Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Amir۞Ramadhaan

If America fought Israel..?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

I suppose this is directed towards those Evangelical Protestants who believe that support for Israel is an obligation. If suddenly a new American administation changed policy on Israel, eventually resulting in an effort to invade and occupy the state, what would Evangelical response be? Would they remain loyal to their homeland, or would they stand by religious conviction and denounce(or actively discourage) American aggression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

I suppose this is directed towards those Evangelical Protestants who believe that support for Israel is an obligation. If suddenly a new American administation changed policy on Israel, eventually resulting in an effort to invade and occupy the state, what would Evangelical response be? Would they remain loyal to their homeland, or would they stand by religious conviction and denounce(or actively discourage) American aggression?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As an Evangelical Christian, I would be totally against an invasion of Israel.

It has nothing to do with whether we agree, or not, with what Israel does as much as that we believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. This is an everlasting covenant between God and the Jewish people and God's wrath will be upon any nation who attacks them in an attempt to take Israel from them.

My loyalty is to God first and then to my country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

I suppose this is directed towards those Evangelical Protestants who believe that support for Israel is an obligation. If suddenly a new American administation changed policy on Israel, eventually resulting in an effort to invade and occupy the state, what would Evangelical response be? Would they remain loyal to their homeland, or would they stand by religious conviction and denounce(or actively discourage) American aggression?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Im a presbyterian...I don't recall anywhere in the Bible it says Im responsible for the exsistance of the state of isreal..infact Jesus broke up the state of isreal...

with that being said.....Im also not against a state of isreal.....

infact the Bible says that all people consirned with jerusalem will be cut into peices..

so Im 100% non partisan to isreal..unless God directs me to be any other way.

I think it's revelations that calls for isreal to be re establish at the end of the time of the gentiles..So I see isreal being re established as Gods plan....allthough besides my tax money Im forced to pay (give unto ceasar)...I can't think of anything I've done to promote OR hinder the re esatblishment of isreal.

as far as Im consirned, thats between the palistinians and jews..and I wish them both well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zech.12

[1] The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

[2] Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

[3] And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

[4] In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

[5] And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.

[6] In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

[7] The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

[8] In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

[9] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

[10] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

[11] In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

[12] And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

[13] The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

[14] All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

Edited by jarvis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[10] And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also support America if we had to occupy another state including Israel. I don't see the necesity of Americans to support Israel. If they are doing something evil then its time to get them to :shaytan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also support America if we had to occupy another state including Israel. I don't see the necesity of Americans to support Israel. If they are doing something evil then its time to get them to :shaytan:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The wonder thing is that you may see those who call themselves hashumite

" Rulers of Jurdon " stand with them " Israelis " .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not a Christian, or American, but I do support Israel 100%. They are the only liberal democratic state in the middle east, they are a civilising force for good. There is no real reason for anyone in the west who respects those values to support an attack on Israel when she deserves the support of all decent people. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scripture Jarvis brought is corrupted and mistranslated. Israel is actually ( people of light) according to Dead sea scrolls. verses misplaced.

Of course US only flatters Israel for a time. when she gets hungrey she will go for the money ( diamonds, dollar notes, banks, savings etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in some later prophets or may be other prophets the word Israel is found in the dead sea scrolls as ( people of light) this is convermed.

so, in many prophecies in later days, some rabbies by way of change put israel word again as if israel will be in the end times.

hungrey us is out for the booty, and some day will smell food from palestine area(diamonds, gold, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an Evangelical Christian, I would be totally against an invasion of Israel.

It has nothing to do with whether we agree, or not, with what Israel does as much as that we believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. This is an everlasting covenant between God and the Jewish people and God's wrath will be upon any nation who attacks them in an attempt to take Israel from them.

My loyalty is to God first and then to my country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, my father always says this. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I was brought up believing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, my father always says this. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I was brought up believing this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi LawsonD, and welcome. Hope to have more participation from you.

Your father is a smart man. ;)

1 Kings 10:9, Genesis 12:3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi LawsonD, and welcome. Hope to have more participation from you.

Your father is a smart man.  ;) 

1 Kings 10:9, Genesis 12:3.

And I would not be surprised that the mother's name of LawsonD is....Jordan !! :)

If it is so, does that make the whole family ..smart ?

