www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Persecution of Christians in Islam

Palestine

Egypt

Bosnia



This is going back to the topic of discrimination in Islamic countries.

Things like this do NOT happen in Israel.

Borisslav,

How do you know that it doesn't happen in Israel? And by the way, this video comes from CBN (700 club) and so it is of course going to be heavily biased by Pat Robertson's pro-Israel ideology. I'm not denying at all that Muslims in Palestine and other middle eastern countries persecute Christians; but this video complete ignores the historical persecution against Christians by Jews and how the dwindling population of Christians in Bethlehem is largely because of Israeli policies.

Joe

So, do you think that Israel should be wiped off the map?

I have relatives and friends who live in Israel. Both Jewish and Christian. As far as they are concerned they have not seen any animosity between Christians and Jews in the Holy land.

I don't know where you are getting this information about modern day Jewish Persecution of Christians, but I think you are being misled.

Double post

Borislav,

I don't think that Israel should be wiped off the map, even though I think that things would have turned out better had Palestine/Israel remained an international territory.

Joe

So the French can have a country, Russians can have a country, Arabs can have their countries, but the Jews do not deserve to have even a tiny corner on the map?

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. The Jews who came to Israel to resettle were mostly Europeans. Christ abolished the old covenant by establishing the New and more perfect covenant in His blood. That is why Jesus himself predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. That was the sign that the new and final covenant people (the Church) had arrived and that national Israel was no more. So, it isn't their land. The Palestinians living on that land have been there for thousands of years. The Europeans who came in simply pushed them out and took over.

Joe

Tell that to the 6 million Jews, MANY of them Christians killed by Hitler.


Wrong, Jesus came to complete the imperfect OT, not abolish it.

That is a non sequitor.

Are you than denying the fact that the Jewish people or at least many of them are descenders of the tribes of Israel spoken about in the OT.

Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin.

If you are not denying this how is it that you claim that they are not a real ethnicity.


It is? According to whom?

Many of them are, just as Arabs are. The only thing that would distinguish true semitic Jews from Arabs would be their religion. However, because of centuries of intermarriage, converts to Judaism, etc. who can really trace their family line back to the twelve tribes (and 10 of the tribes are lost forever by the way)?

Joe

So you would deny the people that are ethnically Jewish(even part Jewish) their identity? Is this really fair?

If you haven't figured out yet, I am part Jewish btw.

20+ of my family were wiped out by the Nazis in the Ukraine including small children.

In the USSR, where I was born the 5th Row in your passport said Nationality. If one had a Jewish Father the 5th Row said JEW.

Why are people from the Ukraine that happen to be Jewish called Ukrainian Jews? Why are Jews from Russia, called Russian Jews? Why are members of the Messianic movement in Israel called Messianic Jews?

Also please point out where in the NT, the Lord said He was here to abolish the OT?

Any Mormon will tell you that the 10 Tribes weren't lost.

They came to America!

I read an Essay about the Khazars and their adoption of Judaism.

I think this explains why Jerry Seinfeld has blue eyes.

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html

Ahh... Khazars!

Very interesting story indeed!

There are DNA markers that have been found, especially for the priestly tribes (the Cohens, etc.) where miticondrial DNA shows a higher percentage of such families have a particular set of "genes(?)" than other Jews. Non-Jews, apparently, show little or no correlation with these markers.

A team went to Zimbabwe where there are some African peoples who claim to be Jewish (and that they were converted by Jewish merchants during the OT period). Sure enough, they found the "priestly family" markers. The blood collection was done in Zimbabwe, but the DNA analysis was done in a blind analysis in Europe.

So the Jews have maintained a great deal of ethnic homogeneity to judge by the DNA!

Borislav:

I suspect Joe is thinking of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in Chapter 10, states,

1: For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.
2: Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin.
3: But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
4: For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
5: Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me;
6: in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
7: Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book."
8: When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law),
9: then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.

Ryan

I do not think that this is an abolishment of the OT.

The Christ said numerous times that He did not come to destroy or abolish the old, but rather to add to it.

Pakistan

Borislav:

It seems to me that the claim that Joe is making has to do with the mediation of the covenant. Prior to Christ, the covenant was mediated by the Aaronic priesthood, using the blood of "goats and bulls." Since the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the covenant is mediated by Christ, using his own blood. The mediation of the covenant by the Aaronic priesthood was limited in that it was only for the benefit of Israel. Christ has replaced the offering of the blood of "goats and bulls" for the sins of the people of Israel with the offering of his own blood, which is for the benefit of all who believe, be they of Israel or not. It seems to me that this is pretty basic stuff for anyone who takes seriously the Epistle to the Hebrews and other NT texts that demonstrate that is no longer by physical descent from Abraham that one is deemed a member of the people of God, but by faith in Christ. Do you deny this?

