returned to their land," writes Norbert Lieth, author of 18 Christian books, in the dispensationalist magazine "Midnight Call." Television preachers like Jack Van Impe and John Hagee and bestselling Christian writers like Hal Lindsey explain the current struggle over Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank as prophesy made manifest. They see their interpretation of Daniel and the Book of Revelations played out every day on the news.

For them, there can be no negotiation over what they call "Judea and Samaria" despite the fact that many Israelis, and Jews worldwide, hope Israel eventually pulls out of the territories. Randall Price, jet-setting founder of World of the Bible Ministries, says, "In the book of Genesis, there are territorial dimensions for the land that is given to Abraham and his descendents. It's from the river of Egypt to the river of the Euphrates." In his view, Israel's right to that land, which extends into modern-day Iraq, is absolute. As for the Palestinians, Price says, "Ishmael has said that his descendants would live to the East of their brother. There's a much larger geographical territory allotted to them."

The Palestinians, he says, have "no historic claims" to the land they're on now and should move to an Arab country outside Israel's dominion.

Seen in this light, Dick Armey's comments to an incredulous Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" a few weeks ago make more sense. "I am not content to give up any part of Israel for that purpose of that Palestinian state," he said. "I happened to believe that the Palestinians should leave." After all, Armey might have added, the Bible says so.

While Armey has made his evangelical Christianity clear, there is no evidence that he believes in dispensationalism. According to his communications director, Armey's Zionist stance stems from solidarity with Israel in the war against terrorism. Similarly, a spokesman for Inhofe insists that dispensationalism "has not really figured into his support for Israel."

Reed and Bauer also distance themselves from dispensationalism. "My support for Israel has little or nothing to do with theology of the end times," says Reed. "Evangelicals have a fairly expansive view of God's sovereignty. I believe that he'll be able to work out Israel's role in the end times without our help."

Bauer concurs, "I've always been uncomfortable trying to discern prophetic literature. Christ himself says no man knows the hour or the day, so in my own faith life I've stuck pretty much to the basics of my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and have left it to others to argue out what at times are fairly esoteric differences."

There is no reason to doubt either man's sincerity. At the same time, it is crucial to note that while both minimize the influence of dispensationalism, neither will explicitly disavow it. Meanwhile, at least one Republican leader seems to believe the rapture is imminent -- a plaque in Tom DeLay's office reads, "This could be the day."

[Spence]

PART TWO That's one reason that Chip Berlet, an analyst with the progressive think tank Political Research Associates, argues, "The current administration in the United States is packed with people who are literal Bible believers and who see in Israel a specific role in the end times." The most visible believers, says Berlet, are Attorney General John Ashcroft, Armey and Delay. "My argument is that you don't have to say, 'I am a dispensationalist' to be a person influenced by these apocalyptic metaphors. The more you're embedded in a Christian fundamentalist culture, the more you're going to be influenced by these ideas even if you claim you aren't."

Gershom Gorenberg, Israeli journalist and author of "The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount," cautions that we need to pay attention to these views. "There's a tendency which is very common among secular-leaning people not to take theology very seriously," he says. Yet evangelical leaders are hardly reticent about the central role that religion plays in everything they do. Gorenberg adds, "When Jerry Falwell says, 'I don't think there's a West Bank, there's Judea and Samaria,' why shouldn't I take seriously that he's deriving that from the bible?" As Gorenberg points out, important elements in Israeli society take these people very seriously indeed. When Binyamin Netanyahu visited Washington during the '90s, he met with Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders before he met with Bill Clinton. American evangelicals have raised millions to return diaspora Jews to Israel. Fundamentalist groups like the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities fund settler movements, "those pioneers now fulfilling the covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob regarding the restoration of all the land God has allocated to Israel," as one pamphlet said.

