Farewell To Israel.

My stance is this.. If Israel is REALLY backed by "god" as they consistently claim to be, then the power of god must not be great if it needs America to back them as well. If their faith is so strong in god, then let us withdraw our support FINALLY so the power of this supposed god can truly be shown.

Well put there.

Lucid Lunacy.

I don't think Israel itself is a problem, nor do I think it needs to disappear. The real problem is all this one true religion talk. This idea drives people to divide and conspire against each other.

Its not so much the one true religion theory.Talking of creating a 'Greater Israel' is seen as a direct threat to many Middle eastern countries.




SEEWHATUDO.

If Israel doesn't exist then its people do not exist.
If Iran doesn't exist then its people do not exist.

The land is not the people,it is the people who are the land.




asmeone2.

Not to mention, the people we currently call Israelis and Jews are NOT the same people spoken of in the Bible.

Yeah,even i forget that sometimes.

Today almost everyone identifies the name Israel with the Jews. Most people assume the Jewish people are the sole remaining descendants of the ancient nation of Israel. This assumption, however, is incorrect. Technically the Jews are descendants of two of the Israelite tribes: Judah and Benjamin, plus a considerable part of a third, the priestly tribe of Levi.
Unknown to most, 10 other tribes in ancient Israel were never called Jews. These northern tribes were historically distinct and politically separate from the Jews, their brothers to the south who formed the kingdom of Judah, from which the term Jew was derived.
The northern coalition of tribes, the kingdom or house of Israel, had already become an independent nation, separate from the house of Judah, by the time the word Jew first appears in the biblical narrative. In fact, the first time the term appears in the King James Version of the Bible, Israel was at war with the Jews.
Are all Israelites Jews? No. Jews-the citizens and descendants of the kingdom of Judah-are indeed Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. Since all 12 tribes, including Jews, are descendants of their father Israel (Jacob), we can apply the term Israelite to all of the tribes. The term Jew, however, is accurate only for the tribes that comprised the kingdom of Judah and for their descendants.

www.ucgstp.org...
assemblyoftrueisrael.com...

Wouldn't surprise me if that's the whole reason why we helped create Israel in the first place.

There does seem to be an attempt by some Christians to bring about the 2nd Coming.Which,if you read the Bible,is totally pointless.




anotherdad.

Other possible signs would include a rebuilding of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, increased hostility towards Israel, and advances toward a one-world government.

The prophecy of the destruction of Israel mentioned in the OT,has been fulfilled.The end times spoken of in the link you gave deals with the NT and therefore the Christian belief,not the Jewish belief.
To Jews the building of the 3rd Temple will bring the Living God to all mankind,and well bring healing and peace to the world.
To the Christians the Temple represents Jesus' return when all will be judged.Both cannot be right,can they?






[edit on 9-10-2008 by jakyll]

justamomma.

My stance is this.. If Israel is REALLY backed by "god" as they consistently claim to be, then the power of god must not be great if it needs America to back them as well. If their faith is so strong in god, then let us withdraw our support FINALLY so the power of this supposed god can truly be shown.

Very good observation.Although some will say that it is God working through America etc.



dooper.

Yes. Organized religion is the bane of humanity. But that is because of man's perversion of the original Church.

Definatly.Mankind has changed and corrupted things for the glory of himself and has forgot all about God.

Originally posted by dooper
The Jews alone are the unchanged culture from the ancient times. They have survived and maintained their identity through the ages.

That is patently untrue. The closes thing we have in 'civilization' to an unchanged culture exist under the military horizon, with social structures and cultural identities that are most frequently scoffed at and generally considered 'backwards'.

I can infer from your posts that you are enamored of the legend of the Jews, and that may be fine for you. I, on the other hand, see too much infiltration of racial and elitist constructs and too much tradition steeped in vengeance and patriarchal intolerance of women woven into the fabric of their 'laws'. It's a Semite thing.... It's a 'slave' religion thing.