Although an attack on Israel by the U.S is an impossibility (by virtue of total and almost absolute control of the centres of power of the West by zionists) , it raises an interesting ethical question to Christians.

However, I have a more interesting question :

How do christians in the US, view the persecution of Arab Christians in Palestine and Jerusalem ?

How do they reconcile their "love of Israel" with this unpalatable and chronic cruelty towards their own brothers and sisters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do christians in the US, view the persecution of Arab Christians in Palestine and Jerusalem ?

How do they reconcile their "love of Israel" with this unpalatable and chronic cruelty towards their own brothers and sisters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christians in the US are not told about Jewish discrimination against Christians (That it's a 5 year prison sentence for a Christian to witness to a Jew or a three year prison sentence for a Jew that converts - Or that Israel's Supreme Court prevented the rebuilding of a Baptist church burned down by Jewish arsonists) or that the Torah encourages cheating Gentiles - or that an estimated one million Israeli Jews visit brothels each month. Similarly, we aren't told what our Lebaneses Christian brothers did in the Palestinian Refuge Camps with Israel's approval either.

I'm sure you know why we never read these things. We are fed the picture they want us to see.

You can't complain about what you don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians in the US are not told about Jewish discrimination against Christians (That it's a 5 year prison sentence for a Christian to witness to a Jew or a three year prison sentence for a Jew that converts - Or that Israel's Supreme Court prevented the rebuilding of a Baptist church burned down by Jewish arsonists) or that the Torah encourages cheating Gentiles - or that an estimated one million Israeli Jews visit brothels each month.  Similarly, we aren't told what our Lebaneses Christian brothers did in the Palestinian Refuge Camps with Israel's approval either.

I'm sure you know why we never read these things.  We are fed the picture they want us to see.

You can't complain about what you don't know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you can support your statements, would you please do so?

Peace

Satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of this thread is very deep and important because it may arise any day now. This thread has aroused the thought of another very important clash that is going to arise soon.

Godzilla v King Kong. Who will win and what are the implications of this classic struggle on the 21st century and beyond?

Peace

Satyaban

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well what about "Godzilla v King Kong" ?

Peace

satyaban

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, kong has useable arms, but godzilla has that dragon breath thing...I think if kong gets past the burns, he could headlock godzilla ,then knock him out..

I suppose it also would depend on what they were fighting over..and how inportant it was to them..

kong would have to endure probably 10 seconds of fire, before he could get his mits on godzilla..

I compare godzilla to a boxer with a deadly left jab, and kong to a grappeler...

godzilla has a shot...but he would have to make it count, because once kong got him ,it's over...

rodan, inframan, and the smog monster would also be contenders..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The subject of this thread is very deep and important because it may arise any day now. This thread has aroused the thought of another very important clash that is going to arise soon.

Godzilla v King Kong. Who will win and what are the implications of this classic struggle on the 21st century and beyond?

Peace

Satyaban

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's filmed in Japan-godzilla in the states-king kong duuuuuh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's filmed in Japan-godzilla in the states-king kong duuuuuh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your post and Jarvis' have their good points but I think if the battle was on neutral a Swiss film producers equipment Godzilla will will have a damned good chance. Of course if Godzilla gets King Kong into deep water it will be all over.

Peace

Satyaban

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post and Jarvis' have their good points but I think if the battle was on neutral a Swiss film producers equipment Godzilla will will have a damned good chance. Of course if Godzilla gets King Kong into deep water it will be all over.

Peace

Satyaban

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Assalamalaikum,

Maybe this should be a seperate thread should I make it or would you like to do the honors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you can support your statements, would you please do so?

Peace

Satyaban

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here you can read about the Dec 29, 1977 law passed by Israel prohibiting anyone from offering or receiving material benefits as an inducement to Christian conversion.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...elisrael99.html

The penalties are described here:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/rel-christians.html

The above site also mentions the 1982 Baptist church burning and the 1985 Israel Supreme Court decision regarding its reconstruction. Here, however, is the full story:

First, the Jewish opposition to the rebuilding of the church as described by the January 25, 1985 issue of The Jerusalem Post:

Quote:

"Fifty people took part in a demonstration opposite the Baptist Church in Narkis Street, Rehavia, on Wednesday afternoon, protesting against plans to rebuild the burnt-out church building.