Yet despite its international influence, most people on America's godless coasts have never heard of dispensationalism. It's one of those words that reveals the yawning ideological gulf between red states and blue. To secular urbanites, it might seem like just another example of fringe American madness, something akin to UFO cults. But it's thoroughly mainstream -- far more so than agnosticism. Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary, says that the most prevalent view among evangelicals is an unequivocal support for Israel, and that dispensationalism plays a large role in their conviction. And Gorenberg says, "Dispensationalism is a predominant belief among fundamentalists."

It matters that a lot of evangelicals are dispensationalists because a lot of Americans are evangelicals. According to a Gallup Poll taken in March, "46 percent of Americans describe themselves as 'born-again' or evangelical." In a 1999 Newsweek Poll, 71 percent of evangelicals said they believed that the world would end in a battle at Armageddon (which is itself a corruption of the name of the Israeli town Megiddo) between Jesus and the antichrist.

Of course, not every Christian who believes Jews have a God-given right to Palestinian territory is an end-time fundamentalist. "I'm not going to deny that it's a factor, of course it's a factor, but it's an insignificant factor," says Reed. "I think it shows a misunderstanding of both the complexity and the character of Christian support for Israel and the Jewish people."

As Bauer says, Christian support for Israel can be explained partly by the fact that evangelicals typically take a hard line on foreign policy. "American Christians were generally supportive of a more hawkish view in the cold war. It was seen in moral terms. Reagan would refer to us as a shining city on the hill, and many Christians did see it that way. I think now there is a strong sense among American Christians that there is a clash of civilizations going on, and broadly speaking, Israel and the United States are defending Western civilization."

Israel aside, evangelicals tend to be hostile toward Islam, as demonstrated by Billy Graham's son Franklin's statement that it is "a very evil and wicked religion."

"It's certainly seen as an illegitimate faith," says Bock. "Judaism supplies the roots for Christianity and Jesus was Jewish, so there is a recognition of kinship that doesn't exist with Islam. There is also a history of Islam's violent treatment of Christians and Jews that has accelerated this reaction that you've seen. Certainly something like 9/11 takes it high on the charts -- if that can be done as an act of religious faith, this is not a religion worth respecting." Evangelicals point out the horrors perpetrated by Sudan's Muslim government against the country's Christians -- including the widespread slave trade -- as evidence of the religion's amorality.

Yet if end-times prophesy can't completely account for the Christian right's embrace of Israel, it also can't be disentangled from it. As Gorenberg says, "There's a package deal going on here. The same people who hold this particular Christian theology are also conservatives in other ways. They tend to see the world as divided between good guys and bad guys and they tend to see force as the proper solution." They may speak in geopolitical terms, he says, "but they're influenced by a mythological view of the state of Israel."

Besides, even Republicans of the Christian right who don't believe we're on the cusp of the second coming have to appease the evangelicals in their constituency, and among those evangelicals, dispensationalism is as much a part of the culture as is "Star Wars."

[Spence]

PART THREE Perhaps the most overwhelming evidence for the prevalence of dispensationalism is the success of the "Left Behind" novels. Co-written by Tim LaHaye, former leader of the Moral Majority, and Jerry B. Jenkins, the books are end-time thrillers that have sold more than 50 million copies. As Brodrick Shepherd, owner of the prophecy clearinghouse Armageddon Books, says, the books "have had a tremendous amount of influence in bringing awareness to the idea of dispensationalism."

There are currently 10 books in the series, which tell the story of those left behind after the rapture to deal with the tribulations. The books begin with a ferocious military assault on Israel. A group of Christians, shamed by the weakness of faith that caused them to miss the rapture, band together to fight the antichrist and, among other things, protect the righteous Jews who urge their brethren to turn to Jesus. Meanwhile, a deluded Jewish Nobel prize-winner colludes with the antichrist, one of whose first acts is to forge a cynical peace with Israel. Another popular dispensationalist novel, Hal Lindsey's 1996 "Blood Moon," features an Israeli prime minister who heroically launches preemptive nuclear strikes against the major cities of the Arab world.

