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!

Posts Tagged ‘middle east’

Does Israel Have The Right To Exist?

Posted by Job on January 7, 2009

That was the question posed to the Jerusalem Post columnist and Jewish intellectual David Forman by a liberal Christian group. As Forman is also liberal, they were expecting the usual apologies, defensive postures, and equivocations that the modern left makes regarding Israel. This is in contrast with, say, 60 years ago, when the position of the left was to defend a much more liberal – indeed socialist – Israel government from amillennial conservative mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics (this was before the rise of the religious right and its alliance with the conservatives that now in large part control Israel, even when the Labor Party is in power … the modern Israeli Labor Party is not the Labor Party of Golda Meir).

Well these liberal Christians were shocked when Forman launched into a vigorous stance on Israel that could have just as easily come from the conservative Jews (and Christians) that these liberal Christians obviously do not dialogue with. Forman’s strongest argument was that modern Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation, including the United States, and furthermore that Israel was created by the United Nations (the only nation that I am aware of that has that designation). Unfortunately, Forman went on to use some much weaker arguments, including some that amount to little more than Jewish propaganda.

This is my personal answer to the question that was posed to Forman and is often asked, especially in times such as this when Israel finds itself using military action. Iin a true or absolute sense, what we mean when we use the term “rights” is something that only comes from God. In that context, the only nation (and by that I mean nation – state, a sovereign political entity  associated with a general area of land) that ever had the right to exist was Old Testament Israel.

As for other nations in other places and times, well we know from Romans 13 and 14 that they are good things, gifts to humankind from God’s common place. We also know that other nations have been used by God to accomplish His purposes. God used Egypt, for instance, to make Israel into a people. He used Babylon and Assyria to judge Judah and Israel. The Roman Empire’s vast network of roads, political stability, and common Greek language facilitated the speedy spread of the gospel and the preservation of the New Testament. (God also used the Roman Empire to judge the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus Christ: read Matthew 24 and then consider the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of the Jews in 132 AD). And our current nation, America, has been very important in A) strengthening the vital free church tradition, B) global missions, and C) protecting Jews, including but not limited to taking in refugees and supporting the modern state of Israel.

But the much good that many nations have done before the eyes of the Lord throughout history does not mean that any particular one had or a right to exist. That would imply that A) such a nation was created by an act of God as was Old Testament Israel and B) that God mediated either through prophets or His Son Jesus Christ a covenant with that nation. In other words, such a nation would have been a function of special grace and not common grace. It is my contention that only Old Testament Israel met either the conditions A) or B), let alone both of them. As such, no other nation has had a “right'” to exist.

As I have stated earlier, it is my proposal that Old Testament Israel’s right to exist as a unique sovereign political entity tied to the land that was formerly Canaan ended by virtue of their breaking the Sinai covenant, and such happened just as the book of Deuteronomy and the classical prophets that warned Israel’s kings and people largely based on Deuteronomy said that it would, first in 721 BC and then in 586 BC. For this nation – state to be re – established with a similar right to exist, whether in Canaan or anywhere else, would have required A) another miraculous act of God, B) another covenant of God, C) another prophet to mediate this covenant, and D) another purpose. Those who assert that this is the case, well the burden is on them to provide evidence of A, B, C, and D. Or failing that, Biblical evidence predicting that such a thing would happen.