Most of the protesters were ultra-Orthodox residents from other neighborhoods. A few live on Narkis Street.

The protesters said the church held "missionary activities" and that it disrupted the peace on Shabbat. They held signs saying "We don't want a missionary center here," and "Get out, Get out."

Alona Lunzer, one of the local residents who organized the demonstration, said: 'They are planning to build acampus here. Some 200 people come here on Shabbat, and none are from the neighborhood. I myself am not religious, but a lot of the residents are.

"Most of the neighbors agree with us, she said.

One of the neighbors, watching from adistance, disagreed. "Look at them - there are only a handful of Narkis Street residents among the demonstrators," he said. The man refused to be identified, saying "You think I want my car blown up?"

Opposition to the church was stepped up as the building plans reached the final stage.

The plans call for a three-storey building on the church's Narkis Street site, where the original 1929 building was destroyed by arson two years ago. No one was ever charged for the offense.

Local ultra-Orthodox politicians have opposed the church since plans for its restoration were first drawn up two years ago. The plans are due to be discussed soon in the regional planning committee, which may give the final approval.

Demonstrator Gershon Holzer, who lives on the neighbouring Hagidem Street, said many local residents are opposed to the rebuilding of the church. "The Church disrupts the Shabbat peace and lowers the quality of life in our quiet residential area," he said.

Rev. Bob Lindsay, minister of the church, denied that his congregation disrupted the peace. "We have heardcomplaints from only three people" he said.

He charged that the billboard posters and leaflets distributed in neighbourhood mailboxes, calling residents to the demonstrations, were full of misrepresentations.

"They quote me in interviews saying things I don't even remember saying - that I convince Jews to convert," said Lindsay. "The leaflets say all attempts to discuss the matter with the Rev. Lindsay were fruitless. That is an absolute lie -they have never come to me," he added.

Although local residents insisted that they had organized Wednesday's demonstration, the billboard posters were signed by Yad La'ahirn, an anti-missionary organization.

Agudat Yisrael city councillor Meir Porush told In Jerusalem that they wanted the church moved out of the neighborhood."

Unquote.

Here, Israel's Supreme Court becomes involved:

The Baptist Church News of June 13, 1985, reports:

Quote:

"The highest court in Israel has asked a Baptist congregation to leave a Jewish area of Jerusalem before it builds a new sanctuary. Israel's High Court made the request while reviewing a suit filed by the Narkis Street Baptist Church against a district planning commission, which last year refused to issue the church a building permit.

The Narkis Street church has been meeting in a tentlike structure since 1982 when its building was destroyed by arson. The congregation wants to replace its burned-out chapel with a $1 million facility, including a 400-seat auditorium, several classrooms, and office space.

The rebuilding plan was approved by Mayor Teddy Kollek, various municipal agencies, and the Jerusalem city council. But last fall, a district planning commission decided to allow only the building of a structure similar to the congregation's original 60-seat chapel. The church then filed suit in Israel's High Court.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups have demonstrated against the church's plan to rebuild. Among other objections, they say the Baptists' singing disrupts the Narkis Street neighborhood and that their parked cars clog the streets. Pat Hoaldridge, acting chairman of Southern Baptist representatives in Israel, says the High Court's request for the church to move indicates the judges did not want to risk raising religious tensions further.

"You have to understand the climate in the country at this time," Hoaldridge says. "The rise of religious feelings regarding what the people would call missionary activity ... is playing a part in this case."

The High Court said it would not rule on the church's suit against the district planning commission for two months. The delay is designed to give the Narkis Street congregation and the Baptist Convention of Israel time to consider trading the church property for another site in Jerusalem.

Lawyers for the church have recommended that the Baptists move on the condition the church's building will be approved as submitted. At press time, the congregation had not made a decision."

Unquote.

Later, they chose to move.

Regarding my comment of one million Jews per month visiting brothels: This article mentions it in regards to White slavery of women by Jews in Israel. In 2001, the U.S. State Department placed Israel on a "blacklist," among countries that were failing to combat trafficking in women.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/sexisrael69690531.html

Here are some articles tracing Israel's standing with the US State Dept from 2001 to 2005 on trafficking women in some 3-400 brothels:

http://anti-slavery.tribe.net/thread/da9b6...b2-0c0f8e359a73

Prostitution is legal in Israel.