It's not just fiction spreading the word about Israel and the last days. "Jack Van Impe Presents," which bills itself as "a weekly news program which analyzes and evaluates world events in the light of Biblical prophecy," is broadcast in all 50 states and throughout the world. So is a program by Pastor John Hagee, who has written that Jesus will only return after the "most devastating war Israel has ever known." End-times teachings are popular on "The 700 Club" and on many of the 1,300 Christian radio stations that are part of the National Religious Broadcasters association. There are Dispensationalist magazines like Endtimes, Midnight Call and Israel My Glory. According to Shepherd, who is fascinated by end-time prophecy but critical of dispensationalism, "When you walk into a Christian bookstore, everything you find on prophecy is going to be from a dispensationalist viewpoint."

For some Jews, the prevalence of dispensationalists has been a boon both politically and economically. Orthodox Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, author of "Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide for the Jewish Community" and head of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, distributed $14 million last year that he raised almost exclusively from American evangelicals. Most of the money went to resettle diaspora Jews in Israel and to help care for new arrivals. He has an office in Chicago staffed by 50 people, most of them evangelical Christians, and one in Jerusalem staffed by Jews. There are 3,500 churches involved with his organization. Recently, he said, the Israeli prime minister's office asked him to start doing public relations work for Israel in the Christian community worldwide.

"The Jewish community over the years has struggled with the question of whether these people are our greatest friends and allies or our greatest adversaries," he says. "I obviously wouldn't be in this business unless I felt that they were among our greatest friends."

Abraham Foxman, executive director of the Anti-Defamation League, doesn't go that far, but he's also not terribly concerned about the evangelicals' motivation. "Some [evangelicals] are motivated theologically, in that for the Second Coming of the Messiah, one of the prerequisites is for Jews to be safe and secure in the Holy Land," he says. "That's not a reason for us to reject them. I believe that when the Jews are safe and secure in the Holy Land the Messiah will come for the first time. So what?"

After all, as Foxman indicates, Christians certainly aren't the only ones with a messianic view of Israel. While secular or reform Jews -- that is, most Jews -- tend to see the need for a secure Jewish homeland as a political matter and are thus willing to negotiate its borders, Orthodox Jews share the evangelicals' conviction that Israel is covenant land. That's why when it comes to issues like settlements, Rabbi Eckstein says, deeply religious Jews have more in common with Christians than with the Jewish mainstream. Israel, says Eckstein, "is the Holy Land for both the religious Jew and for the evangelical Christian. It is a miracle, the ingathering of the exiles. It is God's redemption."

But the two versions of redemption are starkly different. In the evangelical one, the Middle East is convulsed by unprecedented violence and most Jews die.

The vast majority of Jews desperately want to avoid a full-scale conflagration between Israel and the Arab world. Dispensationalists don't. In the dispensationalist narrative, Christians will be raptured to heaven before all the fighting between Jews and Muslims starts. Everyone left will face mass death and destruction. "Some people see some of the imagery in Revelations being caused by nuclear weapons," says Brodrick. Thus evangelical Christians' support for policies like the permanent takeover the West Bank and Gaza and even, in some cases, the expulsion of Palestinians into Jordan, should be understood in the context of a worldview in which world war is inevitable.

Eckstein recalls an ad for a prophesy book in Charisma magazine that said the post-rapture tribulations would "make the Holocaust seem like a party." Though he believes most evangelicals are more "humble and responsible" than that author, he says, "There are those who are so definitive and absolute about the future, and their theology does entail the destruction of millions of Jews in the battle of Armageddon. I believe it says in the Book of Revelations that the blood will be so high that it will reach the bridle of a horse."