Ryan

Absolutely not. I do not deny this, but I don't see how this means that Israel should not exist.

I am not saying that the Holy Scriptures guarantee the Jews a country, but neither do the scriptures speak of America, France, England, Russia, Poland etc... Yet all these countries exist with predominantly ethnic populations.

It doesn't mean that Israel should not exist, but who here is saying that it means Israel should not exist? Also, Israel maintains that it has a right to exist perpetually as a majority Jewish population. The Jews in Israel have very low birth rates as compared to Arabs, be they Muslim or Christian. Furthermore, Judaism does very little to seek converts, while seeking to convert other peoples is a strong part of both the Christian and Islamic traditions. What if the modern nation of Israel, which I do not identify with the Israel of Holy Scripture, through a combination of Christian and Muslim proseletyzing and higher birth rates, ceases to be majority Jewish? Do they then have the right to persecute, expel, or kill Christians and Muslims to maintain their Jewish majority? I certainly hope not. It is decreasingly the case that the USA is a majority of one ethnic group, and depending on how you define ethnicity, it no longer is a majority of any one ethnic group. While there are a few lunatics who proclaim that white Americans need either to destroy or disenfranchise those who are not white so that the USA will retain forever its white identity, they are rightly exposed exactly as lunatics. Modern Jews, whether they live in Israel or elsewhere, should have the right to practice their faith and keep their customs, and do so without fear. However, I reject the notion that they are entitled to maintain the modern state of Israel perpetually as a majority Jewish nation. Such an ideology ultimately tramples on the freedoms of others, in my opinion.

Ryan

I really don't think there is any indication of Jews threatening to kill Muslims and Christians to maintain a Jewish majority.

I don't really know how you came up with this, but its ridiculous.

Where in any post do I say that Jews should kill Arabs?

The PLO terrorist state wants to destroy Israel, wipe it of the map. Kill every Jew in the country.


Do you not understand this?

Why do you think Arafat rejected a proposal that would put half of Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims. It is simple. The Islamists do not want to co-exists. They want to destroy Israel.


Yes Israel does trample on the freedoms of Palestinians, their freedom to kill Jews.

Borislav:

I'm really sick of the way you selectively take out a few words of the posts of those who dare to disagree with you, and then distort them. I did not specifically say that Jews in Israel are threatening to kill Muslims and Christians. This is what I wrote:

"Israel maintains that it has a right to exist perpetually as a majority Jewish population. The Jews in Israel have very low birth rates as compared to Arabs, be they Muslim or Christian. Furthermore, Judaism does very little to seek converts, while seeking to convert other peoples is a strong part of both the Christian and Islamic traditions. What if the modern nation of Israel, which I do not identify with the Israel of Holy Scripture, through a combination of Christian and Muslim proseletyzing and higher birth rates, ceases to be majority Jewish? Do they then have the right to persecute, expel, or kill Christians and Muslims to maintain their Jewish majority?"

The fact is, there are many Jews who insist that Israel has the right to remain perpetually majority Jewish. I know that there are Jews who insist on this, because I have had some of them tell me this to my face. Due to the very low rate of birth of Jews in Israel compared to the Arabs in Israel, Jews cannot perpetually remain the majority except through either persecuting, expelling, or killing those who are not Jews. I wrote this to point out the logical outcome of the position that Israel must remain majority Jewish: they must either deny citizenship to non-Jews, which is religious persecution, expel them, or kill them.

Also, nowhere did I accuse you of saying that Jews should kill Arabs. Your methods of arguing are dishonest and dishonorable. You continually twist the words of those who disagree with you. If you cannot make your case without bridling your passions, continually resorting to attacking the character of those who are so bold as to disagree with you, and making absurd accusations, then perhaps you should refrain from posting.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Aren't there a few Greek Orthodox martyrs who were killed by fanatical Zionists?

Ryan,

First of all, you DID suggest that Jews may be inclined to kill Christians and Muslims to maintain a majority. If not, why did you say it in your post?

Secondly, since your post was in reply to mine, and you made your statement in the form of a question I presumed you were addressing me in your post. Since I did not make any statement about Jews planning to kill Christians and Muslims, i replied that the point you are making is ridiculous. I firmly stand by that statement. I think the point you made is not well thought out, has nothing to do with this discussion, is completely out of place and can be considered offensive.