I am aware of the many Bible passages that predict that the Jews would return to Israel. But none of those passages to my knowledge predicted that Israel would be re – established to the position that it held before, as a special nation with a special status by virtue of God’s special grace, and in particular with a specific role in human redemption or salvation history. As a matter of fact, the idea that Israel would be re – established in something closely resembling the form or character of the Sinai covenant nation – state caused the Jews much confusion and consternation, and was the cause of the belief that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom. Jesus Christ’s refusal to even aspire to such a thing was a key reason why He was rejected, and is still rejected by all but Messianic Jews to this day. But my reading of the Bible, especially Hebrews 1:1-4, would seem to preclude the idea that God would have created or had a use for a covenant nation in the last days, a period or dispensation that the New Testament made clear began with the ending of Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry, His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to the right Hand of the Father.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, nations are clearly intended by God as a good thing. It is not a bad thing when nations are created, and it is a very bad thing when nations that are basically decent and moral fall. As all nations are certainly imperfect, claiming that Israel is anything but an orderly, decent and moral nation is a lie. So, Israel’s existence is a good thing that restrains evil. And yes, I do consider Israel’s existence as a work of God’s providence – if not an act of God’s special creation like Old Testament Israel and the church – because Bible passages speak of a gathering of Jews in the land of Israel having great endtimes significance. (Keep in mind, I am a millennialist, even if it is postmillennial.) I merely reject the notion that those prophecies require a sovereign Israel – especially one run by a constitutional democratic republic form of government that is the product of human paganism and philosophy – to be carried out. After all, when Jews returned to Israel the first time – a precondition for the birth of Jesus Christ – they were under Medo – Persian domination, and Jesus Christ Himself was born to an Israeli people under Roman domination. So, the fulfillment of the revelant eschatological passages, including the famous ones in Ezekiel that are so popular with dispensational premillennialists, do not require that Jews have a sovereign state in Israel. It merely requires that a large number of Jews live in Israel.

Still, this does not make Israel’s formation or existence illegitimate. Realize that nations do not have a “legitimate” way of forming in the first place. They simply exist. The idea that Israel was formed on stolen land … well name the nation that exists today on land that did not belong to some other people group or political entity in times past. Also, Israel’s existence in some form has been endorsed by the United Nations, which let us face it is the highest human authority on the planet today, and likely will be until the beast, the anti – Christ takes power. (Being millennialist, I reject amillennial notions that the anti – Christ will be an institution or body like the Roman Catholic Church, but rather that the beast will be as Daniel, Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians states: a literal human being.)

What makes a nation’s continued existence legitimate? The ability and willingness to govern and defend itself. A nation that cannot or will not govern or defend itself … well that nation will fall and either be dominated by another nation or just descend into general anarchy and with it end any question of its legitimacy. So Israel must govern and defend itself even if it means defying the international community. Governing itself means capturing, imprisoning, and killing the Palestinian criminals that are murdering its citizens. Defending itself means taking definite action against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and other nations that are funding and arming the Palestinian criminals. Is there such a thing as being excessive, cruel, or unwise in governing and defending itself? Of course, and Israel has been at times. In my opinion, the primary cause of this is relying on air strikes, knowing full well that it will both endanger innocent civilians while accomplishing relatively little, rather than ground troops and soldiers. Do not be deceived: Israel does this only because of politics and public relations. But Israel’s mistakes and unwise policies in the couse of governing and defending itself does not remove the fact that Israel has the responsibility to do so. Israel is not committing a sin against God’s common grace by governing and defending itself. Rather, it is doing so if they refuse.

So, should Christians support the state of Israel? Of course. Romans 13:1-4a reads “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good.” So Christians should support every stable, functional, basically moral government, and also support the establishment of the same where it does not exist. (Please note: this does not mean that we should be in the business of going to war with sovereign nations and occupying them in the interests of establishing a government that is more to our liking, or support such endeavors.) Israel is a stable, functional, basically decent government, and we should support it in being so and support its continuing to be so. However, this is not necessarily special with regards to Israel (the Biblical imperative to pray for the peace of Jerusalem notwithstanding) but with all nations, including our own. Which means that we should resist our own nation’s slide into corruption and lawlessness.