Dispensationalist Christians believe that this is all in the service of establishing the reign of Christ on earth. Yet while they chase this fantasy, they're content to put real lives -- Jewish lives -- on the line. "It doesn't make me feel any better when they tell me to keep the whole West Bank when I don't think that's for the benefit of Israel politically," says Gorenberg. "When somebody's hope for where Israeli policy will lead is Armageddon, clearly they're going to be judging things differently."

For now, as Jews and evangelicals work together, those differences might not matter. Yet as American government support of the mujahedin shows, realpolitik partnerships against metaphysical evil can turn rancid. When people believe their politics are endorsed by God, today's ally can be tomorrow's Satan.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Michelle Goldberg is a staff writer for Salon based in New York.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
I've come across this before--where people who are "born again" believe they have a greater claim to Christianity than the rest of us. I utterly reject it. Not all "born agains" are like that, but I've met enough of them who are to be familiar with the routine and more than a little sick of it.


Spence... I would LOVE to discuss this term "born again" with you. Seems you have a strong opinion about in your undertones.

(I cant help it... these topics are in my blood:) )

[RedskinsDave]

For those who don't want to read the whole article, this sums it up pretty well:

"Put baldly, millions of evangelical Christians see forewarnings of Armageddon in the crisis in the Middle East. Followers of dispensationalism, a major strain within American evangelical Christianity, they believe that the return of Jews to Israel and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount is a precondition for the rapture, the apocalypse and the return of Christ."

[Spence]

Don't misunderstand me, Kevin. As I noted in my post, I've met plenty of born again Christians who are just fine, but I've met others who speak of Christians as if they are only speaking of themselves. As if you are not a Christian unless you're an evangelical Christian. I'm an Episcopalian and as you know, we're about as un-evangelical as it gets. I've got no problem with evangelicals, but I want it understood that people like me are just as entitled to call ourselves Christians as anyone else.

I'm not a hypocrite about this. I don't call myself a better Christian than anyone else and I won't let anyone call themself a better Christian than me. I think that's fair.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
For those who don't want to read the whole article, this sums it up pretty well:

"Put baldly, millions of evangelical Christians see forewarnings of Armageddon in the crisis in the Middle East. Followers of dispensationalism, a major strain within American evangelical Christianity, they believe that the return of Jews to Israel and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount is a precondition for the rapture, the apocalypse and the return of Christ." LOL Not bad, Dave.

[Spence]

There seems to be a few misunderstandings here, so let me clarify exactly what I meant:

1. I'm a Christian

2. Ergo, I don't attack Christianity as a whole, though I will not hesitate to criticize certain Christians, just as I won't hesitate to criticize anyone else.

3. My comments earlier in this thread were directed at Dispensationalists. That's why I mentioned them specifically and not Christians generally.

4. I don't really care about Dispensationalists, except insofar as they have had an important impact on Middle East policy in this country and I find their influence on this particular subject extremely negative.

[Skinzaholic]

Oh Spence... I was reading into what you posted I guess... I thought you were using the term "born againers" as tongue in cheek... (ie. that you had disagreements with that label's validity). I dont know alot about the Episcopalians doctrine... so I wasn't really sure what you believe (or dont).

As far as Dispensationalists... I can personally tell you that there is a dynamic shift in Christianity when it comes to those "titles". Seems alot more people are simply embracing the foundational truths of the Bible and ignoring the labels others try to pin on them (sort of a new hippie thing).

I fully believe Israel plays a HUGE part in this world (as the Bible so plainly states)... but I would not be so quick to jump on every little flare up over there as the start of "Armaggedon". If that was the case then we would have 1000 Anti-christ's by now.

[Skinzaholic]

Spence - also wanted to let you know that I find you much more believable and engauging then most so-called "christians" that I know. Doesnt mean I agree with your positions.. and could probably argue your stand on scripture for days without end... but your heart stands out far and beyond your confused doctrine (sorry... had to get ONE jab in!).

Seriously... I would much rather sit and discuss the world over a nice hot cup of coffee with you then with many of the people I know who claim to be a follower of Jesus.

