Although I don't disagree with you, I think you give 99% of the Christian population too much credit. I think your "simple" explanation is actually much more complicated than the reality of the situation. The people of the world, not just Evangelical Christians, have hated Jews for thousands of years.

Only recently has that changed. Externally, people see Israel as a stronghold against a more detested common threat in Muslim extremism. Internally, the Jews have rode the wave of acceptance for a myriad of groups in this country based on the general softening of the prejudice that has occurred over the last 50 or so years.

Slavery is a great example. There was representation of several major religions on both sides. Some plantation owners would have claimed they were Christians, while much of the underground railroad was executed by Christians.

Because some "Christians" behave a certain way, does not mean that they are doing what Christianity teaches. Unfortunately, many people have identified as Christian over the centuries simply by association (i.e. my parents were Christian therefore so am I). The problem with this is that the result is institutionalized thinking and behavior that is far removed from the teachings of Christ / the Bible (i.e. false teaching that wine is evil).

Which is why I maintain, no TRUE Christian has practiced bigotry or racism. I agree that the more mainstream acceptance "Christianity" has had in any culture, the more there were who claimed it but didn't "live it". I knew someone who claimed to be a mathematician who played the lottery and lots of roulette. Personally, I believe this behavior to be inconsistent with his self-identifying as a mathematician.

I sense your issue is mainly with representation, which may be a flawed topic of debate from the start. Because I would agree that many who call themselves "Christians" have represented it poorly to varying degrees across different cultures and periods of history. We could debate, for example, the EV of K9o or application of Bayes either based on the behavior of some poker players who call themselves mathematicians or we could debate on the merits of the mathematics. If we stick to the mathematics, rather than the representatives of mathematics, we will be truer to the issue in our debate. I do believe it's the same with most things we call "issues". Politicians, for example, are skilled in exploiting this flaw in modern debate when they polarize their audience by citing representatives of issues rather than underlying truths.

So on one hand I agree with your original statement, but I believe the basis of the statement to be fundamentally flawed. In the same way the statement "mathematicians care more about math than they used to and therefore mathematics is different than it used to be" would be flawed.

I've read your books and you guys are certainly more intelligent than me, but I do believe what I'm saying has merit.

So all Christians sin (if you believe the Bible), but if you sin you are not TRULY a Christian.

I have a hard time believing that you actually believe what you're writing.

Hi topgunky:

No, I don't buy your argument (and the bolding above is mine).

Here's the way I understand the Christian slavery argument. Noah had two sons (whose names escape me at the moment), and one of these sons did something very bad to Noah while the other son tried to fix the problem. So God said to the bad son that as punishment his descendents would be subservient to the other son, and thus this was the basic argument for slavery that born-again Christians who lived in the South before the Civil War used to justify their "peculiar institution."

So it's clear to me that these people thought they were doing what Christianity teaches and that some Christians did practice bigotry or racism. Fortunately, things have changed today and even more fortunately, the end of slavery was brought about by other Christians who saw things differently.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm an evangelical and have always supported Israel. I've never known or seen any form of anti-semitism in close proximity.

I'm now asking myself, "why did I always support Israel?", and, "does that mean I support the Jews?".

I guess I support Israel and Israelis due to historical Bible stories (we all love an underdog!), Jesus being born an Israeli Jew and the function of Israel in prophesy. I strongly support Israel's right to exist today and protect herself from antagonistic borders, hence I support free exchange of military technology and intelligence between the West and Israel.

Do I support the Jews? Meh, on reflection, I do not.

I'm not sure if this counts as anti-semitic, but I never liked those Pharisees or Sadducees. I believe the Jews spurned their own Messiah and still haven't repented 2,000 years later. I believe the core ethos that denied Jesus back then, still exists today via intellectual and religious narcissism. Worse still, I believe American evangelicals from Southern States exhibit similar narcissism and hypocrisy on a profound level - i.e. actively donating to Israeli settlers (inc non-Jews) and encouraging further settlements in Palestinian areas, with the explicit goal of triggering the End of Days, war with Iran etc, once Israel controls all of Palestine.

Context: I have much harsher things to say about Catholics.

I think it is this, Mason (you misread the situation).

My novice understanding is that antisemitism was fairly commonplace among christians through the middle ages and then turned to support in the 19th century.

You may find this wiki article interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Best wishes.


edit: although, we should point out, in regard to evangelicals, we are talking about a diverse group of people with various beliefs... we define the group based on belief in Jesus, grace, faith, etc... not support or lack thereof toward Jewish people.