So in absolute terms with respect to a special position before God, Israel has no special right to exist that any Christian need respect as was the case with Old Testament Israel. But in relative terms with respect to every other nation that has ever existed, Israel does have rights that Christians should respect, and rights that Christians have an interest in seeing Israel stand up and defend. The fact that I have declared their conflict with the Palestinian population that resides within their borders to be intractable based on very legitimate considerations on the part of both the Palestinians and Israelis does not in any way alter this. Quite the contrary, living in this creation that has fallen into sin due to the sin of Adam means that just these sorts of issues will occur whether they are within nations, within families and marriages, or within an individual (please see Romans 7:7-25 for the individual conflict). I only hope and pray that Palestinians and Israelis handle this inevitable and intractable conflict with justice and dignity, and that more and more individual members of those respective populations accept salvation through Jesus Christ to aid them through their trials.


Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 44 Comments »

Mumbai Attacks: Terrorism Or Warfare?

Posted by Job on December 1, 2008

Now when dealing with the war on terror with respect to the United States, I always try to bring up the inconvenient issue of America’s dealings in the region, starting with our overthrow of the Iranian government because of a dispute over oil profits and continuing onto such issues as our recruitment and training of such people as Usama bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our training, recruiting and arming Saddam Hussein to fight Soviet – aligned Iran, two wars in Iraq, various machinations with Afghanistan to protect a vital oil pipeline that runs through that nation, our military base in Saudi Arabia, and our abject failures in and subsequent withdrawals from Lebanon and Somalia. With that type of record plus our support for Israel, I really cannot blame any Muslim, Arab, or North African for thinking that we are out to get them, or at the very least will not hesitate to pursue our own agenda at their expense. Seriously, what basis do these people have for feeling otherwise? Do not claim that we had the interests of the Iraqi people in mind when we put Saddam Hussein in power and armed him to the teeth for the purposes of starting a proxy war with an Iranian regime that we put in power (because the prior regime wanted to use its own oil profits for economic development!) to fight a horrible war that dragged on for eight years. And as for freeing the Afghanis from Soviet domination: did any of us know or care about how the Afghanis were living BEFORE the Soviets invaded? Nope. It was all about the Soviets, never the Afghanis, which was why we not only had no problem with the Taliban regime that took over Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out, but we actually had dealings with the Taliban. I have no problem with pointing out that a great many of our issues in that region are the direct result of first our Cold War actions, and then our attempts to be “the world superpower/leader/police” afterwards. Seriously, how many Americans honestly care whether or how people in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. live or die so long as we retain our own high and comfortable standard of living? We all know the answer to that question. You can call it liberal anti – Americanism, I call it admitting things like the fact that conservative pro – American types honestly did not care how evil Saddam was or how brutally he was treating his own people until he invaded Kuwait over his desire to increase oil prices. (Again, he wanted an increase in oil prices because his regime was broke because of the war with Iran that we put him in power and armed and funded him to fight. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we had no reason to continue funding Saddam, so he had to look after his own affairs. So, who out there is surprised that a guy that we trained and put in power to start a war reacted to his own economic and political crisis by, well, STARTING A WAR?) It is our prerogative to seek our own interests and use violence in doing so? Well fine, but if you take that belief, then you have no standing for refusing the Muslims/Arabs/North Africans that same prerogative.

However, my “contextualization” does not apply to India. India has in fact strongly allied itself with America, Israel, and China … three nations that are involved in violent struggles against Muslims to one extent or another. (China’s problems with Islamic separatists is a spectacularly underreported story.) Of course, imperalistic Islam has taken notice of this and does not like it. However, India has no history of pursuing economic and military aggression against Muslim states. Quite the contrary, India actually treats its Muslim population comparatively well, allowing them not only religious and economic freedom but to politically organize. While London’s socialist Guardian newspaper predictably claims that India’s terror problems are due to India’s discrimination and oppression of Muslims, especially in Kashmir, the truth is that Muslims get far better treatment in India than non – Muslims can expect in any Muslim country, including moderate pro – western regimes like Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

This is not to say that India is perfect: after all consider the murderous persecution against Christians in the Orissa region. However, the issue is that the discrimination, marginalization and oppression of Muslims in India is not state – sponsored or supported. Quite the contrary, conservatives such as those who opine for the Wall Street Journal have charged the Indian government with being TOO NICE to its Muslim minority!

