(For the uninitiated Christian Zionism is essentially the marriage of Christianity and political Israel.)

NOwhere in the New testament are we as Christians authorized to unite with or make league with ANY political entity. This in UNDISPUTED.

The ENTIRE ACCOUNT of the Old testament has one central theme - that gov't and religion DO NOT MIX. Gov't sposored or affected religion produces FORCED obedience, which is unacceptable to God.

Just as the religious rights foray into domestic politics (trying to ban abortion, porn, etc etc) did NOTHING to change the political arena, but only served to discredit the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the worlds mind....

Christian Zionisms foray into foreign policy will only serve to do the same - to discredit our Saviour to a watching world.

The reason is simple - and well illustrated.

Christian Zionism is inherently racist. Its the equivalent of selecting one race over another.

And the illustration is well-made even here. All my Christian brethern have said nary a word about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to teh Arabs - just a sort of blood thirsty vengeance is demamnded. Against a race which includes some people who have done NOTHING against them

God DOES NOT tell us we are exempt from evangelizing ANYONE - no matter how detestable or disgusitng we find their actions - for one simple reason. Their disgusting actions are DUE TO their sin nature, which Jesus Christ came to remedy. The Apostle Paul was a murderer of dozens of Christians. Yet God commanded a Christian to witness the Gospel to Paul. Paul got saved, and then wrote 20% of God's Bible.

In essence, we have Christians deliberately withholding the Gospel from Arabs due to personal animosity and hatred. AS WELL AS "forgetting" to give the Gopsel to the jewish peoples, as we're too busy sending them the double-speak, confusing message that while they need salvation, they are ALREADY God's chosen people.

It is no wonder the world mocks our Gospel, and the Christ it preaches. Because we carry the Gospel duplicitously.

Its WRONG. And Christ's people need to wake up.

Amen! and Amen!

Juggernaut

I agree, Government and Religion should not mix.

That's why I look at the situation there in STRICTLY SECULAR TERMS.
A little common sense, and a dash of the Golden Rule, and presto!
A concise moral interpretation of the events.
(...and yes there is such a thing as secular morality)

Very well said Garandman. I seem to remember a scripture that instructs all Christians to preach God's word, the punishment for not doing so is to see all of those that you may have saved being cast into Hell. Does that ring a bell with you?
I am beginning to hear of a grass roots effort to return Israel to God's grace. Do you agree that when Israel returns to God's grace these troubles will end? I think so and it seems so simple. But, a nation's collective pride (or a man's or a woman's) typically stands in the way of returning one's life to God's grace. This also seems simple, just give it up to God. It has taken me years and I am still not without a backslide or two now and again.[;)]

BTW, I am immediately wary of anything that can be described as an -ism. Usually means that someone thought long and hard about a cutesy description and the sheep will flock around this -ism and begin to use it in everyday language, incorrectly. Before you know it you have a movement based on an -ism that no one really understands. Sorry for the rant and thanks for the definition.[:)]

You have got to admit it is pretty comical, in a twisted way.  The Evangelical Christians are helping the Jews in the hope that the second coming will come about, at which time all the Jews will be slaughtered.  Now that is charity!

I don't care whose chosen people the Jews are or are not.  I know that the radical Islamicists are our enemies and that makes Israel our friend.  That's all I need to know.

Not _all_ the Jews will be slaughtered.

Zechariah 12:10

Jew?
Christian?
Muslim?

I don't care.
Those terms cloud the issue.

Try these:

Murderers
Terrorists
Invaders
Oppressors
Manipulators
Despots

Oh thats an easy one!!


They are wrong because they believe in a god.......

Now THERE is a "Jewsih movement" that will get my FULL support.



That is the answer for ALL men.

Scripturally, I'm not sure there are ANY answers specifically tailored to Jewish peopels any more. See about page 4 of Hannah's thread where I address the veil of the temple being rent, among other items.

Today, God deals with INDIVIDUALS, not nations.



Christ told us that if something is widely, popularly accepted, its probably NOT of Him, as He was not widely accepted.

I do like being able to put a handle on a set of beliefs, so as to be able to clearly define and categorize it.

How does "garandmanism" sound to you?? Too self-aggrandizing??? [:D]  [}:D] [;)]

Amen.

Pope Gelasius I issued a papal bull which dealt exclusively with the relationship between Church and state.  His statement essentially says that the Church has AUTHORITY over spiritual matters and the state has POWER over temporal affairs.  

Whenever those lines are crossed we do more harm than good.