Hello from Israel.
I am not going to discuss religion. I simply do not see how anyone can claim with 100 percent assurance that God is with him/them and not with all the people on the planet.
But your general approach has two major flaws.
One: You suggest to dismantle a country on basis of the fact that there is number of extremists that have aggressive ideology.(point two will show why this number is small and irrelevant to international relationships or military conquests). Then you should dismantle ALL countries on this planet. Even Swiss that did not fight for ages have extremists.
Two: Israel's expansion stopped at 1970s-1980s. Sinai was given back, Palestinian territories are an autonomy and on the way to gain Independence, there is peace with Jordan and Egypt, Golan issue is discussed - though i do not know how it will end. The actual behavior of country is opposite to all your citations and assumptions. As for nukes and wars and such - show me one country that will not defend itself. You think that if now Israel's mighty imaginary hoards invaded Russia and were going to override it - Russia would not use nukes? Or if France will be taken by swarms of militaristic Swiss nationalists - they will hesitate to use those nukes too? So in 1973 Israel was close (? Preparing them is - close? ) to use dozen/s of nukes and make region uninhabitable - this is a danger and must be removed. But US-USSR Caribbean crisis had thousands prepared nukes and the result was going to be a little more dramatic, don't you think? Dismantle them (Russia is USSRs direct continuation - same nukes) too, because it happened only few years before 1973 war.
And now the final part - what are your plans (as the one who suggested it) going to do with those who will defend the country - to the point of nukes? You suggest to remove Israel in the first place because you fear a war. Wouldn't your option bring a war too, and much more bloody one?
P.S. - I feel that deciding for others how to throw them out of their home is not good, if you are an Israeli in 1948 or an "objective" person in 2008.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Hello, thank you for shedding light into the situation from Israel, that took some guts since it is not the most popular place lately!

While I answered yes I think the world would be safer w/o Israel I also agreed wit you, we'd have to get rid of most of the countries on Earth if we used the "They can't exist because they stole their land" logic.

My biggest problem with Israel is not so much with Israel itself but the way that ishe figures into US politics. I do not like the way that the US says they need to protect Israel from the countreis that want to attack her when her leaders have been just as inflamatory.

I'm hope I don't sound like I have something against you personally. I don't actually wish ill on anyone--but I do not beleive that our leaders have the right to expend our resourses, even potentially the lives of our citizens, to protect another soverein country--especially one like Israel that has her own nukes and, from what I understand, a very capable army.

The world will never see peace even if israel is gone.

Israel will have her day ... ..It is just a matter of time and the Gog Magog battle will be for Israel to WAKE UP ....it is called the TIME OF JACOBS trouble for a reason ....it is when he will deal directly with Israel ....and the literal Jewish peoples ....(secular and religious ones) ....
See Ezek 38 and 39 ....
I do not believe anyone here will be concerned with what land is theirs or not theirs at that time ... ...in fact that will be the last thing on their minds once this all starts happening ...(which I believe is why they will DIVIDE the land as the bible says they will ) >..Israel will have her whole land back in the END ...not until then ...
PRAY FOR THEM >.thats what we should all be doing right now ...

Everyone better just get back to working out THEIR OWN SALVATION ...with fear and trembling ..As we will all be held accountable for our OWN ACTIONS AND DEEDS ..etc ....
Lets not even go there ..with who deserves what or doesnt deserve what ...

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Hello to Israel.

You suggest to dismantle a country on basis of the fact that there is number of extremists that have aggressive ideology.

I think it matters when those are the people in power.As my links showed,the building of 'Greater Israel' and the demonizing of Iran have had full government support and backing.

Sinai was given back

Because Israel keeping all of it wasn't an option the UN would've considered.

Palestinian territories are an autonomy and on the way to gain Independence

It seems their land is still being taken though.

New Delhi, Oct 9 (PTI) India today opposed expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine and sought an "early and significant" easing of restrictions on the free movement of people and goods within Palestine.... "India also called for an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine and for an early and significant easing of restrictions on the free movement of persons and goods within Palestine,"

www.ptinews.com...

Under the Israeli approach, which has expanded further since the Oslo Accords, any land that is not private was and remains suitable for Israeli development - for the benefit of the Jewish citizens of the state and for those who have the right to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. These are exactly the lands that constitute a considerable part of Area C (which is under Israeli military and administrative responsibility, and holds 60 percent of the area of the West Bank) and prohibited for any Palestinian development. It is on these lands, which are denominated "state lands," that two-thirds of the settlements are built. No less illegally.

The discussion of whether West Bank lands are privately owned or not reverberates far more loudly than the discussion of Israel's takeover of the Palestinian expanse by means of the closure policy. For example, since February 5, the army has once again severed the towns of the northern West Bank from the rest of the territory by means of roadblocks, and has forbidden males between the ages of 16 and 35 from leaving their towns. The media don't report on this.

The discussion of private land reverberates well in the Israeli (and American) media because of the exaggerated sanctification of private property. And now, Peace Now must correct its initial report of October 2006, in which it was stated that 86 percent of the area of Ma'aleh Adumim is private Palestinian land. It emerges that only .05 percent of Ma'aleh Adumim is private land...

The exaggerated concentration on private ownership feeds into the Israeli denial of the fact that the Palestinians' right is to all of the territory that has been occupied. Not as private individuals, but rather because they constitute an indigenous national group in this land.

www.haaretz.com...

As for nukes and wars and such - show me one country that will not defend itself.