By the way... this is a compliment.

[NamVet4]

Thank you Spence for the link and the articles....
Unfortunately, it is hard for me to discern from all that I have read, any compassion, love of fellow man, or understanding of the human condition. It is to this end that I believe that these feelings are not lost, but perhaps mislaid; and that those who advocate suicide bombing do so out of sheer desperation of loss.

It seems to me that some, not all, people of all faiths, have lost sense of the Almighty Creator.

~sigh~

[Spence]

Hey, no worries, Kevin. I was actually hoping you'd join in here because I knew I'd get an opinionated, but fair response--which is what I like. All this goodwill will evaporate, however, if you don't turn up at this year's tailgate. I won't turn the other cheek for that one! :D

[NamVet4]

And perhaps one more point..... In all of this I am reminded that the Kingdom of the Almighty is not of this earth.... Does the destruction of life here on earth, by both suicide and homicide contribute to the ascent to the Kingdom of the Almighty?
Again, with all that I have read through the provided links and read here, I see no justification, moral, theological, political or otherwise for the destruction of human life by suicide/homicide.

[AGibbsGirl]

First of all, I don't need anyone telling me that I didn't understand or that I didn't read the post right. I'm not as stupid as you may think.

I know exactly what a fundamentalist dispensationalist Christian is. I would consider myself to be one by definition. Did this ever occur to you? Did you consider that this just might be the reason I was so offended by this comment…?

However, just like in all other religions there are extreme elements that support wars to hasten their own agendas.

Perhaps these extremists are who Spence was referring to? Perhaps had he said some elements that think they are Fundamentalist Dispensationalist Christians support occupation…I would not have taken offense. Because there is no denying that these type of people exist. But I felt the offense came because Spence was saying that anyone who believed in the End Times and all that surrounds that time are supporters of war. I do not support war, but I do support Israel and I do support the Jewish people being there. As an American I can not for the life of me figure out why both groups can’t just live together though. It’s completely foreign to me that different religions can’t occupy the same space…

I am glad that Spence (back-handily) explained his position, even if he once again made “Born Again” sound like a dirty word…

[RedskinsDave]

But AGG, isn't it the leaders of the dispensationalists who speak up for the occupation? Aren't they the ones who preach that the end will come in armegeddon and, by necessity, the jews must be restored to rule the land there prior to it occurring?

[Spence]

AGG, yes it did occur to me that you are a Dispensationalist. Since there are plenty of Christians here and you were the only one who appeared to be offended by my reference, I sort of assumed you are a Dispensationalist. I wasn't defining the term for you. I assumed you and Kevin and many others know what the term means. Once NamVet asked about it, though, I realized not everyone is familiar with Dispensationalists, so I set about to provide at least some background information on the subject and how they affect U.S. Middle East policies.

I absolutely did not mean to suggest that anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible supports war in the Middle East. Those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible are often called fundamentalists. There are many fundamentalists in the United States, but many are not Dispensationalists. That's why my original post mentioned fundamentalists who are also Dispensationalists. That way, I figured, there would be no confusing my intent.

What bothered me about your response, AGG, is that you found it offensive to Christians and that I was bashing Christianity. But I think it was pretty clear that I only mentioned a tiny minority of Christians known as Dispensationalists. The rest of us are not Dispensationalists, but we are--emphatically--Christians. I'm sorry you think I use "born again" as an epithet. I have no objection to born again Christians generally, only to some who, in my experience, regard the rest of us as not quite as Christian as they are. As you can see, Christianity is very important to me and I'm determined to ensure that people such as myself remain an important and vibrant part of the Christian community. Despite media portrayals, there is more to Christianity than the Christian right wing of the Republican party and I intend to spend the rest of my life proving it.

In any case, the post was not a general attack even on Dispensationalists, but only a harsh criticism of their impact on U.S. Middle East policy. I'm sorry this has offended you, but my views are my views, just as yours are yours. You do not apologize for yours and I do not apologize for mine.