More luggage from another thread, RE: Daniel and Revelation -

Post from Schnert -

So, Schnert and garandman, Daniel the Prophet did not prophesy some 600 years before the event, of Jesus, the Son of God?

[b]Daniel Chapter 7:[/b]
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the [b]Son of man[/b] came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an [b]everlasting dominion[/b], which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

[b]Daniel Chapter 9:[/b]
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the [b]Messiah the Prince[/b] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall [b]Messiah[/b] be cut off, [u]but not for himself[/u]: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Quick! Somebody better tell just about every Christian scholar since Eusebius, that the foregoing prophecies of Daniel were not referring to Jesus of Nazareth, then!

I'll let you guys do it, they might smack me up side of the head!

But if you really know what's good for you, neither of you will even breath a word about your views on [b]Revelation[/b] to them!

So, in order to kill two birds with one stone, what in the dickens was Daniel referring to in these two passages?

The [u]coming[/u] of Christ, or the [u]returning[/u] of Christ?

Inquiring Christian Huns want to know!

Eric The(AndHowDoesTheTempleFitIn?)Hun[>]:)]

Another Crusade! Everyone rally behind the g-man! Seems that the previous Crusades were so successful, let wipe out the heathens and make the Holy Land Holy again... [:|]

ErictheHun,

Check out my reply to your post in the Hannah thread.

I'm interested to read your response.[:)]

Well, since you are crossposting (read: polluting) I guess so will I.

OF COURSE Daniel foretold of Christ's day - the ENTIRE OT did. Past tense.

What were saying is that Daniel offers no insight into PRESENT DAY prophecy.

Since I like you (And I'm the grammar Nazi) I'll give you a FREE English grammar lesson:

See that  little word "do" in the sentence "They DO not predict the future."

"Do" is present tense, Eric. Ya know what that means right? PRESENT DAY.

Fer a smot lawyer like yerself, I spend an awful lotta time splainin' things to you Lucy!!!!

The Gospel is quite different from religion.  Religion proper is a quid pro quo attempt to manipulate the future by paying homage or offering sacrifices to the diety of your choice.  Religion pre-dates the Gospel.  Christ was tried by the best that the world had to offer - Mosaic Law and Pax Romana - both religion and the state sealed his fate.

Instead, the Gospel frees us from a quid pro quo (this for that) relationship with God.  Instead of offering sacrifices to God in order to expunge our sin, the Gospel states that God in Christ became the sacrifice on the cross.  Now that's classic Anselmian satisfaction for ya!

I'm with garandman and raf.  

Post from Schnert -

[b]Yes, but by [u]flawed[/u] trials under [u]both[/u] systems![/b]

Want to know how or why?

Eric The(Legalistic,SureWhyNot)Hun[>]:)]

I'm sure that you're going to tell us.[:D]

If by religion you mean rituals and traditions, I agree completely.

If by religion you mean a Biblical worldview, I'll disagree, and I'll show you why a LESS THAN "relentless injection of religion into every concievable aspect of human behavior" is even less desirable.

One's worldview MUST be consistent, and affect EVERY area of his life. To relegate your religion / worldview to only SOME aspects of your life, and not to others, produces internal conflict and external confusion.

Also known as hypocrisy.

Are rites and rituals bad? Sure. But if practiced consistently, that's still better than hypocrisy.

And best of all is a Biblical worldview akin to what Schnert just described above.

"His blood be on us, and on our children."

--The Jewisih political establishment, re:  Christ's crucifixion

Garandman you are a nut case.  Sorry, had to get that out.  The discussions here have been on a political level not a spiritual one.  As a Christian nation we have to act one way as individuals we act another.  Our church supports missionaries to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and supports leveling terrorist nations as national policy.  You can be a militant and still love your enemy, you just have to know the balance between the two.  Jesus loved the Pharasies even as He was flogging them and throwing them out of the temple.  Get some discernment.  Planerench out.

(Continuation of thread opener)

Ironically,  we Christians have a clear and unmistakable pattern as to what our message these days ought to be. The scene in Israel today is almost an exact replication of Christ’s time here on earth . Just replace the Palestinians with the Romans, who were at the time both oppressing Israel politically and committing atrocities against Jewish people individually.

Yet, Christ’s message was not of political significance for Israel, or of rolling tanks into the West Bank or flying gunships over occupied territories. Christ’s message was of repentance and forgiveness for sins, and then as He had done of old, God would fight Israel’s battles for them.

We, Christ’s peoples, need to get back to His message.  One not of politics, but of purity.