Countries do have a right to defend themselves.But is it really defense when you're guilty of instigating the war??

what are your plans (as the one who suggested it) going to do with those who will defend the country - to the point of nukes? You suggest to remove Israel in the first place because you fear a war. Wouldn't your option bring a war too, and much more bloody one?

Israel relies on security from the US and the UK.With our support they believe they could win in a war against Arab/Persian countries.But if that security blanket is removed,what then?

reply to post by Simplynoone

I do not believe anyone here will be concerned with what land is theirs or not theirs at that time ... ...in fact that will be the last thing on their minds once this all starts happening

There's one big flaw in this,'the end is nigh' business.

Matthew 24:14

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;and then shall the end come.

Have all nations heard the words of the gospel?

No.

So wars can be started,temples can be built etc,but it means nothing until the gospel is preached in all the world to all nations.And not just any gospel,but the Original & True Gospel.And,with all the bible versions we've got out there,thats not gonna be fulfilled anytime soon.

Hi jakyll think what you will ...there will still be 7 years to finish preaching the Gospel during the trib ..remember there will be 1444,000 preaching that gospel during the last 7 years ..then the end of the end will come ..
(We have been in the beginning of the end since Christ came the first time)
The end of the end is closer now than it has ever been ...

Besides I believe that just about everyone in the last 2 thousand years have pretty well heard about Christ already anyway ..

Sure there are still a few peoples who havent ..they will hear though before the END END COMES >..

reply to post by jakyll



You say "building of greater Israel". But come on, look at the maps!
Map of Israel in 1968:

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Map of Israel in 2008 - Golan heights are a big question though - so it is too early to discuss:
www.mfa.gov.il...
Notice TINY difference? With building "greater Israel" , it managed to loose more then half of its gains. And don't go into UN. There is a UN resolution on Israel per Israeli citizen, i think. Israel pulling out of Sinai/Lebanon/Gaza has little to do with UN. Or with "greater Israel" idea. It has a lot to do with diplomacy and politics though. Actions speak more then words - and actions do not show any imperialistic tendencies, the direct opposite happens.
As for settlements and such - it happens. You are aware that there is peace process? And that it is Middle East? It is leverage for final devision. Palestinians also build on area that is in question. Land grab before final cut. Settlement of 10 is hardly greater Israel. Or even thousand.
As for Iran - WARNING: my personal impression ahead. I never heard anything about Iranian threat before 2000s. Even in the army - the lectures were on Syrian threat , Iraqi threat, Fatah (Palestinian autonomy ) - especially during intifada, Hizbollah. Even considering Egypt. Not a single time about Iran. The attitude was actually that Iran is enemy of an enemy, but not a friend. Of course there were probably plans in general staff but simple soldiers never heard about it. This is my personal impression - from end of 90s to beginning of 2000s.
There is a campaign now, definitely. Since Ahmadinejad got elected. And he does his share of war mongering too, don't you agree? When there was Khatami the attitude to him, at least in media was positive. He was considered a reformer, not a single time i heard something bad about him, and he also invested in nuclear program.Also, he spoke not very nice things about the Israel too, just not similar rhetorics.
Now about nukes and right to defend itself. You said Israel was prepared to use nukes in 1973. Who actually attacked whom in that war? Who instigated it? If there will be an Israeli attack on Iran and Israel will first use unconventional weapon - it is unjustified. To use nuke in order to prevent future possible/maybe nuclear strike by enemies is not adequate reaction. It should be used only if there is imminent existential danger. I think that it is what Israel's allegedly Samson option is about.
Edit - missed few words.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]

reply to post by asmeone2


I understand your position. Especially with foreign debt and current crisis. However i do not believe that it is just pressure of aipac or Israeli politicians. Both failed on Pollard. So US government knows how to handle those pressure groups when it wants to.
I do not understand why Israel is considered an asset to US after cold war ended, but the fact that it is. When Netanyahu made a speech in congress in which he announced that he plans to gradually reduce request for help - and due to lot of reasons failed to do so no one from US government used it as a tool to start reducing military aid. So, once again, there is something to gain (or not to loose) for US too. What - bits me.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Besides I believe that just about everyone in the last 2 thousand years have pretty well heard about Christ already anyway ..

Go explain that to tribes in Papua New Guinea and South Africa, or to the Aborigines of Australia. I am sure there are people even in India and China that never heard of it. Also, just because someone has heard of Christianity, or heard the name Jesus Christ, doesn't necessarily equate to them knowing any of Christianity's tenets.

Let's face it, according to the way to salvation as espoused by Christian churches, if you're not a member of the 'Civilized World' God doesn't think you diserve Heaven

Let's face it, if you interpret these passages as literally saying you have to know all about Jesus Christ's story and message, then a good portion of the World will not make it to Heaven as a result.