[AGibbsGirl]

I also consider myself to be a fundamentalist...

~Sigh~ But I do see your intent now. It's just (you have to admit) the orginal post did sound kind of flippant...everything explained sounds a lot kinder...I see where you stand now and you see where I stand...I will take your posts in the future with these posts in mind...

Some of my eye narrowing, frowning was directed at Big Country as well, so the last post wasn't necessarily only directed at you.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence
What bothered me about your response, AGG, is that you found it offensive to Christians and that I was bashing Christianity.


"but it is OK to attack religious beliefs?"

(This is what I orginally said btw) and at the time, before you explained yourself, I felt you were saying something equal to "All Middle Easterners are terrorist" or "all white people are racists" stuff like that would be offensive to any here in the forum. so I felt because of the way your post was worded it sounded like "All F. D. Christians are war supporters."

And as I've said, I consider myself to be a F. D. Christian so...therefore I naturally took offense.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
But AGG, isn't it the leaders of the dispensationalists who speak up for the occupation? Aren't they the ones who preach that the end will come in armegeddon and, by necessity, the jews must be restored to rule the land there prior to it occurring?

Well I don't know anything about leaders...What leaders exactly? So that I can educate myself on what they do or say...

Like I said before, by definition I am a Dispensationalist because of what I Biblically believe in about the Jews and their homeland. And yes this is one of the many things that portend the end times

but I don't believe in a God that would have his children kill one another in order to set about end time events...also since no man knows the hour...then why do they think they can hasten it by their radical means? This would be where I would seperate my self from these people...

[Spence]

AGG, I would not attack religious beliefs. [There are some narrow exceptions to that. Any religious beliefs that include racism, encourage hatred, genocide, things of that nature are absolutely fair game, but none of that applies to you.] As I wrote earlier, I have no real interest in Dispensationalist religious beliefs, except insofar as they affect U.S. Middle East policy. In other words, I'm not suggesting that Dispensationalists are evil or stupid or need to be watched by the government or anything else of that nature. My point was simply and solely to highlight the impact of Dispensationalist theology on U.S. Middle East policy and that I find it counter-productive. That's not a religious criticism, it's a political one.

I assume we all agree that whenever religious beliefs affect policy and politics, they become a fair topic for discussion and criticism within the Politics Forum of this website. Anything that affects policy and politics is a fair topic for discussion and criticism within the Politics Forum of this website. It is NOT appropriate to generally condemn an entire group of people [such as Dispensationalists, for example], but it is absolutely acceptable to criticize the effect the beliefs of a group of people have on official policy. This does not single out Christians or adherents of any particular religious faith. It applies to Buddhists, Zoroastrians, atheists, fascists, communists, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence
AGG, I would not attack religious beliefs. [There are some narrow exceptions to that. Any religious beliefs that include racism, encourage hatred, genocide, things of that nature are absolutely fair game, but none of that applies to you.] As I wrote earlier, I have no real interest in Dispensationalist religious beliefs, except insofar as they affect U.S. Middle East policy. In other words, I'm not suggesting that Dispensationalists are evil or stupid or need to be watched by the government or anything else of that nature. My point was simply and solely to highlight the impact of Dispensationalist theology on U.S. Middle East policy and that I find it counter-productive. That's not a religious criticism, it's a political one.

I assume we all agree that whenever religious beliefs affect policy and politics, they become a fair topic for discussion and criticism within the Politics Forum of this website. Anything that affects policy and politics is a fair topic for discussion and criticism within the Politics Forum of this website. It is NOT appropriate to generally condemn an entire group of people [such as Dispensationalists, for example], but it is absolutely acceptable to criticize the effect the beliefs of a group of people have on official policy. This does not single out Christians or adherents of any particular religious faith. It applies to Buddhists, Zoroastrians, atheists, fascists, communists, Democrats, Republicans, etc.