Hey Garad, if the jews had accepted the messiah the first time His Kingdom would have been there and then.  Rome would have caught hell! Planerench out.  

I'll bypass the contradiction of on the one hand saying the "discussion has been political not spiritual" followed by we are a "christian nation." My mind CANNOT entertain contradictions - call it a charachter flaw. [}:D]

I'm more interested in your statement - "as a Christian nation we have to act one way as individuals we act another."

So your solution to the situation is .....hypocrisy????

Did the Apostle Paul act one way in Rome, and another way as an individual??? I think not.





If by discernemnt you mean the ability to entertain contradictions or to maufacture an inconsistency between my political and spiritual life, I'd rather NOT "get some. " Thanks anyway. [}:D]

Post from Schnert -

F*** no!

Learn that crap on yer own, ya' friggin Lutheran bastid!

Eric The(SassyBastid)Hun[>]:)]

That's NOT true.

Luke 24 and Acts 1 BOTH make it clear even Christ's disciples were expecting Him to offer an eartly kingdom. You'll need to explain to me why the Jews didn't accept Christ's earthly kingdom, when that is exactly what they were looking for. In fact it was their desire for earthly political power that CAUSED them to miss Christ the first time. And now "Christians" offer them political significance again - causing them to miss their Messiah yet again.

Christ never did offer a earthly kingdom. he clearly indicated his kingdom was NOT of this world.  Scripture indicates Christ was "slain from teh foundation of teh world." And that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day.  His coming to this earth was for a SINGULAR purpose - the Cross.

But let's assume Christ did offer an earthly Kingdom, and the Jews did accept it.

Forget the Romans. YOU would have "caught hell" quite literally. As the Cross would never occurred.


Is that what you want???

[?]

The FINAL answer to all religious debate...

[url]www3.neilrogers.com/sounds/bonr19982/46.wav[/url]

Your flaw is not character, it is an intellectual one between contradictory attributes that have their own time.  Christ was not accepted by His people, therefore it was time for turning the other cheek.  Next time He will take nothing from His enemies.  God is longsuffering but not a pushover.  You do need a lot of discernment Garandman, especially if you believe anything from your opening post (none of which is even close).

A nation must act to provide the safety of its citizens.  Individuals may act at risk of life and limb to preach to the infidels in the middle east.  God has different rules for war.  You might want to read about some of them.  Planerench out.

Wrong again, Garand.  Both options were possible with scriptural fulfillment.  Christ came as a lamb and the Sanhedron was expecting a sword weilding Hun type.  The kingdom would have started there and then and the age of the Church would not have happened.  (I would have not been born, ever, oh well).  The New Testament would not have been written and salvation would be still completely of the Jews.  You had better be carefull with your treatment of the tree as we are only grafted in.  You don't show much depth to your scriptural understanding.  God has made allowances for free will.  The church age was Plan 'B'  Planerench out.

NO ONE disputes that political point. The ONLY political point to be disputed here is why you support the unconstitutional THEFT of MY tax dollars for the US gov't to protect SOMEONE ELSE's citizens.

My "religious" point is this -

"You" (used euphemistically of all IKK's - Israel Keister Kissers) have not disputed that you -

1. DO INDEED withhold the Gospel from both Arab and Jew.

and

2.  See anything wrong with doing so.

Feel free to dispuite either. THAT is the point of this thread. NOT you bantering about me "getting discernemnt."

[b]Planerench[/b], why is it that you always make so much sense to me?

You know what this means, don't you?

If one of us is wrong, we're both gonna be in for a world of hurt come the Messiah!

But, confidentially, I don't think we stand a prayer....

Eric The(...OfMissingOut!)Hun[>]:)]

And now, a note from your sponsor:



Sorry, gman- your basic premise is that the problem with Israel (and with Jews, apparently) is that they're not all Christians.

Most Jews are quiet happy being Jews and have their own ideas about what religious practices and ideas they'd like to pursue.  And they have been for a few thousand years.

Your presumptions of the "wrongness" of their religious beliefs is the height of arrogance, and is exactly why people are dying over there.

You may think it's your job to proselytize, but then many others don't.  



We return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Wrong yet again Garandman, I agree that USA treasuries should be closed to all but Constitutional items (boy is that a short list).  I do think support is available to our political brothers on different levels.  Private support of another country is possible if we are not at war with said country.  Planerench out.  P.S. Get some discernment!  It may be necessary later.

Sometimes I like to mix religion and government, throw in a little "Old Bay" seasoning, bake for about half an hour and then enjoy with an ice cold beer!

MMmmmm, yummy.