It is well known that Muslims in India are but one of many groups all over the world that face discrimination, marginalization and oppression. Yet how many of these put – upon groups respond to their maltreatment with sustained organized acts of violence designed to murder as many innocent defenseless civilians as possible plus to inflict widespread panic, economic collapse, and political instability? Muslims would appear to be unique in this respect. And since as stated earlier the Muslims that attack India can hardly claim themselves to be targeting a regime that has waged economic, diplomatic and military aggression against severely overmatched Muslim and Arab states, then the “self – defense” angle is not nearly plausible as it is with the United States, Britain, and Israel.

So that leads to this conclusion: the bombings in Mumbai are not acts of terror designed to cause the India government to change their policies, as India has no policies that can be construed to be opposing Islam or Arab regimes beyond maintaining financial and diplomatic ties with nations who allegedly do, which incidentally Muslim regimes such as Syria and Iran do the same by having relations with Russia, who is subjugating Islamic Chechnya, and China who has their own aforementioned problems. In other words, there are no anti – Islamic actions on the part of India for any terror acts to change. (Please, do not raise the Kashmir canard, as the Kashmir extremists will settle nothing less for India giving up control of the region, so Muslims and liberal apologists ought to call the Kashmir dispute what it is … Muslims attempting to start a civil war and to grab land that is internationally recognized as belonging to India. In other words, what ultimately happened in Kosovo, except in that instance the Muslims had our help in their land grab scheme!)

No, make no mistake, this is war. The Muslim world is at war with India. It is no less than an imperialistic war of aggression, because as stated before India has done nothing to Muslims either outside of or within its borders to provoke such a war. The Muslim world is trying to exert violent and economic pressure from without and within in order to bring about the collapse of the secular Indian government and replace it with an Islamic one. Of course, when that happens, such a government will go about forcing its Hindu population (as well as its other religions, including but not limited to Christianity) to either convert or leave. (That is assuming that they even allow anyone to leave, as they certainly did not give the Christians in Sudan that option, it was either convert or be killed or made a slave.) So, the Muslim world is waging an imperialistic war with India in order to make it into a Muslim land, just as Islam set about doing shortly after the religion was founded, just as the Koran commands Muslims to do.

Again, I am not convinced by the notion that all of these are internal problems with internal Muslims. First, even though everyone including the Indian government is falling backwards over themselves to implicate first the Kashmir situation and then Pakistan, and that a local obscure group has claimed responsibility, and that Al Qaeda has distanced themselves from the attack, we cannot ignore that this attack has Al Qaeda’s fingerprints all over it. There was the nature of the attack, a spectacular coordinated event. There was also the goal of attacking economic centers to cause financial turmoil (please note Al Qaeda’s recent claims that our current financial problems were caused by 9/11). It fits the methods, goals and ideologies of bin Laden. Also, what evidence is there that the obscure India militant group had the resources and expertise to carry out such an attack?

So, you might ask, why would Al Qaeda deny involvement and allow a local front group to take credit? For P.R. purposes. Al Qaeda’s support is based on the notion that they are defending Muslim victims of aggression. As India does nothing to harm Muslims within its borders or without, for Al Qaeda to target India turns them from freedom fighters to aggressors in the eyes of Muslims and other people in the region. Add that to the huge number of innocent Muslims that Al Qaeda has killed in Iraq, it is something that their image could ill afford right now. But rest assured (according to my theory anyway) let the Indian government take violent action, a military or police crackdown against these murderous criminals, against this army attempting to overthrow its government, and we will very shortly see a tape from Al Qaeda declaring jihad against India for its crimes of aggression against Islam.