Yikes! Spence, I told you that I got it!!!
(Even though I do think at first you were trying to condemn an entire group...but I got it...)

My last post was an answer to RedskinDave's question btw, not intended to make you mad again.

We're done with this though, right?...

[Keino]

Originally posted by AGibbsGirl

but I don't believe in a God that would have his children kill one another in order to set about end time events...also since no man knows the hour...then why do they think they can hasten it by their radical means? This would be where I would seperate my self from these people...

Well AGG I don't mean to start an argument here, but Im curious about this paragragh.

Hasn't God used his children to fight wars? Im reminded of Gideon who used an army 1/10 the size of the opposition and also am reminded of Joshua blowing his horn around the wall of Jericho...and I certainly cannot forget that David Slew Goliath, the Phillistine. Aren't all people God's children?

As for the dispensationalist movement, I think it's man trying to impose the "final hour" on God. He doesn't need our help and when he requires our service at the time he will tell us........

[Spence]

Originally posted by AGibbsGirl
Yikes! Spence, I told you that I got it!!!
(Even though I do think at first you were trying to condemn an entire group...but I got it...)

My last post was an answer to RedskinDave's question btw, not intended to make you mad again.

We're done with this though, right?... Oh, I thought you were still addressing me.

AGG, I was never angry. Never. I promise. It takes a lot more than this to make me angry. If you're satisfied, we're done with it. :)

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino
Hasn't God used his children to fight wars? Im reminded of Gideon who used an army 1/10 the size of the opposition and also am reminded of Joshua blowing his horn around the wall of Jericho...and I certainly cannot forget that David Slew Goliath, the Phillistine. Aren't all people God's children?



Keino - these are all references from the Old Testament... the old covenant... when sin and disobedience against God was dealt with harshly and with death. Thanks to Jesus, we have a "better covenant" where sin and disobedience was paid for on the cross and therefore is absorbed in grace. That is why people can so freely disregard God with seemingly no punishment.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino
Aren't all people God's children?



Not according to the book of 1 John they arent.

Many people who call themselves "Christians" arent.

"Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

[Keino]

Skinz. I don't believe Jesus invalidated the original covnenant, rather he simplified it. That the references I make are to the Old Testament is also immaterial. I was pointing out instances where God used Man to conduct war.


That you can make the argument that all people are not God's children has me absolutely floored. Do you mean that he created some in his image and not others? The quote from Mark speaks to who will be granted everlasting life. Regardless, even those who are not given that gift are still God's children, no? Correct me if Im wrong, but acording to the Christian view, not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior comes with it a final and everlasting punishment, does it not?

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Keino
As for the dispensationalist movement, I think it's man trying to impose the "final hour" on God. He doesn't need our help and when he requires our service at the time he will tell us........

Ah...now here's the point Keino...my beliefs are consistant with F.D. Christianity but I don't belong to any "movement"
I just believe that the book of Revelations is true as written, not some code for something else...perhaps I've got it all wrong here? Is there some sort of group? I didn't realize there was a real entity out there.

like a Christian Hamaas or something...

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence
Oh, I thought you were still addressing me.

AGG, I was never angry. Never. I promise. It takes a lot more than this to make me angry. If you're satisfied, we're done with it. :)

OK not mad! Fired up! (in a good way)

But it's nice to have a better understanding of you at any rate.
I'm glad I got to know this about you before we were all raptured, I would have hated to see you left behind :p
(see I can poke fun at myself...)

[AGibbsGirl]

Maybe Skinz needs to clarify.
Skinz: Did you mean that not all people are a "child of God" in the sense that not all people that call themselves Christians really are going to Heaven?
If so then here's another passage from Mathew 7 that also goes along those lines:

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

PS: I agree with Skinz, Jesus broke the old covenant and God does not need us to kill each other in battle to satisfy his covenants. It's a lot easier to love then to kill, which is the message I believe in.
Am I saying this right?

