I was wondering ......

Originally posted by royalchicken
I remind you that anti-Semitism is a racially motivated hatred of an entire Semitic group; an anti-Semite makes negative judgements of individuals belonging to these group based on their belonging to them, which I think is silly.

In this case I would disagree. There are Jews of many races. Although there is that racial element. And anti-Semites are not very rational people.

Originally posted by Coletti
In this case I would disagree. There are Jews of many races. Although there is that racial element. And anti-Semites are not very rational people.

All right, call it a group hatred. Along with every other organised religion, including yours, I think Judaism is silly. However, I don't dislike Jews as a group based on this fact; in fact, most nontrivial methods of organising people (ie, an exception is 'the group of people royalchicken dislikes'😉 into groups do not produce groups for which it is sensible to dislike individuals by virtue of their status as members.

Thinking something is silly is not a sufficient condition for hating people in other words; I think Santa Claus is silly but I don't hate small children.

Originally posted by royalchicken
All right, call it a group hatred. Along with every other organised religion, including yours, I think Judaism is silly. However, I don't dislike Jews as a group based on this fact; in fact, most nontrivial methods of organising people (ie, an exception is 'the group of people royalchicken dislikes'😉 into groups do not produce groups for which it i ...[text shortened]... for hating people in other words; I think Santa Claus is silly but I don't hate small children.

I don't hate small children either; if probably marinated over a low flame they're delicious!

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't hate small children either; if probably marinated over a low flame they're delicious!

You are a killer of innocents! You are a 'Lover of Death!'

In prayerfuldevotionforyourdepravedsoulship,
Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe

..... whether all these threads dealing with the "evilness" of the Jewish people and their "Monster" God in the Old Testament are in fact veiled expressions of anti-semitism.

What are your thoughts about all this ?

I think that, in some cases, it could be. For example, one of the
earliest Christian heresies was the Marcionite heresy. In it, Marcion
formed his own canon (the first such Christian canon) comprising
some 10 (?) Pauline letters and a modified version of the Gospel of
St Matthew. He rejected the God of the Hebrews as a pagan God and
considered the God that Jesus represented to be the One True God
(that is, he saw them as different entities).

Unfortunately, Marcion's writings are all but lost -- only a few
fragmented citations still exist in responses by Orthodox Christians to
his claims.

That having been said, I, too, have difficulty reconciling the actions of
the seemingly aggressive God of the OT with the one Jesus talks
about. However, I have a deep love and reverance for the Jewish
people and their customs (i.e., I am not anti-Semitic).

My explanation is that the Jews interpreted their unlikely
victories in difficult situations as Divinely directed; that is, they
anthropomorphized God as having their anger and used this to
justify their merciless actions. We see this sort of stuff all the time,
both in the Bible and in modern times: I got a parking ticket,
therefore God was angry with me (and the like). When the Jews lost
a battle, they claimed it was because God was angry at them and
when they won, it was because God smiled upon them. Of course,
their opponents could make the same claims (when they defeated the
Jews, it was because God was smiling on them, and vice versa).

At least, this is how I interpret these otherwise difficult passages.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
You have my permission to use it and you could even take it as your username. You are aware that once someone uses a username on any site on the internet it cannot be used on any other site by any other person without severe scolding, tsk-tsking and claims of "blackmail". This is known as "Ivanhoe's Law".

No. It would be the "IvanhoeNemesio Law", as both were innocent victims of this hideous identity theft!


RTh

Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
No. It would be the "IvanhoeNemesio Law", as both were innocent victims of this hideous identity theft!


RTh

I was not a victim.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
ATY: " ..... the overbearing influence that Protestants have on American society"

So, you would agree with me that most of these "religious" debates are political. They are just disguised as such.

ATY: "There may be some anti-Isr ...[text shortened]... case then this is certainly an instance of veiled anti-semitism.

I would agree that politics is a very large factor motivating people to make their legitimate criticisms regarding the Old Testament. This is why people like me, for example, aren't spending any time being critical of Buddhists - Buddhists aren't a political threat to me and in no way annoy me such that I feel I need to educate them about their flawed beliefs (and maybe get some insight of my own along the way). Plus Buddhists just don't post here much about Buddhism. There's no Buddhist equivalent to RBHill, Darfius, Ivanhoe, etc.

Once people begin to look critically at Christianity, we see that the Jewish people and the god they believe in are described in the Old Testament as doing some horrific things. This is not something made up due to anti-semitic bias but rather legitimate observation. Politics does motivate people to take a careful look at the OT, but it does not create these judgements of what the OT claims occurred.

So, I do not agree that the debates are directly political but disguised. They are legitimate criticisms and perspectives of the subject material, which is a Judeo-Christian holy book and what is claims occurred.