And as for the Kashmir situation … that is even more evidence that this is an international Islamic war on India. After all, who denies that Muslims from other countries haven’t been smuggling arms and fighters into the Kashmir region that ultimately filter down into other parts of India for years? Kashmir merely serves as a front, an opening, an excuse just as “Palestine” serves the same purpose to funnel arms and extremists in through the Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese etc. borders. Kashmir is merely what the Muslim world is using as the entry point, their home base for their war with India, and were India ever to grant “independence” to Kashmir, a) Muslims would then merely claim for themselves other places in northern India and B) Kashmir would be the launchingpad for military and terror campaigns in India. For Muslims do not merely want Kashmir. They do not merely want northern India. They want the whole country.

So, if the Muslim world is attempting to conquer India for Islam, what makes you think that they will stop there? And if they succeed in conquering India, who’s next? That is the first question that must be asked. However, the second and most important question that must be asked: what should the proper Christian response be to Muslim designs for global domination? Christian imperialism in turn? Globalism? The new world order? Mandatory religious pluralism, where all religions are forced to deny that their religion is the only way to salvation? I dare say that none of those are solutions that the New Testament would endorse.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

The Origins And Danger Of The Rapture Doctrine

Posted by Job on October 7, 2008

Secrets Revealed; The Mystical Rapture Cult and Its World-wide Power and Dominion

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

Jerusalem Situation Getting Disturbing: Jews Attack Innocent Random Arabs In Reprisal For Terror Attacks

Posted by Job on July 22, 2008

Similar to the blacks who saved Reginald Denny, these Arabs were saved by Jews. Unlike the thugs that assaulted Reginald Denny, however, the Jews then tried to attack the family that saved the Arabs. I cannot recall Jewish citizens acting with such violence against innocent civilians, especially other Jews. Hopefully this is just something that will pass, maybe when Olmert is finally forced from office. But if it does not, then this definitely represents a turn for the worse in Israel. Despite what liars like Christiane Amanpour of CNN would have you believe, attacks on Arabs – and other Jews – by Israeli citizens is extremely rare, and this represents a real escalation with disturbing implications. 

Haredim attack, wound two Arabs in Jerusalem neighborhood

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Egypt to sign nuclear pact with Russia

Posted by Job on March 24, 2008

Egypt to sign nuclear pact with Russia – Worthy News

Russia and Egypt are expected to sign a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement this week that will boost Cairo’s efforts to join a string of Sunni countries keen on developing nuclear potential and that government officials in Jerusalem believe is intended in part to offset Iran’s nuclear program.Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak traveled to Moscow for a two-day visit Monday, and the Russian wire service RIA Novosti quoted Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit as saying that the agreement would be signed during the visit.

The news service quoted Gheit as saying, “This agreement will enable Egypt to use Russia’s extensive experience in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.” According to the report, a source in Egypt’s Electricity and Energy Ministry said earlier that the document would lay the foundation for nuclear energy cooperation between Egypt and Russia and would strengthen relations between Russian companies and Egypt. However, the report said, the agreement would not automatically mean that Russian companies would build nuclear power plants in Egypt.

“Companies will be selected at an international tender to be announced by the Egyptian government at the end of the year,” the source was quoted as saying.

An Israeli government source said Jerusalem would have no public or formal comment on the deal, and that in principle Israel had no objection to Egypt’s acquiring nuclear technology as long as Egypt was a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it is, and as long as it would be under ironclad supervision and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Israel, the official said, could not object to another country’s wanting nuclear energy, as long as it was under tight regulation and supervision.

Egypt currently has two small research reactors.

According to a report by the German news service DPA, the Egyptian independent daily Al-Masri al-Youmquoted an Egyptian source as saying last week that the US was opposed to a potential nuclear cooperation deal between Moscow and Cairo.

The DPA report said US Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, during a visit to Cairo in January, discussed Egypt’s joining the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program whereby the US seeks to work with other countries to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for peaceful uses.

Israel’s low-key response on Monday was similar to its response last October when Mubarak announced a plan to build several nuclear power plants, a move that was heralded at the time in the Egyptian press as a major national project.

Israel also refrained from issuing a response when French President Nicolas Sarkozy went to Morocco in October and pledged that France would help that country build a civil nuclear energy industry, or when Yemen signed an agreement in September with a US company to build nuclear plants over the next 10 years.

