Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for January, 2009

Islam: The Original Actual And ONLY Slave Religion For Black People

Posted by Job on January 27, 2009

The Hidden Black Iraq

They Have Extreme: On MLK Day/Obama Eve, Blacks in Iraq Persecuted Same as Blacks in Entire Muslim World

The second link in particular has this comment:

Hello Debbie and All

Here are just 2 quotes from one of islams important books…

Tabari II:11 “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks.” Then after being told that “Noah slept with his genitals exposed,” “Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.” 

Tabari II:21 “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met the children of Shem, the latter would enslave them.” 

I found this at Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn

There are many more such verses

Posted by: INFINITE [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 19, 2009 11:02 AM

Fascinating that so few people speak of this.

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 83 Comments »

A Dream About The Wait For The Return Of Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on January 26, 2009

The dream contained two halves. Allow me to say this: before Hollywood turned on me (or at least before I was aware of it) I was a huge fan of the awards shows. Oscars, Grammys, Emmys you name it. So in the first half of the dream, I was either the leader or a decision – maker in an awards show, except that instead of honoring a variety of people in different categories, it was one of the events dedicated to honoring a single person that you see from time to time. So we were tasked with choosing the person to honor with the award and make the centerpoint of attention for the evening. Somehow, a person suggested “Jesus Christ.”  It was very controversial. “Was He real?” “Was He worthy of being honored?” (The fight over that issue was bitter.) “Would He appear to receive the award?” (A subject of great debate, but in large part because the people driving that Jesus Christ should not be accepted because He was not real or not worthy were driving the “why bother, He will never show His face anyway” argument were people from the “He is not real” or “He is not worthy” camps took up that argument seemingly as a last resort.)

Somehow, it fell to me to end the controversy. Whether I was running the event, had been chosen to make the decision of the honoree, or was merely needed for a tie – breaking vote I do not recall, but my best guess is that it was the latter. After no small amount of dissembling and nervous equivocation, I nervously stated “Jesus Christ.”

Immediately, part two of the dream began, shifting from my being a part of putting on the awards show to watching it from my living room with my family. We had been watching the show all night to see if this Jesus Christ would actually appear, and as the event had not yet happened and the awards people were presenting the usual opening acts (except that said acts had been dragging along for hours and were beginning to become bothersome and boring), we were busy doing other things … cleaning, eating, talking on the telephone … usual weekend activities as the next day was Monday morning. 

Now some children were present, but initially did not know why the particular TV show was on, and as such were ignoring it in favor of playing and such. But once told “we are waiting to see if Jesus Christ shows up and comes on TV to get His award”, playtime, storytime, game time etc. for the kids immediately stopped. Instead, they ran to the television, plopped in front of it, and refused to move, even professing to find the opening acts enjoyable. Myself and the other adults, meanwhile, continued about our “grownup” activities of talking on the telephone, making the house look better for the guests that we were expecting to entertain, and getting a head start on the moneymaking activities for the next week. 

Soon, 12:00 AM came by, and I made the decision “well, Jesus Christ is not going to show” within myself, so I stated to the children “anyone ready for bedtime? Tomorrow’s a school day!” The children looked at me as if there was something wrong with me, or as if I was missing something. “What are you talking about? We are waiting to see Jesus!” and went back to what they were doing. I tried it again at 1:00 AM; same result.

Finally at 2:00 AM, bored stiff of all the “opening acts” and very tired from gossiping on the phone, cleaning up for the very important social gathering, and getting ready for work the next week, I stated “look, kids, I know that you all really want to see Jesus, but it is obvious that He is not going to show up. I am very tired, I have work tomorrow and you guys have school, so time to go to bed.” The children replied “what do you mean that Jesus Christ is not going to show up? How could you say such a thing? What makes you say that?” I had no answer, so I let them keep doing what they were doing, and the adults in the house went back to our activities, if only to stay awake and to avoid the endless opening acts on the TV, which still was not boring the children in the least. So we decided to wait the kids out until they fell asleep.

Didn’t happen. 3:00 AM passed, they were still wide awake, full of excitement, full of JOY talking about when Jesus was going to come and how great it would be to see Him. When 4:00 AM came, we adults were exhausted, disgusted, frustrated, stressed out, angry, and for some reason actually afraid. So finally, we told the children “you win.” We stopped trying to put them to bed. A little while after, we also stopped with our activities and sat down beside them on the floor to wait with them for Jesus Christ to appear. It was at that point that the dream ended and I awoke. Until the moment that I awoke, I had no idea that it was a dream. Up until then, I thought that it was 100% real.

Later, I asked my wife to interpret the dream. (She is rather good at such things.) She was in a hurry, but stated that the dream was obvious (to her) and a quick interpretation would be easy (again, to her). She stated that my dream was a modern version of one of “the church awaiting its bridegroom Jesus Christ” stories in the Bible. The first part was the church’s rejecting the world and overcoming resistance from the world to declare Jesus Christ above all else. The second part was about the importance of preparing and waiting expectantly for Jesus Christ, and not letting worldly pursuits distract or hinder you. The children? Childlike faith, complete and total trust without doubt, skepticism, or rationalism … not merely believing but knowing that Jesus Christ’s return is certain, and allowing that knowledge to dominate and control all of your behavior. 