Because they believe that the truth about Christ is pretty self evident. If it wasn't, people who don't believe don't deserve punishment. And God wouldn't punish someone who doesn't deserve it.

This misrepresents the theology, I think. Evangelical theologies come in various flavors, but it's pretty much consensus that we all deserve it.

Same thing. We all may deserve it but God lets some escape it for certain reasons. And a just God wouldn't do that for unfair reasons. And a disbelief in Jesus would be an unfair reason if it was reasonable to disbelieve.

Hi Everyone:

I think something is getting lost here. The question I'm asking is not whether there was or is a dislike of Jews, or whether everyone should believe in Jesus, but why there seems to be a change in attitude among a certain group of religious Christians from not that many years ago.

Best wishes,
Mason

This starts with escape of condemnation and then switches to receiving judgment at the end (disbelief doesn't lead to escape of judgment, right?). It makes it a little hard for me to follow.

But basically, I think you're saying something like:
1) A just God would not condemn for unfair reasons;
2) Condemning for disbelief in a reasonably doubted statement is unfair;
3) The Christian God condemns for disbelief for the reasonably doubtful deity of Jesus;
4) Therefore, the Christian God is unjust.

And then, via reducto ad absurdam, the Christian God does not exist.

Yes?

The Evangelical God. Not The Catholic God. Either that or disbelievers are not reasonable.

OK, still clarifying (and hoping Mason doesn't chase us out of his thread due to derail):

1) A just God would not condemn for unfair reasons;
2) Condemning for disbelief in a reasonably doubted statement is unfair;
3) The Evangelical God condemns for disbelief in the reasonably doubtful deity of Jesus;
4) Therefore, the Evangelical God is unjust.

And then, via reducto ad absurdam, the Evangelical God does not exist.

Yeah? same page?

Your main question would be an odd hypothetical without considering if there was in fact more dislike for Jews previously. Maybe you should have said, "The question I'm asking is not whether a dislike of Jews is justified"?

But, as you said, your question is "why does there seem to be a change in attitude among a certain group of religious Christians from not that many years ago?"

Well...I don't think it's because of thoughtful theological consideration by the congregation, but rather, the growth of secular philosophy in society at large.

OK I am just going to go ultra-cynical.

The Bible hasn't changed over the time horizon we are considering.

Your question is that at one time in the recent past, the Evangelical West didn't much like Jews, now it does seem to like Jews, why?

1) money
2) Money
3) MONEY

We are talking about American evangelicals now, those who believe that following Jesus' teaching will make them materially wealthy. I am disgusted by some of the things I see in so-called Evangelical churches these days - ironically, while the current Pope is going Protestant, the Protestants are going Papal!

By playing on the End of Days scenario and WWI&II, churches and TV evangelicals are getting Americans and others to donate huge sums. I saw a church in Texas and mistook it for Vegas. Massive screens, bright neon signs and ethereally lighted buildings with COMMERCIAL messages, could be seen from miles away.

There is also a massively perverse incentive for the industrial-military complex (sorry for using that phrase) in the US. Israel itself is a wealthy nation and Israelis are generally wealthy and well connected in the Anglo-American world. There is a whole lotta money to be made by being a pro-Israeli western arms manufacturer, or, indeed, by purchasing Israeli-made arms and munitions. Plus obviously we don't like Israel's neighbors, enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc.

So in conclusion:

1) Most honest evangelicals should feel the same way I do about Israel itself and Jews (standard church teaching).
2) Those whose opinions were once negative about Jews but are now positive, were once bigoted and are now just plain greedy and/or being misled.

Edit:

Being cynical I must point out that Jews currently or previously occupy some of the most politically influential positions in America:

1) Harvey Weinstein, Spielberg etc and Hollywood
2) Ben Bernanke (am a fan of his)
3) Sergiy Brin (Google founder)
4) Adelson (Vegas)
5) Zuckerberg (Facebook)
6) Larry Ellison (Oracle)
7) Plethora of senior White House/Federal Court/Congressional positions

Those guys surely have a large impact on the PR battle within America.

Hi Mason,

You'd have to ask whichever Evangelical you have in mind that has changed their attitude.

Support toward Israel and Jewish people isn't really one of the core beliefs by which we identify Evangelicals -- so, you're likely to find a wide range of attitudes among them on this subject.

I think you've misread the situation, too. It's an error to use Billy Graham's comments and extrapolate out to a group containing hundreds of millions of diverse people. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: we can trace pro-Jewish writings among from the roots of the movement in the 17th century and onward.

Best wishes.