In regards to the Talmud allowing Jews to cheat Christians, let's begin with the penalty for murdering a Gentile:

A. Killing a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17): "He who kills any man shall surely be put to death."

The problem here is that a Gentile is not defined as a "man". A Jew is a "man". Therefore, anyone who kills a Jew shall surely be put to death. Leviticus does not apply to Gentiles.

It is also stated in Exodus 21:14: "But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die."

The problem here is that we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2:

"One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended] to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is] exempt."

This phrase states that if you intend to kill a Gentile, but instead kill a Jew, you are exempt from Exodus 21:14. Murder of a Gentile is allowed. Even the great Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a single halacha) agrees:

"One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is said: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.' And it need not be said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile.

A "ger toshav" is a "resident alien", that is, one who lives in the Land of Israel under certain protections of the system, and is considered a righteous gentile. There are two types of ger toshav. Those who agree to uphold the seven Noahide Laws and those who don't. Both can be legally murdered by a Jew. That it was okay for Jews to murder Gentiles led to the creation of "Murder Inc"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder,_Inc.

Of course, a ger toshav who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to death (Chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the Gemara (9a)). Again, the great Maimonides agrees as he wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: "A ger toshav who killed a Jew without intent -- even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to death."

Although there is no punishment under Jewish law for murdering a Gentile, Jews are warned that, if they do, they could be judged by God. That's it. It ends there. It is summed up in Yere'im paragraph 175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): "...and it is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: 'who murders his neighbor' -- the murder of one's neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a Gentile it is not called murder."

Here we see that it's okay to rob a Gentile:

This is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):

"...Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."

The Romans, when they discovered this law, ordered it be changed and this was carried out by Rabban Gamliel.

Since then, it has been argued that Gamliel was wrong to change the law. Thus it appears in Bava Metzia 111b:

"And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is permitted."

The great Maimonides agrees that theft from a Gentile is forbidden as he wrote at the beginning of The Laws of Theft: "Anyone who steals property worth the value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not steal'... no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the money of a Gentile idolater..."

But until the Roman army arrived it was legal.

On keeping the lost property of a Gentile, the great Maimonides wrote in halacha 3 he wrote: "A lost item of a Gentile is permitted (to be kept)." The return of the item is only acceptable if "one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d's name, in order that the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful people -- this is praiseworthy." Otherwise, unless the Jew desecrated God's name, he may keep the property.

Now, on cheating a Gentile, there is some division. Those who allow it include Rashi (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza). It is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion. The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won't cause a desecration of G-d's name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him in calculations or to raise his loan -- is permitted, but only if it will not become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no desecration of G-d's name."

The great Maimonides disagrees (I quote Maimonides because he was Ron's favorite source of information). In any case, the entire essence of their dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile, for with regards to the cheating of a Jew, everything must be recompensed, as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: "Rava said: anything concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of minimal value, is also recompensed," and so wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.

But even Maimonides contradicts himself on cheating Gentiles for while he says you can't cheat them, you can defraud them (Evidently, a fine line of distinction). Maimonides wrote in chapter 13, halacha 7: "A Gentile has not [been included in the transgression of] fraud as it says: 'one another' [literally, 'each his brother']. But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws..."

Tractate Bechorot 13b agrees: "They said: to your partner you return [something gained by] fraud, and you don't return it to a Gentile."

By unanimous agreement, it is okay to abduct and ransom a Gentile.

Also, by unanimous agreement, it is permitted to beat a Gentile. However, for a Gentile to strike a Jew is punishable by death (Sanhedrin 58b).

This is only a partial list of what Jews are allowed to do to Gentiles. If one chooses to believe that Jews do not read Maimonides then one chooses to put his head in the sand. Although I, myself, have never been wronged by a Jew here in the US (and have nothing but good to say for them), there appears to be a difference in the thinking of an American Jew and an Israeli one. It has been shown by CBS (in 60 Minutes) that in one attorney's caseload, 700 Jewish courts in Israel decided, all 700 times, against Palestinian and Christian plaintiffs. IMO, this could only be achieved by the judges by applying these Talmudic laws to them.