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino
Skinz. I don't believe Jesus invalidated the original covnenant, rather he simplified it. That the references I make are to the Old Testament is also immaterial. I was pointing out instances where God used Man to conduct war.



Sorry Sean - I disgree. Jesus didnt simplify the old covenant... He came to fulfill it. The entire book of Hebrews is about this very point. Where the Old Covenant could only redeem from sin for a moment, the New Covenant redeemed entirely.


Look at this verse (speaking about Jesus)...

"For the law never made anything perfect - but instead a better hope is introduced through which we (now) come close to God." - Hebrews 7:19


That the references you used were from the Old Testament is hardly "immaterial" at all... in fact, it means everything. It was during the Old Covenant that God repeatedly used man and war to punish disobedience. By using the Old Testament as a defense that God uses man to conduct wars, you are referencing an out of date system. Under the Old System God did indeed use man to conduct wars... but under this much better system (Jesus and Grace) God does things a different way. Therefore, the examples are misleading.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino

That you can make the argument that all people are not God's children has me absolutely floored. Do you mean that he created some in his image and not others? The quote from Mark speaks to who will be granted everlasting life. Regardless, even those who are not given that gift are still God's children, no? Correct me if Im wrong, but acording to the Christian view, not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior comes with it a final and everlasting punishment, does it not?


Sean - this also is all under one's foundation of belief. What exactly is meant by "God's children"? If you mean human beings made in the image of God - then YES - all people are God's children. But that really isnt how the Bible portrays it.

"There is therefore no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken (make alive) your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear (Old Covenant), but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, (the Spirit producing sonship), whereby we cry, Abba Father (Daddy)!" - Romans 8:1,5,11,15


I find it very clear that those who live "according to the Spirit" are called sons and are adopted... but those who live according to the flesh are not.

Looking at things in a positive light, one who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus are not just "saved from eternal punishment" but more importantly they are provided adoption into God's family... given an inheritance (Ephesians Chapter 1)... and given a new lease on life.

That is how I read it anyway.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by AGibbsGirl
Maybe Skinz needs to clarify.
Skinz: Did you mean that not all people are a "child of God" in the sense that not all people that call themselves Christians really are going to Heaven?
If so then here's another passage from Mathew 7 that also goes along those lines:

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

PS: I agree with Skinz, Jesus broke the old covenant and God does not need us to kill each other in battle to satisfy his covenants. It's a lot easier to love then to kill, which is the message I believe in.
Am I saying this right?



Yeah Mom - that is a good way to put it. Im tired so my brain hasnt been working right the past few days. Thanks!

[Keino]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Sorry Sean - I disgree. Jesus didnt simplify the old covenant... He came to fulfill it. The entire book of Hebrews is about this very point. Where the Old Covenant could only redeem from sin for a moment, the New Covenant redeemed entirely.


Look at this verse (speaking about Jesus)...

"For the law never made anything perfect - but instead a better hope is introduced through which we (now) come close to God." - Hebrews 7:19


That the references you used were from the Old Testament is hardly "immaterial" at all... in fact, it means everything. It was during the Old Covenant that God repeatedly used man and war to punish disobedience. By using the Old Testament as a defense that God uses man to conduct wars, you are referencing an out of date system. Under the Old System God did indeed use man to conduct wars... but under this much better system (Jesus and Grace) God does things a different way. Therefore, the examples are misleading.

Skinz I had a nice response for you and then the Board crapped out, so I will do my best to remember what I said.

Basically the above post implies that God has made a mistake and then he corrected that mistake. The God I believe in is infallable....Perfect..not capable of making mistakes. You should know though, Im not a Christian (Or member of any organized religion) what Chistian Doctrine teaches, so I stand corrected.

As for the "God's Children" issue, AGG clarified that point quite well.