Indeed, over the last year, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan and Egypt have indicated an interest in developing nuclear programs, with Israeli officials saying that if these countries did not want the programs now for nuclear capabilities, they wanted the technology in place to keep “other options open” if Iran developed a bomb.

Israel, though monitoring the developments, has been careful not to take a public stand, partly because as one of the few countries in the world that has not signed the NPT, Jerusalem is not keen on lobbying against nuclear know-how for peaceful needs going to countries that are willing to sign the treaty, something that would focus the limelight on its own unique situation.

In a related development, meanwhile, Turkey on Monday asked for bids on the construction of its first nuclear power plant at the Mediterranean port city of Mersin, a government agency said.

Bids would be accepted until September 24, Turkey’s electricity agency said in a written announcement. The government would guarantee that it would buy all the electricity produced by the nuclear plant.

Turkey has experienced frequent cuts this winter of its natural gas supplies from Iran and Azerbaijan.

Power plants fueled by natural gas produce nearly half of Turkey’s electricity output. Turkey, a NATO member, imports most of its natural gas from Russia and Iran.

Nuclear power is one of the best options Turkey has, Energy Minister Hilmi Guler has said.

Guler said nuclear power should supply 20 percent of Turkey’s energy needs within the next two decades, allowing the country to decrease its reliance on imported gas.

Another spot on the Black Sea coast – Inceburun, in Sinop province – is planned for a second nuclear plant.

AP contributed to this report.

Posted in Africa, Christianity, Egypt, endtimes, eschatology, Israel, prophecy, Russia | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bible League: Jesus Christ Changing Lives In India, Kenya, Colombia, Middle East

Posted by Job on March 5, 2008

They could ALL receive Bibles

They could ALL receive Bibles
India–Like many preachers in India, Nikhil had no formal training—he simply felt called to lead a congregation. But once he realized there was so much to learn, he turned to a Bible League-trained Christian who was offering Bible studies. Read more

Taking a stand for the Gospel

Taking a stand for the Gospel
Middle East–Aaqib refused to give up when he encountered difficulties in establishing a church. Because of his faith, more Christians are now sharing the Gospel in an area where Islam dominates. This church and others like it are beacons for Christ amid strife and violence. Read more

Breadth of mercy

Breadth of mercy
Colombia–Envigado, Colombia is home to more than 175,000 people. Surrounded by lush green hills and winding roads, walks on dirt paths and through the mountains are inevitably routes taken daily. One Colombian man shares his story of a winding path that led him into the arms of a loving Savior. Read more

God's Word continues to go forth in Kenya

God’s Word continues to go forth in Kenya
Despite deadly riots and widespread violence in Nairobi, as well as in Kenya’s eastern and western provinces, Bible League staff members are continuing ministry. While three ministry areas have been completely shut down, Bible League staff members are pressing their
way through the tense spiritual environment. Read more.

Posted in Asia, Bible, buddhism, Christianity, evangelical christian, evangelism, Hinduism, India, Islam, Jesus Christ, missionary, Muslim, testimony | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Christian Zionist Elwood McQuaid Lies On Christian Left By Claiming That They Are Replacement Theologists!