Perhaps there is a wholly different interpretation. Perhaps God judges each persons heart regardless

Originally posted by jakyll
Talking of creating a 'Greater Israel' is seen as a direct threat to many Middle eastern countries.

What is the concern about that really though?

Israel has a lot of nuclear weapons, which has been the case for many years now... If they wanted to nuke all of the Middle East they would have by now. Also, God may or may not protect Israel from the radiation if they do so, as they are aware

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yep. And that's exactly what the Bible says. Very few.

When it says that the Word will be shared with all the world, it didn't say every man, woman, and child at once. As far as that goes, I'm sure that there are folks right here in the United States who haven't been taught of Christ.

Twenty years ago, who could have conceived the Internet? There are few locations in the world where the Gospel has not being taught. Or attempted. One must assume that this salvation is not a one-way thing. You also have to be a seeker. I don't read anywhere in the texts that someone is going to lay it in the lap of everyone on earth. You want to remain ignorant, then it's your ass.

As far as the cultural identity of the Jewish nation goes, I stand by may statement. Through the millennia, the Jewish nation as a group has retained their identity while their counterparts have fallen by the way.

Getting rid of Israel? Not going to happen.

And whoever it was that suggested I was so pro-Israeli, I'm what any good Jew would consider a blonde-haired, blue-eyed devil of Gentile descent. But I know what my God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel isn't going anywhere ever again. One can believe it or not - no money out of my pocket. But I notice He seems to keep His promises.

Originally posted by dooper

Yep. And that's exactly what the Bible says. Very few.

Seriously... How can these people feel okay in their hearts when they are spreading the gospel of salvation when they believe only a selected few qualify? The Church preaches salvation is possible for EVERYONE, but then when cornered in this argument it's "the Bible does say a very few...".

There are few locations in the world where the Gospel has not being taught.

A 'few'? More like more then half the planet

One must assume that this salvation is not a one-way thing. You also have to be a seeker.

Definitely! This seeking is what gave birth to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, The Native American religion, et cetera. Is it not seeking divinity unless it ends with Christianity?...

You want to remain ignorant, then it's your ass.

You just implied I am going to burn in hell unless I convert to Christianity. Hence this whole argument. You are condemning the majority of the world to eternal torment simply because they are not Christian Church goers. Even when they are great people who have done many good things. That's very sad, and not very moral.

You can consider me ignorant, but I believe in a God that will weigh everyones heart, regardless.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

I do not understand why Israel is considered an asset to US after cold war ended, but the fact that it is. When Netanyahu made a speech in congress in which he announced that he plans to gradually reduce request for help - and due to lot of reasons failed to do so no one from US government used it as a tool to start reducing military aid. So, once again, there is something to gain (or not to loose) for US too. What - bits me.

I think there's two reasons--

One as I stated earlier (and you can see playing out in some of the other posts :@@ is to influence the large Christian demographic to vote one way

Two is that protecting Israel is an excuse for the politicians to have a presence in the Middle East to broker oil, or whatever else they are peddling.

Go explain that to tribes in Papua New Guinea and South Africa, or to the Aborigines of Australia. I am sure there are people even in India and China that never heard of it. Also, just because someone has heard of Christianity, or heard the name Jesus Christ, doesn't necessarily equate to them knowing any of Christianity's tenets.

NO, don't... for goodness sake let them live in peace!

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lucid, I apologize if it seemed that I personally suggested anything about your eventual destination. I never, ever would say such a thing. In fact, to me that's the whole thing. It's His house, His rules, His judgement, and our logic and justifications or disbelief don't matter to Him one whit.

I'm certainly not a Bible scholar, and if measured by His Word, I'm probably somewhere in the top ten of sinners, but I can read. And I can believe what He tells me.

2 Peter 2:4 "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for the judgment.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter ye in at the straight gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life; and few there be that find it."

We note in the story of Noah that all but eight were destroyed. In fact, all throughout the Bible, He has shown no hesitation when it comes to punishment.

If I have a feel for it, I would suggest that the Old Testament is stressing Obedience, as we see it time and again stressed and punished. Then in the New Testament we find through Obedience we benefit from Grace, enabled solely through the sacrifice of Jesus. Now if you don't obey that which we are commanded in both Texts, then you can't be of Christ, and then your judgment is His. And that's why we have free will. He isn't damning anyone. We're given a choice, and He will follow through on His Word, because that's what He does.

I didn't and don't condemn anyone to hell. Not my job. Not my responsibility. Not my realm.

Like I say, I can only read what He says. His house. His rules. His creation. His final judgment.

Would you like to spend eternity with a lot of these assholes we see walking the streets?

I didn't think so.

And I'm fairly certain that He doesn't want to either.