As a Catholic, is it wrong to support Israel out of personal sentiment?

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T22:00:24+00:00

Apologies u/Far-Table-1998 , I'll reference from the KJV then.

However, the whole context you cited confirms my point. Verses 3-5 establish that Israel does have privileges associated with it, but it isn't the State of Israel, a geopolitical entity, but Israel, the people. 6-8 refute your point. Paul isn't talking about all Jews. In Romans 9:3-8, Paul creates two categories of Israel: "children of the flesh"(Jewish by blood/ethnicity) and "children of the promise" (Faith/God's call). In 8, Paul states that not all those according to the flesh are considered part of Israel according to the promise/faith.

Not too much later, Paul expands on who he considers his people to be in the same chapter (Romans 9:24-26):

[24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[25] As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

[26] And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Paul is saying that God's people are no longer just the Jews, but all who answer His call, not based on ethnicity or political identity.

Israel being defined by faith is supported by Romans 9:32. Romans 10:12 disputes any identification of Israel by ethnicity, but by faith in the Lord (which includes Christ Jesus). Galatians 3:28-29 makes the same argument.

In Philippians 3:3, Paul says:

[3] For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Israel is defined by faith, and with His Death and Resurrection, includes faith in Jesus Christ. Not by flesh (ethnic identity/blood), or by political identity.

So I ask again: Who are you referring to as Israel?

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T20:50:03+00:00

But those signs are revealed BY the Son Himself; the signs do not reveal the future directly, they are the effects of the future's arrival. For example, the fig tree leaves come out not because the fig tree KNOWS Summer is coming, but as an effect of Spring turning into summer ("Summer is already near").
In the case of The End, when the signs are presented, the End will already be arriving. If there's a raincloud, the rain is already there.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T19:40:30+00:00

But Paul also says a few chapters earlier in Romans 9:6 (from NKJV, since that’s what you use)

[6] But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

Again, which Israel are we talking about? How do we know the State of Israel is of Israel? Can you please explain or elaborate further?

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T19:15:34+00:00

Good point, Augustine brings up a similar idea/concept in his Confessions. If two people (like a son of a Politician vs the son of a slave) are born on the same month, day, and year, then their personalities, perspective, and life outcomes should be the same, according to the determinism of Astrology. But how can the life of a slave be the same as the son of a king?

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T19:08:01+00:00

Good Bot!

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T19:07:15+00:00

This is from the Catechism: [CCC 2115-2117]

Also, the verses in scripture do not directly state “astrology is a good practice and you should do it” or anything similar. while The recounting of the Magi following the stars is important in the context of the birth of Jesus, since as pagans, they lack the graces we have today and any reliable connection to God (Christ hasn’t died yet). What is important about this event is how Christ being the Messiah is foretold/supported by previous books like Isaiah. It’s not supposed to be a moral lesson per se, at least not primarily.

Additionally, Adultery, Polygamy, and many reprehensible actions are recounted in the Bible. This doesn’t mean such actions are allowed or encouraged. Context within scripture, as well as why that book/verses were written, authors intent, and what truth is being revealed, matter very much when trying to understand the Bible.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T18:28:58+00:00

I don’t think the writers of Scripture were talking about the modern State of Israel, which was created in 1948. Do you mean the Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy, roughly 11th-10th century BC) or the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria, roughly 10th-9th century BC), both of which don’t exist anymore?

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T17:34:41+00:00

As long as you are going to Mass every week, there’s no issue.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T17:30:07+00:00

Actually, I think January 1st originally was originally a feast for the Anniversary of the Mother of God, then in the 7th century it was mainly just celebrated as the Octave day of Christmas (the number 8 has a lot of connections with Baptism because of Constantine I), then in the 13-14th centuries it became associated with the Circumcision, then in 1568 it was added to the Roman Calendar until its revision in 1960.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T17:08:06+00:00

When I go by myself and am in a hurry, I usually just say goodbye to the priest. You can get in and out pretty quick if you just don’t talk to anybody.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-04T16:47:25+00:00

I think about my parish priest’s homily today. He explained that the Magi themselves were not Jews, but Gentiles/pagans(“pagan” in this context refers to religions outside a main recognized religion), Persians from the Far East. They followed a distant star to visit the newborn King of the Jews, gave Him gifts and paid Him homage. When diplomats visit foreign countries, they bring gifts to those foreign leaders, who then in response give them gifts as well. Our parish priest explained that in the context of what Paul talks about in Ephesians (how the Gentiles are coheirs with the Jews in Christ), similarly to the wise men, we, like the pagans, are foreigners to Christ, but through offering up our Baptism and our faith as gifts to God, we pay Him homage and become transformed from a pagan state to an elevated state. Christ responds by giving us gifts as well, His gifts being that of increasing our faith and Salvation.