You said that I "continually twist the words of those who disagree with you."

Please show me one instance where I have done this. Otherwise, refrain from making such accusations.

You also said that I post "without bridling your passions", while your whole post is filled with anger. You started your post with <I am really sick of> A bit hypocritical don't you think?

You went on to say that I "resorting to attacking the character of those who are so bold as to disagree with you", which is also untrue. I have never attacked the character of anybody on this forum, while you implied that I was dishonest and DISHONORABLE.

Than you went on to order me to "refrain from posting."


Ryan, if you are "really sick" of the way I post, you should stop reading my posts. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you read. There is also an invaluable tool on this forum that is called <IGNORE USER>. I suggest you take full advantage of this tool.

From now on I will not be replying to you. I think you have a personal dislike for me, which is why you stalk every thread that I write constantly making disparaging comments that have nothing to do with the given discussion or argument.

If you continue to stalk my threads and make such posts I will place you on the ignored users list.

Borislav:

I suggest that you reread some of your posts in reply to me, to those of Joe, as well as to those of other posters who have disagreed with your judgments, particularly on threads of a political nature. If you cannot see how you have twisted the words of others to suit your own arguments, as well as resorted to attacking the character of other posters, then I think you and I are living in totally different worlds with respect to perception of the truth and reality. You are correct, nobody is holding a gun to my head and making me read your posts. On the other hand, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spew the hatred and contempt that you so often direct towards those who are so bold as to disagree with you. Do you deny me and others the right to have an opinion different than your own? Or did we miss your elevation to Supreme Arbiter of Truth and Goodness? If you wish to refrain from further replies to my posts, that is fine. However, I will not cease to oppose the contempt and hatredyou continually show towards me and others who are so bold as to disagree with you.

Ryan

Please stop, you are making yourself look worse and worse with every post.

While I have certainly disagreed with Joe, I don't have any animosity towards Him. We all get passionate about our political and religious beliefs.

Borislav:

Again, I ask you, are you the only one who is allowed to have an opinion? You convict yourself with your own words. This post is just another example of the contempt you show towards those who disagree with you. I have no problem with the fact that you disagree with me about Israel, about who should be the President, etc., etc. After all, whenever you and I take positions that contradict each other, we cannot possibly both be right, so it may be the case that for any given instance in which I disagree with you, that I am the one who is wrong. Do you ever consider that you might be the one who is wrong? Your replies to me and others who disagree with me suggest to me that you do not. Hence, the question about Supreme Arbiter of Truth and Goodness.

Ryan

Ahem actually, I pretty much stuck with your words in my last post, thus I have convicted myself with your own words.

Now to answer your question. Of course I consider that I may be wrong sometimes, however I strongly believe that I am right, which is why I make statements on an internet forum.
Obviously you think you are right to, which is why you make your statements.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe its a meter of miscommunication. So here goes.

If, with my posts that are as you say and I will agree are VERY passionate, I offended you in any way. I would like to apologize.

I feel rather strongly about some issues, and I let it be known. This does not mean that I do not respect other peoples point of view. An argument to me is a process by which I use evidence to try and prove my point to the best of my ability. Please don't get offended at my posts. I do not mean personal disrespect to you, or anyone else on the forum.

Again, sorry if i offended you.

I am more than certain that had we been talking face to face we would have had a perfectly civil discussion.

Borislav:

Thank you for clarifying that you did not intend any personal disrespect to me or anyone else. I will take that statement at face value, and assume that you are being honest, since your typical straightforwardness (is that a real word?) with your feelings gives me no reason not to believe you. On the other hand, please understand that when one resorts to the use of adjectives like "ridiculous" to characterize opposing opinions as frequently as you do, it's not an unreasonable leap for others to conclude that you have no respect for their positions. Use of such characterizations frequently enough will soon have people concluding that your attacks are bordering on a personal nature, just as you made that assumption about me in a recent post in which you stated that you think I personally dislike you. If we actually personally knew each other, we might dislike each other; on the other hand, we might become the best of friends. I have many friends who are just as far away from me politically as you are. Political differences are inevitable-it is not inevitable that they cause people to despise each other. I would also add that I understand your passion for the positions you take-even though my own position is often different. I feel very strongly about my moral and political judgments as well. Also, I understand the temptation to "let loose," so to speak, when advocating for what you are convinced is the truth. I encourage you to continue to speak out for what you believe to be true-regardless of whether I (or anyone else on this Forum for that matter) agree with you or not. I believe that it is better for us to hear a broad range of perspectives and not continually seek the comfort of only those who parrot our own views. I simply suggest that you consider modifying your approach to dealing with those whose views are contrary to your own. I would never ask that you violate your own conscience by keeping silent when you believe that the truth is at stake.


I also apologize for any offense I have caused in my posts. Please forgive me.

In peace,

Ryan

Thanks Ryan.

You do have a point. I should limit the use of the word "ridiculous". I did not mean to say that you or anybody else is ridiculous. I was employing the word to illustrate that I feel strongly opposed to one or another comment.

And you're right. I am very straight forward. I say what I think, and think what I say.

I know this is going to sound like I am making excuses, which by the way I totally am , but sometimes because English is my third language I do not feel the strength of certain words...

Don't know if that makes any sense.

For what it's worth, I think you're quite competent in your use of the written English language.

Ryan

It's nice to see everybody kiss and make up.

I've noticed that many of us have been doing that lately!

Awww, Dr. Eric, would you like a hug to?



On a more serious note, it is the ability to take a step back, realize that you may be wrong and offer a sincere apology that separates Christians from other peoples! This is why I am so proud of being a Christian, and this is why I am proud of having such wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ.

Dear Ryan,

There is a problem here. If the majority of people within the Jewish state of Israel become Muslim, as the Muslims so desire, then it definitely will cease to be a Jewish state.

Now with that will come everything else. The holiday will not be Saturday, but (I believe), Friday. Sharia law will probably be imposed, and so on and so forth. A nation cannot become Muslim and yet retain any character other than Muslim.

So, going back in history, the only purpose of establishing a Jewish state was so that when the Jews are persecuted, they will have a nation to go to. Now as a Greek, I know that whenever Greeks were persecuted and ethnically cleansed either in Asia Minor, Egypt and later on those wanting to leave communism, they had a land to go to....thanks to the Greek war of independance. Because of this, anyone with a Greek last name, can freely immigrate to Greece. If the Jews do not have that homeland where will they go?


Dear Joe,

By the same account, the Greeks, (or Eastern Romans), lived in Asia Minor for thousands of years. Why not return that land back to Greece? What about the Armenians?

What I'm trying to say is that the same argument could be used for probably one third of the world. Why do the Palestinians in that case, need special treatment?

See the difference is that all these nations, were willing to take their own people in and help them become established. The Arabs are not willing to do so, because once land becomes Muslim, it must always be Muslim. The people must be sacrificed in order to retain the land. It is considered their 'fate'.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Sure, my Orthodox Doppelgaenger!

But, I guess if I'm truly going to be your Doppelgaenger, I'd better become a Subdeacon too!

Zenovia

You have some very good points. There is no doubt that the experience of the holocaust made the idea of establishing a modern Jewish homeland plausible. This is something for me to think about and I do understand what both you and Borislav are saying about the holocaust and the need for some kind of international response.

I do think, by the way, that we cannot go back and change the past. So, the modern nation of Israel is here to stay and we should not demonize either party in this middle eastern dispute. Crimes have been committed on all sides. But, our media and government is so one-sidedly pro Israel that the legitimate concerns of Palestinians are often overlooked.

Joe

What sounds better:

The Reverend Doctor Subdeacon Eric

The Reverend Subdeacon Doctor Eric

or The reverend Eric, Doctor of Subdeacons?

I think the first one is actually the correct one.

The Reverend Doctor Eric Garrison sounds like the Archbishop of Canturbury though!

Wait a minute...

Are you saying you're the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Different people have been trying to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth for over 2000 years. Why that seems acceptable has always baffled me. But there you have it.

For those who insist that Jews aren't real Jews because they believe that somehow the New Covenant has caused an end to their legitimate existence must contend with two problems. First, Jesus did not come to end their existence. He even said so on several occasions. Second, the Qur'an gives justification for the inferior treatment and eventual elimination of both Jews and Christians. Why doesn't the Qur'anic claim supersede the Christian claim if as you say Christianity ought to eliminate Judaism?

CDL

Unfortunately in the deluded minds of over a billion followers of the black Rock in Mecca, the Qur'anic claims do supersede Christians and Jewish claims and according to a poll which everybody and their mom has been raving about this past week 27% percent of young Muslims in America support suicide bombings to "protect their religion". In the light of the Mohammad cartoon riots, the killing of nuns and torching of Churches status post the comments made by the Pope we all have a good idea what they mean by "protecting their religion". Ofcourse I really don't unerstand what everybody is so surprised about. People need to read the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and they'll know all they need to know about Islam. It's baffeling to me that we are at war with an enemy that we as a nation know nothing about. I mean, the Qu'ran is not secret or anything. Heck, its available on the Internet for all to read.

Also this notion that we are at war with Terrorism is absolutely and completely ridiculous. Terrorism is a T A C T I C, employed by an enemy to accomplish a goal. Saying that we have a war on Terrorism is like saying that during the WWII there was a war on BLITZKRIEG. Blitzkrieg = tactic. Terrorism = tactic.
We are at war with Islamic Extremists, and since I believe that REAL Islam is EXTREME, I believe we are at war with Islam.

But wait... I can't say that... It isn't politically correct.

Borislav, now there is one claim that I wholeheartedly agree with. There is no war on terror. There is a war on certain groups of Islamicist terrorists. And, in fact, we should demand that our politicians speak this way, because a nebulous "War on Terror" with an anonymous enemy is easily a justification for never ending war and unlimited extension of state power.

Joe

Joe, unfortunately an all out war on Islam or as you say the Extreme Element of Islam which amounts to millions upon millions of black rock worshipers will be more expensive, more deadly and possibly longer than the current war we are in, but if we are to win, or even to fight this war we have to identify who the enemy is without hiding behind PC slogans and some kind of idea of Utopian multiculturalism which has become the new deity of Liberals and Secular Progressives all over our country.

The king of Poland stopped Islamic Jihadists at the gates of Vienna , and he did it in the name of the Lord. This was clearly a defensive effort, so it can not be qualified as a Holy war or offensive Crusade. This is the kind of effort we are going to have to have, and have it we will... eventually.... or we and our children will end up living in a brand new wonderful world of Sharia Law.

Dear Joe,

The Israelis are not Americans, and many do treat the Palestinians in a way that we would consider harsh. The Palestinians suffer severe economic deprivation. If the Palestinians would accept Israel as a state, and stop the suicide bombings, then these things could be dealt with. As the situation is now, we cannot do anything.


Dear CDL,

The Jews are a culture living within another culture. Basing their actions on the persecutions of their own past experiences within the society they live in, they would end up becoming a greater threat to them.

As an example, whenever there were wars, and nations were trying justly or unjustly to establish their own borders, the Jews had no allegiance to either side...and in a way, I should say rightly so. So both sides ended up perceiving them as a threat to their nation. Because of this past history of the Jews, when they started becoming involved politically in the nations they were situated in, they would try to change the established order leading to retaliation with the growth of Fascism, and worse, Nazism.

This happened in Russia, and almost happened in other nations in Europe. Although all Jews were not communists, most communists were Jews. They were probably blamed for the assasinations of the Czar, and who knows who else...leading of course to more persecutions of the Jews. The evils and blame of communism, and it's desire to eliminate nationalism and establish a one world government, were then thrown on the Jews.

To make things worse, the Jews have many different ideologies, causing friction among themselves, and making them vulnerable to those that fear them. Today there are Jews that believe Israel should not exist. How quickly they forget history.

God Bless,

Zenovia

No, but Reverend Doctor sounds like a title that an Anglican would use.

Dear CDL,

I realize, after reading my post that I didn't make myself very clear. So I think I better re-write what I said.


What I mean is that the Jews, because they were Jewish, were always different from the Christian society they were living in. They would always reacte to situations according to their own past experiences and persecutions. By doing that, they would become a threat to the others.


As an example, whenever there were wars between two neighboring countries or people, the Jews would have no allegiance to either side...and in a way, I should say rightly so since their sympathies were towards their fellow Jews and relatives living within the other's borders.

Later on when the Jews started becoming politically involved in the governments of the nations they were living in, they would perceive things in a way that was detrimental to the 'nationalism' that caused them so much sorrow. By thinking that way, they became a threat to whatever nation they lived in because they opposed the established order.

Since communism had taken over Russia, and was rampant in Europe, and most of the communists were Jews, the rise of the nationalist party in Germany automatically became the enemy of the Jews.

It seems no matter what the Jews did, it always worked against them. Zionism, which started in Eastern Europe because of the persecutions, was used by England in WW I to sway the German Jews from fighting for Germany. The English planes would drop pamphlets on the armies, telling the German Jews that England was their friend, and would give them Palestine. This caused Hitler, and many Germans that were suffering during the depression, to see the Jews as having stabbed Germany in the back.

Considering the past history of the Jews in Europe, and everything they went through, I'm astounded when I hear liberal Jews saying how Israel is not really needed, and that maybe it shouldn't be a Jewish state.

God Bless,

Zenovia