Could you elaborate on this.

Here's what I am trying to say:

The United States and Israel are powerful, allied nations involved in much international controversy. Judeo-Christian religious beliefs heavily influence these controversies, and so people become interested in these things. Those of us who are not members of that religious group often find the influence these people have highly annoying and alarming. Therefore, when people are highly vocal about the tie between their religion and these political issues, those religions, because they are irritating, alarming, and highly advertised by their proponents, tend to become the targets of critical evaluation. Anger sometimes enters the fray when those who are religious refuse to face legitimate criticisms; for example, the horrible things God supposedly did according to the OT get excused via convoluted rationalizations. Calling the OT God monstrous is not unreasonable - look at the things he supposedly did!

Challenging the Old Testament and trying to show that it's not a good basis for a religion that professes a god of love and goodness possibly convinces people to lessen their support for these aggressive nations' policies. I think it's more focussed on the US, but many people dislike Israel's actions and not only are they Jewish and acting on religious belief, but the US is supporting them, and there are people who encourage this due to Christian religious beliefs.

There is a difference between criticising the content of a holy book shared by three major religions and being racist against one ethnic group which is closely tied to one of those religions.

Now I agree that marauder is very often a prick who likes to use name calling in his posts, but this is just his style of debate - it's not targetted at the Jewish people. He does the same to anyone else he finds himself opposed to in debate unless maybe he really likes them.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I was not a victim.

I thought you were. I felt terrible for you despite how you blamed me.

RTh

Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
I thought you were. I felt terrible for you despite how you blamed me.

Please point out the sentence where I accused you of writing that post.

I accused you of being either 1) a fool for finding such childish humor
funny; or 2) as illiterate as Mike for being unable to discern that a
post as out-of-character as that one was not a product of my username. Both of these accusations are predicated on your not
writing the post.

A victim is a person who feels that s/he has lost something. When
someone stole my wallet out of my car, I was a victim. I've lost
nothing by the stupidity in that post. I could have reached out to
Dr Cribs to find out the IP stamp on it, but I simply don't care enough
to find out how stupid some of my colleagues on that site are.

I made it clear that I was neither angry nor hurt by the post. I simply
expressed profound disappointment that any person over the age
of 13 would find a joke like that funny. If you felt terrible for me, then
you were doing so by yourself. The only persons I felt sorry for were
the person who composed the post and those who found it funny.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please point out the sentence where I accused you of writing that post.

I accused you of being either 1) a fool for finding such childish humor
funny; or 2) as illiterate as Mike for being unable to discern that a
post as out-of-character as that one was not a product of my username. Both of these accusations are predicated on your not
writing the po ...[text shortened]... sorry for were
the person who composed the post and those who found it funny.

Nemesio

Gimme a break. You sooooo blamed me and rapalla7. Let people decide. You made absolutely no mention of Phlabibits post, why target me?

http://michaeldweber.com/forumwars/viewtopic.php?t=1011

I tried to straighten things out, but it did not matter to you. You were content to just drag people through the mud, and as far as I am concerned you can go to cribs and find out the IP, (like you havent already). Let me know what you find out.

It is hard for me to believe that you go through life wearing only one shoe, maybe one day you will put the shoe on the other foot.

RTh

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please point out the sentence where I accused you of writing that post.

I accused you of being either 1) a fool for finding such childish humor
funny; or 2) as illiterate as Mike for being unable to discern that a
post as out-of-character as that one was not a product of my username. Both of these accusations are predicated on your not
writing the po ...[text shortened]... sorry for were
the person who composed the post and those who found it funny.

Nemesio

Oh and just so you know, I was just as taken in as anybody you knucklehead.


RTh

Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
Gimme a break. You sooooo blamed me and rapalla7. Let people decide. You made absolutely no mention of Phlabibits post, why target me?

Please cite the specific sentence where I accuse you of writing the
post. I accused Mike of writing it. I accused you of being either
stupid for believing it or as illiterate as Mike. As I have come to
accept that you are not Mike (as you have protested against such a
claim vociferously and as the comparative statement 'as illiterate as
Mike' necessarily entails), you should be able to conclude that I did
not blame you for writing the post.

I do not believe that Phlabibit to the post seriously (as his jocular
remark suggests) and, as such, did not warrant my response.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
Oh and just so you know, I was just as taken in as anybody you knucklehead.

Then you are indeed as stupid as I accused you of being.

Thank you for pleading guilty to this accusation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Then you are indeed as stupid as I accused you of being.

Thank you for pleading guilty to this accusation.

Nemesio

LOL!

You really showed me.

RTh



[edit] Oh ya, and I think it is great that you are blaming someone who has left the site. We do that at work......we fire them and then blame them for every job they had nothing to do with. LOL

You Suck!