Why is there polarization in the Christian community regarding Israel?

A Muslim woman on Facebook put the following to me with the attached video:

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: Tom, I was wondering why there is polarization in the Christian community with regards to supporting Israel. Why do you think this is?

I answered as follows:

Short answer: they aren't Christians. I've written volumes about these fakes (their leadership). They are the most dangerous people on the planet. If it weren't for them, Israel never would have been created.

"Christian Zionism" goes way back to before Theodor Herzl. I'd have to refresh on it, but there are branches going back to the English Revolution. I recall that there were hints of it before that, but the names escape me as they are hardly ever mentioned and I've only dealt with them a couple times over the years. It's obscure stuff. It's also wrapped up in the British Identity Movement that is better known.

The theory goes that some of the Lost 10 Tribes ended up crossing the European continent to England. So, these people have a claim to the Promise Land or Holy Land known today as Palestine and Israel. Certain of Jesus's inner circle ended up in England too, including Mary his mother. I'm not saying that there's no truth to any of it. I'm more concerned with where they go wrong with it regardless. They also see the Second Coming (their version of it – very violent) of Jesus as a time ultimately resulting in all humans on the planet converting to Christianity, including the remnant of Jews. I hold with the last bit but not the violence. Also, my vision of Christianity is completely unacceptable to them. I'm too hands-on (deeds), too anti-ethnic bigotry, and too figurative and spiritual.

There are many variations on this theme. It can become extremely complex in all of its "prophetic" calculations that are based upon figures of speech such as days standing in for years and weeks standing in for years and much, much more. The 70 weeks of Daniel is particularly important to many of them. There's some fudging that goes on though. It's a gap that someone name John Nelson Darby made famous within this circle. Darby wasn't as literalist as his followers however. Most of these people take things extremely literally. At the grassroots level, they see relatively little figurative language in the bible. Their preachers are often aware, but it doesn't pay (money donations) to become what would be too esoteric for the masses in their eyes – a real shame because the teachings of Jesus really aren't hidden or difficult to feel.

So, this John Hagee fellow in the video takes one verse that "anyone who curses Israel will be cursed" and runs with that. However, he fails to define Israel. He built his whole system upon a wrongly defined Israel. The Torah Jews know this and are often not Zionists. The Hagee-types are treating secular humanists and Babylonian Talmudist as Israel. They are not. Israel is Jacob. Jacob doesn't go along with this Zionism and what it's been doing to the Palestinians. Jacob condemned his sons' actions that weren't even as bad as what's been done to the Gazans.

Anyway, you asked a question that is huge and ignored by way too many people. I've done my best to try to make it stick out with some success. Others have also done good work on it, but it has never received the attention is deserves because it is so wrapped up in the Zionist Movement, which in turn has been so protected by the Mainstream Media in America. My efforts and the efforts of people like me though are slowly having an impact and picking up steam.

Hagee's crowds are down in number. "Liberal" Jews are speaking out more and more. I've watched this over the years, and I've seen that because some people stood way out there yelling about this, many others started to be a bit emboldened to "risk" the wrath of Abe Foxman, etc. In order to make that easy for them, others had to hammer away with "rude" name calling and such. I regularly used the term serpents when referring to the Zionists, something that when I started doing that was unheard of. Now, it's nothing. I've been called a neo-Nazi for it even as recently as yesterday.

That tactic used to work for the Zionists, but because people just plugged on, it just isn't going to work anymore. I'm not anti-Jew, far from it. I'm adamantly opposed to all things Nazi and fascistic. I promote getting people to soul search to see where they might develop properly working consciences, which if done properly, is the greatest thing. Sociopaths don't have properly working consciences.

There's more than a bit of that in the Christian Zionist movement. They don't feel for the Gazans because the Gazans are of the lines (supposedly, probably somewhat anyway) that Moses said to wipe out without a trace, even the cattle, etc. However, the abominations that so offended Moses and that were the apparent justification for the eugenics just are not going on in Gaza. They aren't doing child sacrifices and/or eating their children and such. They aren't the same people.

The relationship between self-styled Christian Zionists and Israeli Zionists is very strange to the Israelis. They know that the "Christians" believe most of them won't be accepted but will burn up in Hell, but those Israelis like the money and additional Public Relations efforts and lobbying efforts of those Christian Zionists. Politics makes strange bedfellows is the old saying that's apt here.

Well, I've been up all night following the Rachel Corrie and catching up on some other things, so it's my turn to be blurry. I'm sorry this comment is so rambling as a consequence.

Actually, I should have said the "English Civil War" rather than "English Revolution." I was in need of sleep.

For additional clarity, the best known term is "British Israelism" concerning what I meant when I wrote, "British Identity Movement."

Let me also add that when I said, "I'm not saying that there's no truth to any of it," I mean that it's quite possible that some people of the Lost Tribes migrated that far and that some of Jesus's disciples did spread very early to England. However, I don't say the English are a physical bloodline-tribe of Israel.

Also, there were well-established Christians in England before the Roman Catholics arrived, which means that someone had spread the word to them very early on.

In looking at their theology vis-a-vis the Gospels versus the theology and dogma of the Roman Catholics, I see greater purity in the earlier Christians who are often referred to as Celtic Christians.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.