Thinking about the children in particular, it came to me: the children, despite their appearance in the dream of being carefree and unburdened with “the hard work” of living life, were the spiritually strong and mature believers in the church. They had not only an interest in spiritual things (the opening acts, which represented the wait for the return of Jesus Christ, and the Christian life that we must lead, including the spiritual works that we must perform) but fully enjoyed them and deeply immersed themselves into it. They enjoyed it so much that they had pleasure in others serving the Lord! For them, there was no question WHETHER Jesus Christ would return. They did not even question WHEN Jesus Christ would return. Instead, they regarded the return of Jesus Christ as a self – evident, self – sufficient fact and allowed it to sustain them in their daily lives.

The adults, despite their appearance of being the responsible hard working organizers that were holding everything together, were spirtually immature. They were burdened and distracted by their worldly pursuits and had no interest in spiritual things, indeed they were repelled by them. They were actually a source of temptation to the more spiritually mature believers, suggesting that Jesus Christ may not actually return, or that there were better and more important things to be doing while waiting for the return of Jesus Christ than spiritual things. And not all of those “better and more important” things were even wholesome, edifying, or beneficial. Living to please others, living for a career or money, and of course the overt explicit sin of gossiping. 

What was going on between the spiritually mature Christians (the children) and the carnal Christians (the adults) was actually a type of spiritual struggle. However, the spiritually mature Christians prevailed against the carnal Christians not by their own efforts, but through Jesus Christ, by vigorously and boldly responding to the challenge to Jesus Christ by standing firm and defending Him. So after the spiritually mature Christians won the battle not against the world (for that was part 1!) but against their own spiritually immature believers, the spiritually immature believers joined the mature believers in waiting for the return of Jesus Christ. In that way, the spiritually mature believers took responsibility for training and bringing up in the faith the spiritually immature believers, or at the very least causing the spiritually immature believers to fall in line and quit rebelling and misbehaving. Ironically, it was the heavy burden, the weight and yoke of their worldly and sinful activities that drove the spiritually immature believers to join the spiritually mature ones in fellowship, to decide that sitting down and joining the wait for Jesus Christ, despite its real challenges, was still a lighter yoke than the burden of the worldly rat race. 

That left one question, however:  why were the children running around and playing initially instead of waiting for Jesus Christ? That was a bit harder for me, but I believe that it was because that no one had told them that the TV show that Jesus Christ where Jesus Christ was expected to appear was on. Meaning: they had not yet been evangelized. They were sinners, but sinning in ignorance. (Contrast with the carnal Christians who choose to be wayward despite fully knowing the truth, which represented the adults, who knew that the TV show, or the wait for the return of Jesus Christ, was on and had been on the entire time.)

But once evangelized, the children immediately went about the business of totally investing themselves in serving and waiting for Jesus Christ, gaining spiritual maturity and a strong faith, and as a result became a judgment against, a pricking and grieving of the consciences by their examples of the adults that had long accepted Jesus Christ, had themselves evangelized the children, but were not living for Jesus Christ – and indeed allowed their faith in His return, His promises, and His faithfulness – to be burdened under the weight of living as barren vines, as fig trees with no figs, as servants that buried their talents. The children actually had to “re – evangelize” the adults in order to bring them back into fellowship and Christian living. 

Fascinating that though the dream had two parts, (with the first representing salvation and the second the Christian life as far as best I can deduce) the second part dominated in length and was filled with far more intensity, drama and conflict. Probably a message in that fact too.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Is This How We Worship God With Reverence And Godly Fear Hebrews 12:28?

Posted by Job on January 25, 2009

Posted in Jesus Christ | 9 Comments »

Covenant Theology in Reformed Eschatology

Posted by Job on January 25, 2009

Recommended by PJ Miller.

The Significance of Covenant Theology in Reformed Eschatology

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Isaac And Ishmael: A Sermon By Adrian Dieleman

Posted by Job on January 25, 2009

Genesis 21:8-21 “Farewell to Ishmael”

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Gospel Music? Yes? No?

Posted by Job on January 21, 2009

I say yes.

Posted in Christianity | 15 Comments »

Joe Lowery Uses HUSSEIN Obama Inaugural Prayer To Bash All White People

Posted by Job on January 21, 2009

Pastor Rick Warren’s invocation uses Jewish, Christian mix

Obama smiled as Lowery asked God to “help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.”

Sooo … white people are the source of all the problems? Not just some problems but all problems? And all white people, not just some white people? Some white people aren’t the source of some problems, some black people aren’t the source of some problems, some brown people aren’t the source of some problems, some yellow people aren’t the source of some problems, some red people aren’t the source of some problems, but all white people are the source of all problems, and all nonwhite people are blameless?

Again, Joe Lowery is AN ORDAINED MINISTER. He said this IN A PRAYER. In the CONCLUDING PRAYER to the PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION. AND OBAMA SMILED.