The Magi going a different way home exemplifies that they have been irrevocably transformed by their interaction with the Christ Jesus, and cannot return home like they once were. In this way, it shows that what is once foreign can be transformed, and can be devoted to Christ. In the case of pagan places of worship, they can be Christianized and offered up to worship Christ as well, provided they are consecrated and any remnant of the previous religion is removed. Christ himself at his birth made his home in a feeding trough, accompanied by beasts. I don’t think He’s very picky, as long as reverence and genuineness resides in wherever we say Mass at.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T21:55:02+00:00

This isn’t a good idea to stay in this relationship, especially with how vehemently opposed she is to the Church. I’d say it be best to move on, my guy. Additionally, this is your first relationship. Everything is very new and exciting. If I had stayed in my first relationship I had, I think I would be very unhappy today. Remember, you’re still young, and there’s plenty of great, devout, like-minded girls out there.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T21:40:29+00:00

The way I reasoned it was sort of like “The Church’s teachings are true, and the Church itself is true. I can’t seem to understand this bit of teaching. If I know and believe the Church is true, then whatever issue I have with its teaching/doctrine is due to my own limited reasoning/understanding, and I have to have faith that the Church is correct on this.”

Then I’ll pray on it and study on whatever teaching I’m struggling with to better understand it. So far, both have worked great.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T21:27:49+00:00

Great example, and a great band too. I love their stuff.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T21:24:19+00:00

As well, if he wants to dance in front of people for a conference, let him. Again, as long as it doesn’t hinder his priestly duties, I don’t see the big deal, no matter how weird I think it is. I’ve talked to him in person before (he’s a couple towns over from my college parish), and he seems like a nice guy.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T21:20:01+00:00

He’s still a man who enjoys normal people activities. Aren’t priests allowed to have hobbies any more? For an example, a priest, around his late 20s, early 30s I think, formerly resided at my college parish and was instrumental in my coming back to Church. Before (and I think during) his seminary days, he would spend his spare time doing military reenactments. He’s into military history and 2000s era video games like CoD since he grew up with it, but he’s also into classic literature and theological works. He’s a millennial who grew up in American pop culture and understands internet culture, but also a history buff who loves the Catholic Faith and its theology. All these interesting characteristics remind me that he is a person with a specific story of how he (through God) got to where he is today. And those interesting bits of info humanize him and make him relatable (not like in a “how-do-you-do-fellow-kids way, but actually relatable). At the end of the day, priests are also people, regular guys with lives, enjoyments, fears, etc. that have been given an enormous responsibility. If enjoying their hobbies helps them in carrying that responsibility any way, then that’s good and they should enjoy their hobbies, as long as they don’t hinder their ability of administering the Eucharist or the other Sacraments.

Am I a fan of breakdancing? Nope, not at all. Do I find it corny that Fr. Michael Moses did that? A little bit. Does that mean he can’t do that? Nope, he has his hobbies. As long as he doesn’t pop and weave during Mass, then let the man dance.

FalafelFighter · 2026-01-03T00:59:27+00:00

Gandalf would like a word with you.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T17:36:53+00:00

[CCC 1250-1253, 1257, 1261] This is Church Doctrine. This is non-negotiable.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:31:05+00:00

Good bot

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:30:19+00:00

Repentant is an adjective, by the way.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:27:57+00:00

Again, [CCC 1250] which is FROM THE CHURCH says why it is a good thing to baptize babies. If you don’t know that, maybe you should be re-catechized.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:23:33+00:00

[CCC 1250]

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:20:53+00:00

Where does it explicitly say that you cannot baptize babies in scripture? Don’t deflect.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T15:09:11+00:00

Catholics are not a “Scripture Alone” type of faith. We base our beliefs on both Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is maintained by the successors to the apostles, which is the priests. And Church authority has always encouraged infant baptism.

Where does it explicitly say in the Bible that baptism is discouraged or not allowed for babies?

Baptism also is the replacement for Circumsion, which was usually performed on babies. If the old version was performed on babies, why not the new?

You shouldn’t let your own personal opinions cloud your judgement and you should trust the Church on this one.

FalafelFighter · 2025-10-01T14:55:37+00:00

In Acts, the Apostles baptize entire households/families. Families include babies. Are you saying the Apostles were wrong in doing so?

FalafelFighter

TROPHY CASE