Americans are unaware of these things because they are not told. Anyone with a brain can figure out why.

Edited by IMAnonymous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians in the US are not told about Jewish discrimination against Christians (That it's a 5 year prison sentence for a Christian to witness to a Jew or a three year prison sentence for a Jew that converts - Or that Israel's Supreme Court prevented the rebuilding of a Baptist church burned down by Jewish arsonists) or that the Torah encourages cheating Gentiles - or that an estimated one million Israeli Jews visit brothels each month.  Similarly, we aren't told what our Lebaneses Christian brothers did in the Palestinian Refuge Camps with Israel's approval either.

I'm sure you know why we never read these things.  We are fed the picture they want us to see.

You can't complain about what you don't know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings ImAnon.

I appreciate your post whereby you back up most of what you say here.

However, I think that the part in bold is slightly wrong.

Now, if what you meant was that the Torah (as interpretted in the Talmud) encourages maltreatment of Gentiles, then I might agree with you.

At any rate, that was a very informative post.

Thanks

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional point:

If Israel attacked us, I'd be in on a F-16 as soon as possible.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, ProudAmerican, if you visit this site, you might want to start revving up your engines.

Additionally, you might want to look up the Lavon Affair.

BTW- I very much agree with HolyHolyHoly. I don't think that the US or Christians have any obligations to the Zionist entity, whatsoever - except the obligations of Christian charity towards the victims of Zionism.

Edited by Greg Potemkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings ImAnon.

I appreciate your post whereby you back up most of what you say here.

However, I think that the part in bold is slightly wrong.

Now, if what you meant was that the Torah (as interpretted in the Talmud) encourages maltreatment of Gentiles, then I might agree with you.

At any rate, that was a very informative post.

Thanks

Greg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:blush:

My error.

I edited the correction. Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here you can read about the Dec 29, 1977 law passed by Israel prohibiting anyone from offering or receiving material benefits as an inducement to Christian conversion.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...elisrael99.html

The penalties are described here:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/rel-christians.html

The above site also mentions the 1982 Baptist church burning and the 1985 Israel Supreme Court decision regarding its reconstruction.  Here, however, is the full story:

First, the Jewish opposition to the rebuilding of the church as described by the January 25, 1985 issue of The Jerusalem Post:

Quote:

"Fifty people took part in a demonstration opposite the Baptist Church in Narkis Street, Rehavia, on Wednesday afternoon, protesting against plans to rebuild the burnt-out church building.

Most of the protesters were ultra-Orthodox residents from other neighborhoods. A few live on Narkis Street.

The protesters said the church held "missionary activities" and that it disrupted the peace on Shabbat. They held signs saying "We don't want a missionary center here," and "Get out, Get out."

Alona Lunzer, one of the local residents who organized the demonstration, said: 'They are planning to build acampus here. Some 200 people come here on Shabbat, and none are from the neighborhood. I myself am not religious, but a lot of the residents are.

"Most of the neighbors agree with us, she said.

One of the neighbors, watching from adistance, disagreed. "Look at them - there are only a handful of Narkis Street residents among the demonstrators," he said. The man refused to be identified, saying "You think I want my car blown up?"

Opposition to the church was stepped up as the building plans reached the final stage.

The plans call for a three-storey building on the church's Narkis Street site, where the original 1929 building was destroyed by arson two years ago. No one was ever charged for the offense.

Local ultra-Orthodox politicians have opposed the church since plans for its restoration were first drawn up two years ago. The plans are due to be discussed soon in the regional planning committee, which may give the final approval.

Demonstrator Gershon Holzer, who lives on the neighbouring Hagidem Street, said many local residents are opposed to the rebuilding of the church. "The Church disrupts the Shabbat peace and lowers the quality of life in our quiet residential area," he said.

Rev. Bob Lindsay, minister of the church, denied that his congregation disrupted the peace. "We have heardcomplaints from only three people" he said.

He charged that the billboard posters and leaflets distributed in neighbourhood mailboxes, calling residents to the demonstrations, were full of misrepresentations.

"They quote me in interviews saying things I don't even remember saying - that I convince Jews to convert," said Lindsay. "The leaflets say all attempts to discuss the matter with the Rev. Lindsay were fruitless. That is an absolute lie -they have never come to me," he added.

Although local residents insisted that they had organized Wednesday's demonstration, the billboard posters were signed by Yad La'ahirn, an anti-missionary organization.

Agudat Yisrael city councillor Meir Porush told In Jerusalem that they wanted the church moved out of the neighborhood."

Unquote.

Here, Israel's Supreme Court becomes involved:

The Baptist Church News of June 13, 1985, reports:

Quote:

"The highest court in Israel has asked a Baptist congregation to leave a Jewish area of Jerusalem before it builds a new sanctuary. Israel's High Court made the request while reviewing a suit filed by the Narkis Street Baptist Church against a district planning commission, which last year refused to issue the church a building permit.

The Narkis Street church has been meeting in a tentlike structure since 1982 when its building was destroyed by arson. The congregation wants to replace its burned-out chapel with a $1 million facility, including a 400-seat auditorium, several classrooms, and office space.

The rebuilding plan was approved by Mayor Teddy Kollek, various municipal agencies, and the Jerusalem city council. But last fall, a district planning commission decided to allow only the building of a structure similar to the congregation's original 60-seat chapel. The church then filed suit in Israel's High Court.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups have demonstrated against the church's plan to rebuild. Among other objections, they say the Baptists' singing disrupts the Narkis Street neighborhood and that their parked cars clog the streets. Pat Hoaldridge, acting chairman of Southern Baptist representatives in Israel, says the High Court's request for the church to move indicates the judges did not want to risk raising religious tensions further.

"You have to understand the climate in the country at this time," Hoaldridge says. "The rise of religious feelings regarding what the people would call missionary activity ... is playing a part in this case."

The High Court said it would not rule on the church's suit against the district planning commission for two months. The delay is designed to give the Narkis Street congregation and the Baptist Convention of Israel time to consider trading the church property for another site in Jerusalem.

Lawyers for the church have recommended that the Baptists move on the condition the church's building will be approved as submitted. At press time, the congregation had not made a decision."

Unquote.

Later, they chose to move.

Regarding my comment of one million Jews per month visiting brothels:  This article mentions it in regards to White slavery of women by Jews in Israel.  In 2001, the U.S. State Department placed Israel on a "blacklist," among countries that were failing to combat trafficking in women.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/sexisrael69690531.html

Here are some articles tracing Israel's standing with the US State Dept from 2001 to 2005 on trafficking women in some 3-400 brothels:

http://anti-slavery.tribe.net/thread/da9b6...b2-0c0f8e359a73

Prostitution is legal in Israel.

In regards to the Talmud allowing Jews to cheat Christians, let's begin with the penalty for murdering a Gentile:

A. Killing a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17): "He who kills any man shall surely be put to death."

The problem here is that a Gentile is not defined as a "man".  A Jew is a "man".  Therefore, anyone who kills a Jew shall surely be put to death. Leviticus does not apply to Gentiles.

It is also stated in Exodus 21:14: "But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die."

The problem here is that we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2:

"One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended] to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is] exempt."

This phrase states that if you intend to kill a Gentile, but instead kill a Jew, you are exempt from Exodus 21:14.  Murder of a Gentile is allowed.  Even the great Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a single halacha) agrees:

"One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is said: 'But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.' And it need not be said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile.

A "ger toshav" is a "resident alien", that is, one who lives in the Land of Israel under certain protections of the system, and is considered a righteous gentile.  There are two types of ger toshav. Those who agree to uphold the seven Noahide Laws and those who don't.  Both can be legally murdered by a Jew.  That it was okay for Jews to murder Gentiles led to the creation of "Murder Inc"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder,_Inc.

Of course, a ger toshav who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to death (Chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the Gemara (9a)).  Again, the great Maimonides agrees as he wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: "A ger toshav who killed a Jew without intent -- even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to death."

Although there is no punishment under Jewish law for murdering a Gentile, Jews are warned that, if they do, they could be judged by God.  That's it.  It ends there.  It is summed up in Yere'im paragraph 175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): "...and it is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: 'who murders his neighbor' -- the murder of one's neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a Gentile it is not called murder."

Here we see that it's okay to rob a Gentile:

This is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):

"...Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."

The Romans, when they discovered this law, ordered it be changed and this was carried out by Rabban Gamliel.

Since then, it has been argued that Gamliel was wrong to change the law. Thus it appears in Bava Metzia 111b:

"And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' -- and not a Gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is permitted."

The great Maimonides agrees that theft from a Gentile is forbidden as he wrote at the beginning of The Laws of Theft: "Anyone who steals property worth the value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not steal'... no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the money of a Gentile idolater..."

But until the Roman army arrived it was legal.

On keeping the lost property of a Gentile, the great Maimonides wrote in halacha 3 he wrote: "A lost item of a Gentile is permitted (to be kept)."  The return of the item is only acceptable if "one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d's name, in order that the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful people -- this is praiseworthy."  Otherwise, unless the Jew desecrated God's name, he may keep the property.

Now, on cheating a Gentile, there is some division.  Those who allow it include Rashi (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza). It is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion. The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won't cause a desecration of G-d's name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him in calculations or to raise his loan -- is permitted, but only if it will not become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no desecration of G-d's name."

The great Maimonides disagrees (I quote Maimonides because he was Ron's favorite source of information).  In any case, the entire essence of their dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile, for with regards to the cheating of a Jew, everything must be recompensed, as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: "Rava said: anything concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of minimal value, is also recompensed," and so wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.

But even Maimonides contradicts himself on cheating Gentiles for while he says you can't cheat them, you can defraud them (Evidently, a fine line of distinction).  Maimonides wrote in chapter 13, halacha 7: "A Gentile has not [been included in the transgression of] fraud as it says: 'one another' [literally, 'each his brother']. But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws..."

Tractate Bechorot 13b agrees: "They said: to your partner you return [something gained by] fraud, and you don't return it to a Gentile."

By unanimous agreement, it is okay to abduct and ransom a Gentile.

Also, by unanimous agreement, it is permitted to beat a Gentile.  However, for a Gentile to strike a Jew is punishable by death (Sanhedrin 58b).

This is only a partial list of what Jews are allowed to do to Gentiles.  If one chooses to believe that Jews do not read Maimonides then one chooses to put his head in the sand.  Although I, myself, have never been wronged by a Jew here in the US (and have nothing but good to say for them), there appears to be a difference in the thinking of an American Jew and an Israeli one.  It has been shown by CBS (in 60 Minutes) that in a random sample of one attorney's caseload, 700 Jewish juries in Israel decided, all 700 times, against Palestinian and Christian plaintiffs by applying these Jewish laws to them.

Americans are unaware of these things because they are not told.  Anyone with a brain can figure out why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Israel has not completed a written constitution. Its government is based on the laws of the Knesset, especially the "Basic Laws of Israel", which are special laws (currently there are 15 of them), by the Knesset legislature which will become the future official constitution. In mid-2003, the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee began drafting a full written Constitution to be proposed to the Knesset floor. This effort is still underway as of early 2006.

The declaration of the State of Israel has a significance in this matter as well. Israel's legal system is a western legal system best classified as "mixed": influenced by Anglo-American, Continental, and Jewish law principles.

As in Anglo-American law, the Israeli legal system is based on the principle of stare-decisis (precedent). It is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one, in the sense that the parties (for example, plaintiff and defendant) are the ones that bring the evidence before the court. The court does not conduct any independent investigation on the case.

As in Continental legal systems, the jury system was not adopted in Israel. Court cases are decided by professional judges.

As for Civil Law influences, several major Israeli statutes (such as the Contract Law) are based on Civil Law principles. Israeli statute body is not comprised of Codes, but of individual statutes. However, a Civil Code draft has been completed recently, and is planned to become a bill.

Religious tribunals (Jewish, Sharia'a, Druze and Christian) have exclusive jurisdiction on annulment of marriages.

From your favorite resource Wikipedia

Satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very enlightening.

This website that endorses Ha’aretz Daily and Al-Jazeera?

Alison Weir's writings (founder) can be found on DavidDuke.com and other white supremacist websites and, no doubt, on radical Islamic and radical liberal sites. I don't believe mainstream America supports their views.

If you're at all interested, here's a website that will explain the scriptures taken out of context and misquoted:

http://www.msnusers.com/Mishpocha/thetalmudpart1.msnw

Edited by way2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...