Posted by Job on January 15, 2008

Original link: Where the Christian Left is wrong

Now of course, I have no regard for the Christian left. But claiming that their advocacy of the Palestinians is motivated by replacement theology is a lie, and this fellow knows it. If you believe in replacement theology, then you believe that the Bible is inerrant (or infallible) and authoritative, and therefore the commandments of the Bible, including God’s covenant with Jews and Christians, should be a determinative influence in contemporary secular politics. What member of the Christian left believes this? Do you honestly expect us to believe that the same people that are baptizing murdered fetuses at abortion clinics and marrying and ordaining homosexuals have anything resembling the sort of mindset that would support replacement theology? McQuaid knows that this is not so, and he is willing to lie to frightened Jews as a way to get their political support. McQuaid knows that Jews have been raised to believe that replacement theology is the source of all evil that has befallen the Jews, from Muslims turning against them (or so they say) to the Holocaust. McQuaid is exploiting this in order to gain the political support of Jews, which is key to evangelicals gaining more political power in America.This proves that so – called Christian Zionists are not the true friends of the Jews, but are exploiting them for their own purposes. So now, we see that these people are so depraved that they are trying to convince Jews that the same people that cast aside what the Bible says about adultery, fornication, murder, homosexuality, women pastors, etc. when running their own churches are willing to impose a Biblical view on determining who gets political control of Israel. Also, the increasingly confrontational mindset of evangelicals is disturbing. We see in this Christianity Today link, for instance, where they are convinced that fundamentalist Christianity is the greatest evil in the world (actually preferring evil sinners to born – again Bible believing Christians it seems), in this link in Frances Beckwith their increasing opposition to Christians that believe that the Reformation happened for a reason and are unwilling to accept Roman Catholicism today (and Mormonism tomorrow) as just another Christian denomination, and in this very story they are telling Jews that the religious left is seeking their genocide. Whatever side you have taken in the Middle East peace process, do not join yourself to the Christian Zionists! See article below.

An interesting contest seems to be heating up as the world paves a road to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The American religious Left has felt compelled to issue a series of documents slanted toward the Arab and Palestinian points of view, urging the powers that be to muscle Israel to accede to demands that will place Israelis in a virtually untenable position regarding their future security.

Signatories to these documents propose that they speak for the majority of evangelical Christians (as do you you!) and, therefore, are in a position to pontificate on the direction the United States and other Western powers should take in (1) determining the future shape of the new Middle East and (2) correcting what they claim are the egregious malefactions of the Israeli government and its friends in the Zionist evangelical camp (apparently friends lie on each other).

Their criticisms are based on the concept that Israel’s day is over, both biblically and historically. Consequently, Israelis have no more right to the land than their Muslim/Arab antagonists. Theologically, this position is popularly known as Replacement Theology, which claims that God’s promises to the heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were conditional and therefore abrogated by Israel’s disobedience. So the church stepped in as the true “Israel of God” and possesses the spiritualized, redefined covenants of promise. (In addition to being a liar, this fellow is an apostate heretic, denying Jesus Christ before men that the old covenant is passed away – see the Book of Hebrews – and the new covenant is not of dead works but of spirit and is based on better promises – see Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans.)

From this lofty, self-ascribed position, modern Israel is seen as a squatter on property it seized from militarily inferior Palestinians who should receive it back, so much so that Israel has been called an apartheid state equal to South Africa, which practiced legal racial segregation and suppressed human rights from 1948 to 1994. (First off, few members of the Christian left do as “pastor” McQuaid is doing, which is to lie on history. The overwhelming majority of the Christian left wants the same two – state solution that has been advocated by the international community ever since 1948. Also, great job of lying on the South Africa analogy, pastor. Totally ignore the fact that Israel was apartheid South Africa’s biggest supporter, continuing to support them even after international sanctions were imposed. When apartheid fell, the #1 fear by the Israeli government was that new South African government would turn anti – Israel and take the rest of black Africa with them.)

ZIONIST Christians (those of us who believe the land promises to the Jewish people are irrevocable-biblically, historically, morally, and legally) are written off as an illegitimate theological mutation, unworthy of serious consideration. Furthermore, we are accused of being anti-Palestinian political meddlers who say, “Israel right or wrong.” This point of view elicits a number of responses that are perfectly in order considering the seriousness of the accusations.

First and foremost, on the matter of believing God’s biblical promises regarding Jewish rights to a homeland in Eretz Yisrael, we are guilty as charged. The birth of the church as God’s grace gift to the Gentiles did not contain a deed to property in the Middle East. Nor does it give Christian leaders, as some have wrongly concluded, a mandate to dictate what land is actually His land.

Second, the accusation that we are anti-Palestinian is totally without foundation. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a conflict created and maintained by the manipulative mismanagement of their leaders who act in their own behalf, disregarding the needs of their people. The most unfortunate are Palestinian Christians. Witness the exodus of Christian Arabs to the West and Europe in recent years. Some have gone so far as to blame this evacuation on Israel and economic oppression and despair caused by the continual “occupation.”

Hardly mentioned is the fact that the Christian exodus from the Middle East is a response to the Islamic drive to exterminate Christians and Jews from the region.

Criticism of Israel’s 8,000 settlers in Gaza was a popular theme for many years. If the Jewish infiltrators were eliminated from the Gaza, the mantra went, Palestinians could elevate their social and economic status, which would change their lives and lifestyles. So the Jews left, at great cost. The result? Gaza became a staging area for terrorists; Hamas rules the street; and Christian Arabs are hunted, assassinated, and forced to find safe haven somewhere other than Gaza.

With regard to the charge of meddling in politics, let it be said that Christian Zionism is not primarily a political action movement. It is not the legitimate province of outsiders, however benevolently motivated, to dictate the political policy of a foreign government. The Israeli people are perfectly capable of determining the course their nation should pursue. That said, there is a point where politics and biblical, prophetic realities converge. This is not a matter of dictation but observation; and there is no doubt that current events, when compared with scriptural predictions, help us discern where we are and where history is heading.

For Israelis and the Jewish state, the issue is survival within secure, recognized borders. And for Palestinians, Christians, and others, it is the right to pursue productive and tranquil lives without fear of radical Islamist discrimination.

The writer, a pastor, is a veteran leader of the Christian Zionist movement in the US.

Posted in apostasy, Bible, blasphemy, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, Christian Persecution, Christian persecution Palestinian Israel, Christian Zionism, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, dual covenant theology, evangelical christian, GOP, heresy, Israel, John Hagee, Judaism, liberal christian, Middle East peace process, replacement theology, Republican, Zionism | Tagged: , , , , | 13 Comments »

1.4 billion dollars in possible US arms sales to Mideast announced

Posted by Job on October 5, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Pentagon notified Congress Thursday of possible sales of missiles, armored vehicles and cargo aircraft upgrades worth nearly 1.4 billion dollars to four Mideast states.US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this year promoted a much larger package of arms sales to the region earlier this year as a means to counter Iran. (And Iran became a threat to other nations in the Middle East WHEN?)

The biggest of the possible arms sales announced Thursday was to Saudi Arabia, which the Pentagon said wants to buy 61 light armored vehicles, and 50 Humvees along with assorted guns, machine guns and night vision goggles. The Defense Security and Assistance Agency said the sale would be worth 631 million dollars.

“The proposed sale of light armored vehicles will provide a highly mobile, light combat vehicle capability enabling Saudi Arabia to rapidly identify, engage and defeat perimeter security threats and rapidly employ counter and anti-terrorism measures,” the DSCA said in a statement. The light armored vehicles, which are built by General Dynamic Land Systems, are the primary combat vehicle of the Saudi Arabia National Guard.

The United Arab Emirates requested 900 Hellfire II Longbow air to ground missiles, and 300 blast fragmentation warheads, which the DSCA valued at up to 428 million dollars. “The UAE needs these missiles in order to defend its maritime and land borders,” the DSCA said.

It said the sale would reduce dependence on US forces. Egypt is requesting 164 Stinger Block I missiles, and 25 Avenger launchers. The missiles would be configured for launches from vehicles. The DSCA valued that possible sale at 83 million dollars.

“Egypt will use the Stinger missile to upgrade its air defense capability and will have no difficulty absorbing them into its armed forces,” it said said. Kuwait is seeking upgrades of three L-100-30 aircraft, which are commercial versions of the military C-130, DSCA said.

The upgrades were worth up to 250 million dollars, the agency said.

Well, when the war on terror actually starts, we will have given the enemy all that they need to defend themselves … 

Posted in government, Iran, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: