Israel and evangelical Americans. Match made in Heaven?

[Sahkuhnder]

But they're the ones messing it up! That's not an opinion, that's what's happening. So how is that wrong of me to point out the obvious?

Because it's not obvious? So how many apartheid-like race-based jewish laws would you like me to quote?

Laws that penalize people based on skin color, national orgin or religion are the cause of a great many of the problems as they only encourage the separations and continue to promote the age-old hatreds.



My earlier comment on this:

Does anyone see the insanity of this type of 'group guilt' thinking? What ever happened to punishing individuals that break the law and not punishing whole groups due to the actions of specific individuals from that group?

People are being persecuted. Do you just expect the 'other' ethnic and religious groups to just 'know their place' and not object to such treatment?

Would you object if christians were restricted based on their religious beliefs? Then why is it O.K. to do so to a muslim individual that has never committed a crime in their lives?

 

[Homie]

People are being persecuted. Do you just expect the 'other' ethnic and religious groups to just 'know their place' and not object to such treatment?

Would you object if christians were restricted based on their religious beliefs? Then why is it O.K. to do so to a muslim individual that has never committed a crime in their lives?

Wow, wow, wow! Back up a second, this is the first I've heard of this. What laws, what persecution, what restrictions on faith? Israel (unlike other ME nations) are a democratic, western-like nation, with laws, court system and political system similar to ours. So what are you talking about? Usually in debates like these, I have heard all the arguments before, have these claims you make completely alluded me all this time?

 

[blackheart]

Finally, you recognize that it is not the same as a cult. I really don't like when people throw around words and use them incorrectly, it makes communication, and debating especially, difficult.

So you may call them (us) bigots, evil or whatever you like, that is fine. Of course we are none of those things, but at least your not using words incorrectly.

Some of the evangelists are bigots, this is fact. But really, there's only a technical difference between my description and a cult.

1. Politically: To help free the Eastern lands from the Muslim invaders, after several calls for help from the cities in the region. Only Byzantium was left, and they were afraid they would soon fall too, so they begged the Christians of Europe for help.
2. Religiously: To help out Christian brethren in distress, as taught in The Bible. Furthermore, to re-conquer the Holy Lands containing pilgrimage sites and old churches.
3. Militarily: To stifle a growing world power, one that had already reached far into Europe, all the way to southern France.

None of these are justification for killing every Muslim, Jew, and some Orthodox in Jerusalem.

And the last drop, so to speak, that sparked the first Crusade, was that the muslim ruler of Jerusalem at the time brutishly killed the Christians and Jews of Jerusalem and destroyed the Holy Sepulchre, an old church built over the place where Jesus was crucified - the most important event in history.

I disagree. While this probably did anger a lot of people, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was an insane guy to begin with. However, the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre didn't spark the first Crusade, considering it was destroyed in 1009 and the Council of Clermont was issued in 1095. So what happened in the 80 something years inbetween?

 

[Homie]

I disagree. While this probably did anger a lot of people, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was an insane guy to begin with. However, the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre didn't spark the first Crusade, considering it was destroyed in 1009 and the Council of Clermont was issued in 1095. So what happened in the 80 something years inbetween?

point taken. I got that point from a rather large history book on the Crusades, but historians are people too, they make mistakes in their work. So maybe it wasn't the last drop, big it certainly was a big drop though

But I seriously don't see how you can have that double standard that the muslims can do massacres and its A-OK, but when the CHristians do 1 they are ever so guilty and will be forever held to it as an example that Christian history is just as full of atrocities as the muslim.(and it was a response to a recent massacre on a Christian city by muslims I might add)

1. Politically: To help free the Eastern lands from the Muslim invaders, after several calls for help from the cities in the region. Only Byzantium was left, and they were afraid they would soon fall too, so they begged the Christians of Europe for help.
2. Religiously: To help out Christian brethren in distress, as taught in The Bible. Furthermore, to re-conquer the Holy Lands containing pilgrimage sites and old churches.
3. Militarily: To stifle a growing world power, one that had already reached far into Europe, all the way to southern France.

None of these are justification for killing every Muslim, Jew, and some Orthodox in Jerusalem.

But it doesn't show you that its not as black and white as you would have it?
The Crusades are often used as "evidence" of a bad doings for Christianity, but clearly they had reasons to carry out the Crusade, and clearly the muslims weren't the peaceful lambs who were victimized during the Crusades, like they are made out to be.

 

[YNCS]

If Evangelicals aren't a cult, or a group of closely related cults, then nobody is a cultist.

Mainstream Christians tend to take the attitude that if one honestly believes that Christ is the savior and one honestly tries to live a good life, one will be saved. Evangelicals take the attitude "if you don't believe exactly the way we think you should believe, you're going to Hell!"

Mainstream Christians tend to take the attitude that Church and state should be separate. Evangelicals want to establish an Evangelical theocracy.

Evangelicals try to fit reality to match their beliefs. Only an Evangelical or other fundamentalist would claim that Genesis is literally true and that 150+ years of science is false.

Sorry, Homie, but instead of crying that Evangelicals aren't cultists, you're going to have to prove it. You've got your work cut out trying to do that.

Wow, this is the most laughable post ever. You totally didn't get what I was saying in my post to Neomega about the word cult. OK, I'll spell it out for you:
Just because you don't like a certain group does not make them a cult. So, even if your accusations against evangelicals were true, that would not make them a cult. There are many definitions for the word cult, but "I don't like them" is not one of them. He was purposely using the word cult to set evangelicals in a bad light, and I object to that.

You're right, I don't like Evangelicals. However, it's not my likes or dislikes that makes Evangelicals a cult. I notice that you didn't even attempt to counter any of my arguments about the cult of Evangelicalism. I can only suppose that's because you don't have any arguments, so instead you went with ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Homie]

You're right, I don't like Evangelicals. However, it's not my likes or dislikes that makes Evangelicals a cult. I notice that you didn't even attempt to counter any of my arguments about the cult of Evangelicalism. I can only suppose that's because you don't have any arguments, so instead you went with ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

GEESH!

Could somebody please explain to him what I'm saying as I'm obviously not getting through here. Blackheart or SAkhunder, I know you guys are against me, but at least you understand what I'm saying conserning cult, could you please give it a shot?

 

[Homie]

OK, I'll try again. I did not try to counter your arguments for 2 reasons:
1. They have nothing to do with what defines a cult, they are not arguments for why evangelicals can be considered a cult.
2. They are simply attacks on evangelicals, with which you are obviously trying to provoke me.


Comprende?

 

[YNCS]

In other words, you don't have any counters for my arguments and, somehow, it's my fault that you don't.

 

[blackheart]

But I seriously don't see how you can have that double standard that the muslims can do massacres and its A-OK, but when the CHristians do 1 they are ever so guilty and will be forever held to it as an example that Christian history is just as full of atrocities as the muslim.(and it was a response to a recent massacre on a Christian city by muslims I might add)

I never said it was OK when either party does it. I did say that it IS an example of Christians committing atrocities. But yes, go ahead and revert back to the "eye for an eye" reasoning.

But it doesn't show you that its not as black and white as you would have it?
The Crusades are often used as "evidence" of a bad doings for Christianity, but clearly they had reasons to carry out the Crusade, and clearly the muslims weren't the peaceful lambs who were victimized during the Crusades, like they are made out to be.

Homie, people here aren't the naive types you believe them to be. Believe it or not, I know some bits of history and I know the causes of the Crusades. No one made the Muslims out to be victimized lambs, well save for you. Regardless, the Crusades ARE evidence of the capabilities of Christendom's misdoings.

Could somebody please explain to him what I'm saying as I'm obviously not getting through here. Blackheart or SAkhunder, I know you guys are against me, but at least you understand what I'm saying conserning cult, could you please give it a shot?

Heres me a few posts back: "But really, there's only a technical difference between my description and a cult."

 

[Homie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definitions_of_.22cult.22

Read the whole thing, then get back to me.

 

[YNCS]

Okay, I read it. I particularly noticed one point:

Understandably, most, if not all, groups that are called "cults" deny this label. It has been argued that no one yet has been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to identify only groups that have been claimed as problematic.

This, essentially, is your argument. You don't like Evangelicalism being called a cult, so, ipso facto, Evangelicalism isn't a cult.

Here's another quote from the article you linked to:

The literal and traditional meanings of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same"

Under this definition, any religious group can be called a cult.

Finally, there's one more quote from the article you might want to consider:

Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed.

 

[Homie]

Good, now that you have a broader understanding, maybe I can get through.
For one, if one uses the traditional definition:
"The literal and traditional meanings of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same"
Then pretty much every religious and political ideaology group can be considered a cult, so what's the point of addressing the label of cult to evangelicals? The point was to put evangelicals in a bad light, because people have bad connotations with the word cult. They think of some small group of people, maybe a few hundred, living on a compound of course with either an insane or greedy leader requiring them to either give him all their money, have sex with him or commit mass suicide in some ritual. This is the connotations people have with "cults", and none of them adhere to evangelicals at large, so it would be an incorrect and insulting way of using the word.

Are we clear now?

And after reading the article do you see how your "arguments" have nothing to do with defining a cult?

Further explanation:

Quote:
Understandably, most, if not all, groups that are called "cults" deny this label. It has been argued that no one yet has been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to identify only groups that have been claimed as problematic.
This, essentially, is your argument. You don't like Evangelicalism being called a cult, so, ipso facto, Evangelicalism isn't a cult.

Why do they deny it? Because it is used derogatively and has bad connotations. And your logic is flawed, just because I deny it being a cult doesn't make it one. By that logic I could accuse any organization of being a cult, and if they denied it I could say:" See, they deny they are a cult, and all cults deny they are cults, therefore they MUST be a cult!"

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Wow, wow, wow! Back up a second, this is the first I've heard of this. What laws, what persecution, what restrictions on faith? Israel (unlike other ME nations) are a democratic, western-like nation, with laws, court system and political system similar to ours. So what are you talking about? Usually in debates like these, I have heard all the arguments before, have these claims you make completely alluded me all this time?

You really don't know this?

Israel differentiates between Jewish-Israeli and Arab-Israeli and has different rules for Palestinians. One of the most famous is that Palestinians who marry Israelis for example are prohibited from becoming Israeli citizens or residents.

Judge Mishael Cheshin, who voted to uphold the law, said it was impossible to grant the same rights to Palestinians as anyone else as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued.

Link.

Leaders of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party, however, said the intention was demographic, to restrict the number of Arab citizens inside Israel and preserve the state's Jewish character.

Link.

The government also often specifically regulates where you can live based on similar criteria.

I'd like to be clear I'm not meaning to sound harsh on Israel as they see this as necessary for their continued survival in a very rough part of the world. I do mention it as an example of what happens when you let ethnicity and religion be your defining principals instead of simply admitting we are all human beings and get along better together when we live and let live. Ethnicity and religion foster divisions and lead to many of the world's longest running hatreds and worst atrocities.

 

[Homie]

I'll reply later, I really need to get to bed.

 

[YNCS]

...

Why do they deny it? Because it is used derogatively and has bad connotations. And your logic is flawed, just because I deny it being a cult doesn't make it one. By that logic I could accuse any organization of being a cult, and if they denied it I could say:" See, they deny they are a cult, and all cults deny they are cults, therefore they MUST be a cult!"

I haven't said this or anything like it. I just commented that YOUR only argument against Evangelicalism being a cult is that you don't like Evangelicalism being labeled a cult.

My arguments that Evangelicalism is a cult are (for the third time):

1. Mainstream Christians tend to take the attitude that if one honestly believes that Christ is the savior and one honestly tries to live a good life, one will be saved. Evangelicals take the attitude "if you don't believe exactly the way we think you should believe, you're going to Hell!"

2. Mainstream Christians tend to take the attitude that Church and state should be separate. Evangelicals want to establish an Evangelical theocracy.

3. Evangelicals try to fit reality to match their beliefs. Only an Evangelical or other fundamentalist would claim that Genesis is literally true and that 150+ years of science is false.

If you would like to counter my arguments, I'll be more than willing to discuss the matter further. If you just continue whining "Evangelicalism isn't a cult, you're a big meanie for calling us cultists" then I won't bother to reply. See, I've given you an easy way to get out of this discussion.

 

[Neomega]

Neomega, I believe you portrayed an incorrect picture of the typical evangelical Christian. And please don't use the word cult when describing evangelicals,

I was raised in a cult, called Christ Gospel Churches, International. And don't believe that little thing about "leaving whenever you want" on their webpage either. It was a super tight knit family, that all had to dress like it was 1835, could not watch TV, could not read books, and for major life decisions, had to write in to Jeffersonville, Indiana, (headquarters) to get "the message".

Want to buy a car, ask what God thinks, via the reverend B.R. Hicks. Want to move, ask what God thinks, via Rev B.R. Hicks

we all know you use it because it creates negative associates and people think of a crazy group of people who commit mass suicides at fullmoon or something,

Shows what you know, huh?

and you know that is not what we are. Pretty sleezy to try to influence ignorant people who might not know what evangelicals are into thinking of us that way.

read above, and then re-read what I said originally, I didn't call evangelicals a cult.

Not all evangelicals are Americans. Secondly, I don't even know if this is true, do you mean any president or just the current. If you mean just the current president then that is a very temporary definition of evangelicals, as the president changes every 4-8 years.

I have no clue WTH you are talking about.

Well, its in the Bible, so can you blame them? Furthermore, I think its very unselfish to acknowledge that a people you are not a part of are God's chosen ones. That being said, very many (probably most) evangelicals believe that todays "spiritual" Israelites are the Christian church, that after Jesus, the Israelites are the Christians, not by blood, by because of Jesus. You can find the Biblical basis for this in Romans.

Wow, so really, "true" Christians are Gods chosen people, and not those hell-bound Jews... how convenient. Once again, when the Bible needs to be figurative, it falls in the good for evangelical side, but when it needs to be literal... bad for gays and evolution.

Well duh! If I believed Buddhism was right, why would I be a Christian, I'd be a buddhist. Is it a crime to think someone else's religious or political views are wrong? In that case, we are all criminals.

Not everybody else says you are going to hell, and must be saved from it, if you worship differently. That is what fundamentalist Muslims and Christians believe.

and their followers are going to hell if they are not told the gospel, as well as just about anyone else of any other faith, except Protestantism, (including Mormons, Jehovah Witness, some even think this way about Catholics

Hey, its what the Bible says, roughly. I'm not jumping up and down out of joy for it.

Hey, I don't care what the Bible says, I think it's downright evil to say those who do not think like you are going to hell. I'm not jumping up and down so many people think they are so morally superior and spiritually educated either.

If its any consolation Neomega, I sincerely hope you come to faith and are saved, honestly.

Thanks, I sincerely hope you learn to Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

I hope you learn that Christ ony had one commandment, and it was to love one another, that your joy may be whole.








BTW, after our the kitsap county branch of Christ Gospel Church dissolved, my mom then began to go to a "power of faith" church, real creepy televangelist type, where they constantly taught that if you had faith, God would give you what you asked for. Then they would pray for new cars and stuff, I kid you not.

Well, my mom didn't like that, so she started going to a smaller, evangelical church... not a cult, but evangelical... just fundamentalist.

 

[HannibalBarka]

And how does that get anybody killed? A harmless belief in my opinion. So how could you possibly compare that to Fundamentalist (true) Islam, which results in death?

It has to do in the sense that fundamuntalism makes some one believe the unbelievable, makes him "blind".

And seriously people, stop using the Crusades as some sort of excuse for muslim violence or as example for the equality in the religions' grusomeness.

Why not using it? are you ashamed about it? is it like a taboo?
And we don't use it as an excuse for muslim violence, but to show that fundamuntaism, be it islamic, christian, jewish, hindu or whatever is the problem.

1. Because you cannot use something that happened 700 years ago as an excuse for specific acts of violence by muslims today.
2. If you really don't know what happened before and during the Crusades, dono't use it as an example. And the fact that it gets used as an example for Christian atrocities, carnage and unjustifiable pointless violence shows that people don't really know what went down at all.

1. it is a little bit older than that. and again it is not an excuse
2. I do know what happened before, during and after the Crusades. Do you? are you trying to give us "justifable reasons" for those atrocities?

 

[Sidhe]

I once pointed out that Jerusalem was taken and the entire populace of men women and children were killed by the crusaders, the streets in some cases literally ran red with blood. Also starving nights roasted and ate people on pikes, I know precisely what happened it was gruesome often treacherous and barbaric in the main. If you want me to prove it I'll dig out like I did the last time, the crusades were a massive waste of human life which didn't even achieve any of it's goals, the main one was to stem the influx of Muslims and there influence in Europe, we want to forget it because it's an embarassement to right thinking Christians everywhere, although I'm not a Christian. Best philosophy, own up move on. We learnt our lesson though, or I think we did 'til el supremo ****** came along and decried religous intolerance and in the same breath bandied about the word crusade. Again religous intolerance is only ok if you worship the same god Idiot.

Fundementalists are not dangerous until they get politicised, same with Christian fundementalists funnily enough although it's a different kind of danger, there is already a certain amount of brainwashing involved in fundamentalists belief but it does take years to program someone to put aside there religion for what they believe is an eternal seat at God's right hand: oddly Ironic. Generally these people are intelligent well educated from wealthy backgrounds, but above all aware of world history. These people are created in harsh desert countries and fired and built up by external influence(other fundementalists and US policy and UN policy etc,etc,etc) Untill they literally explode.

Osamahs key moment of decision to fight the evil US was when they bombed Libya, the colateral damage this caused, most importantly the deaths of muslim innocents was his primary motivation or so he says, that and the fact that it was a sneak attack against a country who they weren't even at war with. He announces that this is no different from a martyr blowing himself up in a nightclub, and although he's delusional there is some sense in his madness.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think there is a lot of confusion of what Evangelical means. I always though that one who takes the Bible literally is a "fundamentalist". They are the ones saying no one but Protestants in heaven, the earth is 6000 years old, etc. Whereas an Evangelist is just someone who believes in spreading the message of Christianity (which is not inherently harmful, although it has the potential to be) and stressing a personal relationship with Christ. So it is really "fundamentalists" who are the bad guys in this thread (so to speak) not Evangelicals.

 

[Neomega]

Alternative music was the norm too.

I think, when someone says they are an evangelical, they mean bible believing, which means they take the bible literally, and think they are the only ones who
are going to heaven.