There is no such thing as Jewish extremism or Muslim extremism. Muslims (alongside homosexuals, Jews and other so called heretics)were persecuted by so called Christians throughout the Middle Ages. Jews are a part of the human race , throughout history Jews have been both accepted and mistreated when jews were not in the majority.

Jews were often treated with respect and dignity in past Muslim majority lands or lands that were associated in some way with Muslims.

Also here is a thread where the OP is talking about how some evangelical Christians view Israel. Nevertheless I did want to comment on your above points because if you have the chance to took at past Jewish -Muslim relations along with the rich and unique history of Judaism and Islam , you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see .

Many Christians believe that the verses in Genesis and Numbers that say "those who bless Israel will be blessed" applies to them today, so they make a point to view Israel a notch above neutral, whether right or wrong.

I think there are probably three main reasons for this change.

1. The increased popularization of dispensationalist theology in the evangelical Christian community, especially as seen in the fiction of Tim Lahaye (the Left Behind series) and the...nonfiction... of Hal Lindsey (The Late Great Planet Earth).

Dispensationalist theology is a fairly recent phenomenon, only arising in the nineteenth-century and getting its first initial big boost in popularity due to its inclusion in the Scofield Bible (originally published in 1909). It is important to remember that for most of its history Christian thinkers didn't think the end-times included all the interesting stories about a Rapture, Tribulation, Armageddon, and so on that is part of dispensationalist theology. It also should be noted that the 1947 founding of the state of Israel provided a boost to these eschatological speculations as well.

2. The move of Israel and its American supporters towards the right has made them more compatible with the conservativism of most of Evangelical Christianity's leaders.

During the first half of the twentieth-century, conservative foreign policy was more associated with isolationist views about America's role in international affairs, such that they were much more skeptical of the kind of military interventions now championed by the leaders of the Republican Party and the conservative movement more generally. However, as conservatives came to power in the 70s and 80s during the Cold War and especially following the 9/11 attacks, conservatives became much more hawkish about the role of America's military and unfriendly to some of Israel's enemies.

This made conservativism friendlier with Israel because of its own relatively much more exposed position to terrorism and foreign attack and hence more hawkish attitudes. Political scientists usually claim that people's political views tend to be formed by their prior partisan leanings more than is typically realized, so it makes sense that as the Republican Party and conservative leaders become more friendly with Israel that conservatives and Republicans (and most Evangelical Christians are) would do the same.

3. There has been a general decline in Anti-Semitic attitudes over the last 50+ years in the U.S., so some of this is not specific to evangelical Christians. The ADL released a survey in 2013 showing that what they call "anti-semitic propensities" have declined to 12% from 29% in 1964 when they first started tracking them.

Most people do not think through most of their political beliefs (this is not a criticism per se), but rather follow the lead of the group

Why not?

Oops, that wasn't supposed to make it into the final draft of that post.

Anyway, the reason why is because politics is complicated and most people have better things they could do with their time than learn about the details of public policy or the machinations of coalition politics. This is, after all, one of the main functions of political parties, to give a easy way for people to figure out which candidate they support.

1) A just God would not condemn for unfair reasons;
2) Condemning for disbelief in a reasonably doubted statement is unfair;
3) The Evangelical God condemns for disbelief in the reasonably doubtful deity of Jesus;
4) Therefore, the Evangelical God is unjust.

And then, via reducto ad absurdam, the Evangelical God does not exist.

This logic is unsound, premise #3 is not true. I think you've been misinformed at some point. Evangelicals don't think we are condemned due to lack of belief in Jesus. Rather, Evangelicals think we are condemned due to our own willful disobedience against God (ie sin).



Evangelicals believe that God provides grace in the face of this judgment through faith in Jesus.



I hope this clarifies the general beliefs of Evangelicals?

Best wishes.

1) A just God would not condemn those who's actions are just.
2) A just God would condemn those whose actions are unjust.
2) All men have been unjust, and therefore all men are condemned.
3) The evangelicals state the remedy for unjust behavior and it's resulting condemnation is to chant a slogan.
4) Slogans don't cover unjust actions. ( a just God wouldn't be appeased with lip service...?)
5) Therefore, since unjust actions still occur from those who chant the slogan: evangelicals haven't provided a remedy.

You still run into the same problem.

1) A just God condemns those who've committed unjust acts.
2) A merciful God makes a Way to obtain mercy for those who've committed unjust acts.
3) God is just and merciful.
4) Therefore, The Way is for those who have formerly committed unjust acts, to the end that they no longer commit unjust acts.
5) Therefore, those who still commit unjust acts, have not come to the end of The Way.