Simply amazing.  So what, like white people are responsible for the mess that is Africa that is killing so many black people? White people created the problems in Mexico that causes so many brown people to illegally enter this country? White people created the problems for yellow people in China and North Korea? White people are the cause of sky high alcoholism rates on Native American reservations? And the white Christians who are giving up wealth and comfort and risking their lives to work as missionaries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and among the Native Americans aren’t embracing what is right?

This is proof that just because you have some title like “pastor” or “reverend” doesn’t make you a Christian. Look, according to the Bible that Joseph Lowery totally ignores, there are two “races.” Those in Jesus Christ that are going to heaven, and those who reject Jesus Christ that are going to spend an eternity in the lake of fire unless they repent. Which “race” you are depends on the race that you are running. If you have chosen the easy path that leads to the wide gate, then you are in and of the eternally doomed race.  If you have chosen the hard path that leads to the strait gate, the one that rejects bitterness, hatred, resentment, finger pointing, and excuse making, then you are in and of the redeemed race that is headed for an eternity with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who will wipe every tear from your eyes. If you are running the wrong race, now is the time to change lanes. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior today.

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Newsmax: George W. Bush Betrayed Conservatives

Posted by Job on January 21, 2009

The most interesting thing about the two columns below is the part in the first where it asserts:

The war was justified on the legitimate evidence, first offered by the Clinton administration, that Saddam Hussein was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Hussein had flouted agreements with the United Nations, and his riddance was a desirable goal. But almost from the beginning, the war was flawed. The American occupiers quickly fired the entire Iraqi military, leaving not only a tremendous vacuum of authority but also turning loose trained military professionals to join terror cells and paramilitary groups who would work to undermine the U.S. efforts.Some Pentagon military advisers suggested the U.S. military force was too light to accomplish the goal of both invading Iraq and stabilizing the country. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strongly resisted deploying a larger force.

And as casualties mounted in the early part of the war, the administration continued to resist sending additional troops. Only after the 2006 elections did Bush sign off on the surge that added 30,000 troops in the spring of 2007, under the command of Gen. David Petraeus.

The surge helped, as did a more aggressive policy to pay off Iraqi Sunnis who turned against al-Qaida — the so-called “Anbar Awakening.”

Another ingredient: U.S. and Iraqi authorities rounded up tens of thousands of likely dissidents and imprisoned them. The effect of this action may be short lived, as many of these agitators eventually will be released. Still, the likelihood is that such calm will not prevail once American troops are removed and the goal of establishing a stable democracy in an Arab state may still prove elusive.It should be remembered that, sometime after the invasion, the raison d’etre of the war changed from removing Saddam from power and stopping his weapons of mass destruction program to a dreamy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq.

In Bush’s second inauguration speech, he echoed the thoughts expressed in former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s book “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” Bush said: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Such Wilsonian thoughts are laudable, but have long been discarded by conservatives as dangerous and unworkable. Even Sharansky himself had said that Iraq did not have the necessary cultural and political ingredients to create a stable democracy.

In that effort to create a new Iraqi democracy, the Sunni Muslims — more sympathetic to the West — were pushed aside and the Shias ascended to power in Baghdad. The American-backed power shift in Iraq also created a new regional ally for Shia-dominated Iran, a major threat to the region.

After 9/11, as the U.S. considered making Saddam’s regime its prime target of revenge, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly warned the president, “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people.” He noted that the U.S. would have little room to maneuver in dealing with other global problems.

“It’s going to suck the oxygen out of everything,” Powell added. “This will become the first term.”

It also became the second term. Powell’s stunning assessment was accurate. The U.S. became stuck in an Iraqi mire after its successful 2003 invasion, meanwhile elsewhere its enemies grew in power.

Please recall: one of the justifications for the Iraq War was the link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Sunni Al Qaeda. I do not disagree that such a link existed. Usama bin Laden wanted to use the Saddam Iraqi regime to remove OUR ALLIES the House of Saud from power in Saudi Arabia. That was why bin Laden declared jihad against America after the first Gulf War under the first president Bush. But our response was to put the Shi’ites in power? So when our troops leave Iraq, what keeps Shi’ite Iran from walking right in?

Ultimately, that angle may be overplayed, as Shi’ite Iran has no problem funding and controlling Sunni Hamas in Israel. Saddam Hussein hated Iran, but Saddam was a secularist motivated by nationalism. Saddam didn’t even necessarily get along with other members of the Ba’ath Party in other nations. So remove the nationalist regime out of the picture, and you basically have a region that is willing to unite either along the Muslim religion (whether, Shi’ite, Sunni, or Wahhabi, with the latter technically a form of Sunni that other Sunnis don’t like) or along Arab lines. Now Iran is technically not Arab, but they are Muslim. So with Saddam out of the way, when our troops leave, what keeps Iran from using its “influence” to put a government in favorable to its designs? It need not even use invasions or terror. It can just spread a little cash around to elect favorable Iraq leaders, basically the same way that Hugo Chavez has gotten a ton of sympathetic leaders elected all over Latin America. And again, they need not even necessarily be Sunni or Shi’ite. If Iran coordinates between Shi’ite Hizbullah in Lebanon and Sunni Hamas in Palestine rather than having one fight the other, they will likely do the same in Iraq once American troops leave. Any violence will be based on killing or silencing people opposed to Iran for whatever reason, not on killing Sunnis.

So, the result of removing Saddam based on – (insert ironic remark here) – Bill Clinton’s intelligence data will not be the establishment of a western style democracy that even the fellow whose views George W. Bush promoted as justification for nation building over there (Natan Sharansky) but the re – establishment of the old Medo – Persian Empire which included both Persia (Iran) and Babylon (Iraq). And what implications does THAT have for Israel, Christian Zionists and premillennial dispensationalists?

Bush’s Legacy: Conservatives Were Betrayed

The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Joe Farah Calls On Christians To Reject Romans 13:1-4 With Regards To Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Posted by Job on January 20, 2009

In it, Farah claims that Romans 13:1-4 does not apply to evil rulers, claiming that people who do so fail to look at the entire context. Well, the context that I am aware of is that Romans was written by the very same Apostle Paul whom the fascist murderous Roman Empire executed! In this same Roman Empire, homosexuality, child molestation, abortion, etc. were freely practiced. There were no free markets or personal freedom (especially if you were a noncitizen, as the overwhelming majority of the population of the Roman Empire was) and tax rates were crushing. Oh yes, and at the time the Roman emperor was also worshiped as a god in the Roman state religion. So the difference between Caesar when Paul was writing Romans and Obama right now is what exactly?

So, Joe Farah’s application would have made Romans 13:1-4 useless and contradictory not only to the people that Paul wrote Romans to, but also to the first 300 years of Christianity. (And regarding those of us who regret and oppose Constantinism and believe that the evil of the Roman state continued long after its merger with Christianity, for hundreds of years thereafter. Of course, Farah will not take that position, for many of his writers and supporters are Roman Catholics).

Now I do agree that Christians are to reject obedience to rulers if said obedience causes us to sin. New Testament example and the behavior of the early church bears this out. However, what Farah is calling for is civil disobedience and rebellion of the very sort that he would call evil and demonic rebellion against God were it to take place under a president that he politically agrees with such as George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Pray Obama fails

“That’s why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state. It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign.”

I do not disagree with that statement. But there is a huge difference between praying for the failure of policies, or even for the ultimate failure of the administration that seeks to enact these policies, and telling Christians that Romans 13:1-4 are situational. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, praying that Obama fails to enact his agenda and telling Christians to discard Romans 13:1-4 in the case of rulers that they do not like have nothing to do with each other. The former is resisting evil, as Christians are called to do. The latter is sedition, which the Bible calls sin, and makes clear that those who commit it are going to have their place in the lake of fire.

Christians have to realize that the Bible was not written for modern day Americans, but for all Christians in all situations and all times until Jesus Christ comes back. The vast majority of Christians who have walked the earth, indeed perhaps the majority of Christians living yet today do so in political situations where the very idea of nation-states “anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism” were complete folly. Again, that was the very situation where Christianity was born and existed for hundreds of years and (again) the situation that the epistle to the Romans was authored to begin with: in an evil pagan Roman Empire that had absolute control, and one that became only slightly less evil, slightly less pagan, but actually MORE POWERFUL once it assumed control over Christianity.

“I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God’s. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God’s straightforward Commandments.”

Well Joe Farah, I say the same about you. The reason is that you are willfully creating confusion between using spiritual warfare, evangelism, foretelling and forthtelling, etc. to oppose evil rulers and their policies, and between being a sinful seditionist. Lots of Christians have spent YEARS opposing the wickedness of George W. Bush without resisting and defying to and lying on the Holy Spirit by misrepresenting Romans 13:1-4 and telling people to be seditionists. As a matter of fact, Farah, you have done the same in opposing much of what George W. Bush has done. But in doing that, Farah, you NEVER claimed that Romans 13:1-4 did not apply to people living under Bush. Why? Not because of scripture, but because of your own political preferences. Well what of Christians whose politics disagree with yours? Where in the Bible does it say that Christian unity and love extends to political policy agreements?

Farah is showing the dangers of loving the world and being invested in it. He is bearing witness that loving the world that God will judge (read Revelation, it speaks not merely of judging people, but of nations and political and economic systems, and nowhere does it say that the “good nations” will be spared, despite what all of those endtimes movies and books that you have read that depict America somehow being spared or taking on a leading role for righteousness against the anti – Christ and other notions that are Americanity and not Christianity because they cannot be supported by scripture) means emnity with God the judge.

Well, I will tell you someone else who Romans 13:1-4 applies to: slaves. Under Joe Farah’s logic, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and the rest who took up arms and started killing whites (including women and children) were fully justified. For that matter, so were those who took up arms and molotov cocktails and rioted in the streets of our cities in the 1960s. Because if you were living as a slave, under Jim Crow, or for that matter as a Native American or a Japanese person stuck in a World War II internment camp, then wow, wouldn’t you have every right to “change this country” according to Farah? Or claim that the commandments of man were in conflict with the commandments of God? Because I have news for you: for slaves, people under Jim Crow etc. our principles of private property, capitalism, representative and limited government etc. did not apply.

Well, I say that Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, and the 1960s rioters were murderers like Barabbas, the scoundrel who was set free and the innocent Jesus Christ went to the cross in his place. Friendship with the world is emnity with God, and Joe Farah proves it. Because Farah knows full well that Christians aren’t going to simply start being pro – abortion and pro – homosexual and pro – state just because Obama is in office. If they didn’t under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson, why should they under Obama? Truthfully, it is REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE politicians like Reagan and especially George W. Bush that do a much better job of getting evangelical Christians to abandon the Bible, and Farah knows it. Farah knows full well that Bush was never criticized by leading or large numbers of Christians for claiming that Muslims, Christians, Jews (and ultimately everyone) prays to the same God. He was not criticized for saying that the Bible should not be interpreted literally. Bush was not even criticized for publicly saying that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, or for opposing a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, or refusing to sign an executive order to ban federal money going to Planned Parenthood, or for being a committed New World Order globalist and Skulls and Bones occultist.

So Farah’s true aim is not to keep Christians from following Obama into apostasy, because if it was, he would not be going anywhere near the blasphemous idea that scripture  is not the final authority in all situations (of course, again, as Farah hangs out and receives much support from Roman Catholics, that was probably never his position anyway). Farah has another agenda, and for that matter he and people like him need to be watched as closely as Obama does.

So it is fine and well to pray that Obama’s evil agenda would be hindered, and in the course of doing so recognizing that Obama is himself evil, has surrounded himself with evil people, and should not be trusted by Christians.  To me, doing such a thing qualifies as spiritual warfare. But also engage in spiritual warfare against people who tell you that it is acceptable to disobey the Bible. Sedition is a sin. Promoting sedition is a sin. Glorifying sedition and taking pleasure in those who glorify or commit sedition is a sin. This is not the case because I say so, it is the case because the Bible says so.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 105 Comments »

On Israel And The Palestinians: A Tragedy Is Not A Crime

Posted by Job on January 19, 2009

Despite my sympathy for the Palestinians and many disagreements with Israeli policies, I have always maintained that ultimately Israel has not only the right but the responsibility to defend itself when faced with a population that throws rocks at Israeli tanks trying to avoid civilian casualties rather than at the terrorists using them as human shields. One can oppose political and religious Zionism – as do I – and sympathize with the intractable plight of the Palestinians – again as do I – while realizing that Palestinian civilian casualties are inevitable because the Palestinians allow themselves to be used as human shields.

I remember the Los Angeles race riots when brave residents of South Central Los Angeles risked their lives to rescue badly beaten Reginald Denny. Why? Because they had the mindset to do so, and I also recall specifically that one of the people who ran out in the middle of a race riot to rescue Denny was a Christian woman, a longtime and faithful church attendee. Well, the Palestinians lack the mindset required to drive out the murdering cowards that are using pregnant women and babies as human shields. The article below contains things that I do not agree with, but it is an excellent example of what the Israelis are faced with in dealing with actions of the Palestinian population that defy human reason. I am not going to state that the Palestinians practice some form of Islam that promises heaven to human shields, because not all Palestinians are Islamists, or Islamic fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, only a few are, and a real problem is how outside elements (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria) is supporting the portion of the Palestinian population that is Islamist. So then, what motivates the non – Islamist Palestinian majority to allow cowardly murderers to use their mosques, hospitals, schools, and apartment complexes as places to hide and fire rockets?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897813&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

By the way, things are only going to get worse. Iran is upset that so few Jews died this time around (more Jewish deaths increases the pressure on the Israeli government to capitulate … I am sorry to say that it works just about every time, even when a conservative Israeli government is in power … Binyamin Netanyahu talks a tough game, but he made a series of concessions after a wave of successful terror attacks just like all the rest) so they are planning to send Hamas missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292910127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Also, Hamas will be able to rearm itself from whatever weapons and infrastructure damage that Operation Cast Lead inflicted in as little as three months.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292908245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The  Hamas lives lost will take longer to replace, but even Israel acknowledged that the 750 Hamas members killed were only a fraction of the 25,000 members of the Hamas military wing. Incidentally, even that 750 count doesn’t include only actual Hamas murdering cowards; a lot of it included police officers (even the decision to target police officers by Israel’s military was controversial) and also members of Hamas in governmental, administrative, and other non – military posts. So the actual number of people with the desire and training to launch missiles into Israel and perform other acts of murderous mayhem killed … the actual reduction in Hamas’ fighting capacity … is considered to be very small. Thinking that it is 500 or even 400 out of 25,000 would be extremely optimistic. So truthfully, Operation Cast Lead, while completely justified, accomplished absolutely nothing.

All the more reason why we should continue to pray for the return of Jesus Christ, that many be added to the church in the meantime, and that Christians in the Middle East and around the world be comforted in their turmoils and afflictions until the day of perfection, the return of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of those that sleep and those that are alive being changed and caught up, happens. Maranatha!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

One World Church In Jerusalem?

Posted by Job on January 18, 2009

See link below.

AT LONG LAST, THE ONE WORLD CHURCH IN JERUSALEM

Posted in Jesus Christ | Leave a Comment »

Roosevelt’s Refusal To Save Auschwitz Jews During World War II

Posted by Job on January 18, 2009

Please note the part about how Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees into Palestine during this time as well.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897063&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted in Christian Zionism, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

Is Israel’s Heavy Handed Military Tactics In Gaza Justified?

Posted by Job on January 12, 2009

Many American Christians state that Israel’s devastating military tactics against the Palestinians in the Gaza campaign – and in general – are justified by terrorism. I wonder if people who make that case are aware of incidents of terrorism in our own history.

First examples: the Ku Klux Klan and related violence. Over a period of many decades, hundreds – possibly thousands – of blacks were lynched. Homes, businesses, and churches were bombed. Not only were there individual citizens targeted, but at times there were mass wholesale indiscriminate assaults on entire communities such as Rosewood, Florida and Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921 and 1923. Government officials not only did nothing to prevent this domestic terrorism whether in terms of law enforcement or prosecution, but in many cases were themselves complicit, down to local, state and federal law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and military officials not only being members of the KKK and other terror groups, but taking part in the very acts themselves, including the Oklahoma National Guard personally killing a still unknown amount of citizens in the attack on the Greenwood community in Tulsa.

The second example: the wave of urban criminal activity – including gang and drug violence but also including random, senseless brutal crimes – that gripped our nation from the late 1970s until the mid 1990s. Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Detroit and Washington D.C. were the flashpoints, but truthfully it was a nationwide problem, as evidenced by Albany, Georgia, not even large enough to qualify as an actual city, not only once being named murder capital of the country but remaining in the top 5 and top 10 on the dreadful list produced by the FBI’s crime statistics for several years. Whole communities and regions felt unsafe, families abandoned these communities seeking safety, and those lacking the means or mindset to do the same (often the elderly and single parent led households) saw a generation of children grow up in fear. Even though the level of direct government complicity in this was nowhere near as high as it was in the first example, they certainly were not blameless. There was a general refusal – even hostility to – enforcing the law in many of these communities and a rejection of notions of law and order by many members of the citizenry and the governments that they elected, which emboldened the criminals even more to commit crimes against innocent people and violently resist law enforcement.

Even though it was never called such, these and other incidents in our nation’s history were clearly incidents of terror, and they resulted in a great many more deaths than Hamas’ rockets into southern Israel. For instance, nearly 4000 people were murdered in one single year in New York City alone. Less than ten years later when New York officials finally began to try to enforce the law, that total dropped to less than 1,000.

So what if the response of the federal government in response to the Ku Klux Klan and other hate group terror, especially after incidents like Rosewood and Tulsa, been to conduct a bombing campaign in civilian areas, residential communities, targeting KKK members, their sympathizers, and families – including those that had committed no crimes – and in the process killing as many innocent civilians as their actual targets, if not more? What if the US government’s response to those criticizing the war on its own citizens as “where the Ku Klux Klan blows up churches and homes and kills innocent people by design, we target KKK members and kill innocents accidentally.”

What if the response to the criminal violence in our inner cities in the 1980s had been to use missiles and machine guns in the public housing projects and neighborhoods where the drug gangs lived and were known to congregate? Do not be naive, such gangs were organized criminal enterprises who killed many innocent people directly and many more indirectly.

In both cases, there would have been massive public outcry against the tactics. This nation would have never supported military action against the Ku Klux Klan and the drug gangs or any of the other groups of people that have spread large scale mayhem in our national history, and certainly not indiscriminate violence that could have had no consequence except kill large numbers of innocents.

Yet truthfully, that is very similar to what is going on in Israel right now. Israel, along with its allies and the media, have done a very good job at portraying themselves as being at war. It is not quite true. They cannot be at war with the Palestinians because the Palestinians are not a foreign state, or even a group operating out of a foreign state with that state’s unwillingness or inability to control them. Instead, the Palestinians are a group of people within Israel’s domain; under Israel’s military and ultimately political control (though Israel does not exert political control over these territories for domestic and international political reasons).

So Israel is not at war in Gaza the way that, say, the United States was at war with Germany and Japan, or even in our undeclared wars – and in my opinion illegal under our own Constitution – which are technically conflicts in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and both Iraq campaigns. It also does not even rise to being considered a civil war. (Even if it did, Israel would NEVER call it a civil war because of internal and international political considerations.) Instead, Israel is using military tactics against its own population, people that live within their own borders.

It is true, the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and do not wish to be. It is equally true, however, that Israel would not grant citizenship to the Palestinians anyway. Israel’s citizen population contains only 5.5 million Jews against 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. About 1.5 million Arabs live in Gaza, 2.3 million Arabs live in the West Bank. So add the nearly 4 million Palestinians to the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs, and the result would be a roughly equal proportion of Jews and Arabs – 5.5 million – with the Arab Muslim population growing far faster than the Jewish one. Israel would no longer be a Jewish state.

So rather than viewing Israel’s bombing and invading Gaza in the same terms as America going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it would truthfully be more analogous to our sending tanks and missiles into our Native American reservations in response to any violent nationalist movement on their part. (I will not say the same regarding a similarly violent movement, whether political or criminal, involving illegal immigrants holed up in a particular area, because like the Palestinians in Israel, the Native Americans were living on the very land that outsiders came to and declared to be a nation with them still on it. Of course, this is not to compare Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to America’s initial – and long running – treatment of its indigenous population.)

So what is it that allows Americans – particularly Christians – to accept tactics against Palestinians that we would have never accepted had they been used against the Ku Klux Klan or the Bloods and Crips? (I wonder who killed more innocent people: the KKK or Hamas? The Crips or the PLO?) Or more accurately, the communities of 99% innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the KKK or the street gangs but would still wind up bearing the brunt of the collateral damage that everyone knows is inevitable?

I will say this on behalf of the Israeli government, however: the behavior of the Palestinians make it difficult to defend this population. Compare the Palestinians with, say, the residents of our inner cities during the crime crisis. Of course, in these inner cities there were plenty of criminals. Even worse, there were a great many criminal sympathizers: politicians and activists who claimed that the criminals were acting out of economic privation and political marginalization, and that efforts to punish them and impose law and order were illegitimate and criminal in and of themselves. Many of them called the police officers an occupying army, or criminals themselves. And keep in mind: it was not marginal people who held these views, but rather the mayors of large cities, members of the US Congress, prominent members of academia, and not a few influential preachers. So you had not only criminals, but those who were pro – criminal, and the latter group was actually the most harmful.

However, this element was not  universal. There were scores in these communities who opposed crime and the leaders and sympathizers that enabled it. Such people petitioned the police, went to various political leaders, and took their case to the media. Some of them even took matters into their own hands by staging “clean up our streets” or “save our kids” marches and rallies, organizing neighborhood watches and cooperative ventures with the police, etc. In some cases this was dangerous work, because the criminal element that had an interest in these communities remaining lawless and feeling powerless at times targeted the leaders and participants of these anti – crime ventures for murderous violence, but they continued their work.

What difference did these people make? Regrettably very little, because it was a small amount of people with very little resources and know how against heavily organized and ruthless criminal networks, corrupt or incompetent government officials, and/or higher profile and better funded community leaders with different agendas. However, despite the failure of the citizens of these communities that worked to promote law abidedness to accomplish anything but prevent a few crimes and clean up a block or neighborhood here or there, the fact is that the very presence of such people let the government and its citizens know that the entire population of these inner cities were not opposed to law and order. Instead there were people, lots of them, who opposed not only the criminals and gangs, but the politicians and activists that were creating and defending the lawless environment that enabled them to thrive.

So I must ask: where are the counterparts of these people among the Palestinians? I remember this one particularly tragic case in Baltimore where this woman tried to stand up to the drug dealers on her block. The drug dealers responded by setting fire to her place of residence, killing her along with her entire family. Where are the people like this woman among the Palestinians?

Now keep in mind: these Palestinians in question need not necessarily support the Israeli state in order to take a stand like this. They merely need to A) oppose terrorism, especially terrorism done by people allegedly representing them and purporting to advance their interests and B) want to avoid the inevitable Israeli response to terrorism. There needs to be a visible movement of Palestinians willing to stand up and say that sending rockets – as well as suicide bombers and everything else – against Israel and claiming that it is done by their leaders with their support is wrong, morally and politically. At the very least, there needs to be Palestinians with the basic survival or self preservation impulse – as well as a desire to protect the lives of their women and children – to hold marches and demonstrations saying “we are not Hamas, we are not Hizbullah, we are not sending rockets into your country, don’t bomb us!” And yes, there should be an effort on behalf of these people to prevent being used as human shields. “Don’t fire rockets from our mosque. Don’t hide your fighters in my school where my kid attends. Don’t stash your weapons in the hospital where I plan to take my pregnant wife when she has our baby. Because when Israel counterattacks, I don’t want my family to die!”

Some people may claim that there are plenty of Palestinians who feel this way, but refuse to speak out for fear of Hamas and similar groups. First, the very fact that Hamas’ (and Hizbullah’s) alleged leadership is so vicious that its own people live in terror of it shows that people who apologize for Hamas, believe that Israel should give them credibility or status by acknowledging and negotiating with them, etc. are not being honest. How on earth could allowing the Palestinians to be ruled by such people be in the best interests of the Palestinians, and how could those who would murder their own people for the “crime” of not wanting to be collateral damage be trusted to not continue trying to destroy Israel?

Second: so what if Hamas will retaliate! Is being killed by Hamas any better than being killed by Israel? I understand the argument that death is more certain for the Palestinian that rejects Hamas. However, the counterargument must be considered: making their opposition to terror and the use of human shields known would force Israel to deal with that fact. Right now, Israel is able to treat all residents of Gaza as potential Hamas sympathizers because there is no hard evidence otherwise.

There are no TV pictures of Palestinians demonstrating in the streets “down with Hamas, we want peace!” or even of their attempting to drive terrorists using them as human shields (and by the way, the terrorists are often long gone, leaving the innocent victims behind, before Israel strikes back!) out of their homes and schools. Al Jazeera would be able to run stories ad infinitum “this man, who risked death trying to stop Hamas from firing rockets from his apartment building, is now dead and his family. They were killed not by Hamas, but by an Israeli air strike!” and Israel would have to deal with it. One of the ways to deal with it: do their best to protect Palestinian dissenters against terror and against Hamas, or at least against being used as human shields, which is enough to qualify you as “a moderate.”

But we don’t see any of that. Instead, we see pictures of Palestinian youths throwing rocks at Israeli tanks instead of throwing rocks at the Hamas terrorists that are drawing the Israeli tanks to their homes, schools, and refugee camps. If you want to blame Israel for your being in a refugee camp, fine. But it is the terrorist using you and your family as human shields that is causing those tanks to fire on your refugee camp, and you yourself saw the “brave freedom fighters” scurry like roaches at the first sight of that tank, leaving you to face down the tank without even the benefit of the same escape route that they took. Now while the Israeli state is the long term problem, the tank about to rain deth on you and your family is the short term problem, and you blame the Israeli state rather than the cause of the immediate problem?

Again, this is the opposite of those who stood up to gang and drug violence in their inner city neighborhoods. Many of them held grievances against America’s political, economic, and social structures and might have actually agreed with the street radicals in theory. But in practice they knew that it was the drugs and thugs killing their kids in the streets, not the bankers and the governors, and those were the ones that they stood up to or went to the chiefs of police begging them to do something about.

So with Hamas firing rockets at Israel and no evidence that any Palestinian opposes it – or even opposes being used as a human shield – how else is Israel supposed to act? What evidence is there that the 1.5 million residents of Gaza not only support Hamas, but support them enough to stand up and sacrifice themselves and their innocent family members as collateral damage?

This is not to say that I support Israel’s tactics in Gaza. Quite the contrary, I really honestly want to oppose it. However, the behavior of the Palestinians makes opposition to Israeli tactics virtually impossible. Israel has just as much responsibility to show that they will not tolerate being subjected to rocket fire as the political leaders of Florida and Oklahoma had to show that they would not tolerate mob violence, and the hundreds of innocent dead people, including women and children, in Rosewood, Florida and Tulsa, Oklahoma shows what happens when that responsibility is not taken. However, the Palestinians also have a responsibility to unconditionally dissassociate themselves from those who would murder innocent people by firing rockets at civilians and using human shields in the process.

Hamas’ claims that their firing rockets was in response to Israel’s using a blockade to force its legitimately elected regime into crumbling has considerable merit, but the 1.5 million residents of Gaza are not Hamas. If anything, were the residents of Gaza to separate themselves from Hamas’ terrorism while insisting that Israel respect the results of the free and democratic elections that Israel itself allowed to occur knowing full well that Hamas might win, that would pressure Israel to stop punishing the Palestinian people for Israel’s mistakes. Hamas’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist is an issue between Hamas and Israel, but Israel’s refusal to allow food, medicine, fuel etc. into Gaza is an issue between the people of Gaza and Israel. But the absence of anyone willing to publicly reject Hamas terror tactics or even their using infants as human shields allows Israel to basically paint the 1.5 million population as Hamas and act accordingly.

It is not right, and it is not fair, but the exceedingly foolish (and that is being kind!) behavior of the Palestinian people allows Israel to get away with its conduct. Israel can and should take responsibility for the peaceful Palestinians, either by granting them a state or by absorbing them within their own state, and then treating the terrorist Palestinians as the criminals that they are. However, lacking the cooperation of Palestinians that are not terrorists, Israel doesn’t have to do a thing. They can simply sit and allow conditions to linger. Why not? The Palestinians are the ones that have to deal with the overwhelming amount of misery and tragedy. It also keeps Israel from having to deal with the not insubstantial portion of its own population – and of its evangelical Christian Zionist supporters – who do not want a Palestinian state, and yes that does include those who wish to drive the nearly 4 million Palestinians out of Israel, including eastern Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Even though it would come at a very heavy cost  – money and Israeli lives  – Israel can and should do better. However, they have no pressing reason – or even no incentive? – to do so, and for that we have only the law abiding and terrorism opposing Palestinians to blame. Some more right wing Israelis claim “there is no such thing as a Palestinian.” That is a spurious proposition at best. But were such Israelis to claim “since there is no such thing as a Palestinian who opposes terrorism in any substantial way, then all Palestinians are terrorists and should be treated as such” then regrettably there isn’t much that can be said – or done – against that proposition. So even if the Israelis are acting in an unjust manner towards the Palestinians, the actions of the Palestinians allow them to get away with it. And since we are dealing with two populations here that save a tiny minority on both sides rejects Jesus Christ, what more can we expect?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 76 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: