perhaps of interest

[cnorman18]

--

...btw, I appreciate your posts, and read it all, but I wasn't your intended audience.

Of course not; I said it was from another forum when I posted it. It was not addressed to you.

But if you read it and enjoyed it, then you were exactly what I thought that you might be; an interested spectator.

Thanks for your comments. I know I tend to be wordy, but that's how I'm wired and it's not likely to change. Just ask my ex-wife.

 

[cnorman18]

--

After reading your post, it only reinforces my belief that religion causes hatred. You judge people on which religion they practise and not personally as an indivividuals.

See my remarks above on collective vs. individual responsibility.

 

[Yoink]

You misunderstand my argument. I never said that "no true Jew would ever become a Christian."

First, there is no such thing as a "true Jew" as opposed to some other kind. One is Jewish, or one is not. There is no "true Scotsman" argument available in Judaism. One may be an apostate Jew, an observant Jew, a criminal Jew, or an even an atheist Jew, but all these are still Jews.

Second, any Jew may certainly become a Christian; but then one forfeits the right to call oneself a Jew.

Lest I be misunderstood; that also applies to Islam, Hinduism, and any other religion that recognizes a god other than the God of Israel. One may be a Buddhist or an atheist Jew, because those have nothing to say about God. Remaining a Jew with no God is one thing; remaining a Jew while worshiping some other god is quite another. The history of Christianity's relations with the Jews makes that religion particularly problematic, but the prohibition is not unique to it.

Yes, but this all rather avoids my point. Do you or don't you think that it is possible to be "right" about whether Christ is the messiah? If yes, then surely we should be Christians (regardless of any history of exploitation) if he was the messiah, and not be Christians if he isn't--no? If no, (i.e., if you think that this is not a question that admits of a satisfactory answer) then why doesn't that also apply to Judaic beliefs?

Yeah, I sorta figured I'd see that one here.

Very many Jews are indeed atheists, especially since the Holocaust. Not all; not even most. We regard that as an individual and deeply personal decision, and we do not condemn or argue with each other about it--from either side. Atheist Jews are not called traitors, infidels or "faithless" by Jews who believe; believing Jews are not called fools, "illogical," or "superstitious" by those who don't. We leave each other's beliefs to each other and affirm and support each other as Jews.

We have an old, old saying about differences between ourselves: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter."

Because they have always started again. Always.

Well, that's an unfalsifiable claim (you can always say "just wait!"). But then, isn't it just as true for any religion/ethnic group? Don't the Slav's tell exactly the same story of themselves--and with much historical justification? Don't the Muslims and the Hindus in India tell the same stories about each other? Again, that's fine if the point is "who is the best team," but it seems odd if the point is "who is right about God."

If I'm a Protestant controverting with a Catholic is it fair for me to instance the long, bloody history of Catholic oppression of Protestants as a reason for me to ignore their theological arguments? If it is, doesn't that suggest the theological arguments are hollow? If it isn't, then isn't the history of oppression (which, of course, the Catholics could also reproach the Protestants with) irrelevant?

I'm suggesting that you're bringing a historical "who has been the most oppressed" argument into a "who is right about God" fight. I'm also suggesting that that is only "fair" if the "who is right about God" arguments are, in fact, meaningless. You seem to think they aren't meaningless, so aren't you guilty of an argumentative fallacy here?

 

[FireGarden]

Of course not; I said it was from another forum when I posted it. It was not addressed to you.

But if you read it and enjoyed it, then you were exactly what I thought that you might be; an interested spectator.

I'm not sure "enjoyed" is entirely appropriate.
I have empathy for what you went through. I've experienced some racism myself, back in my schooldays. And there were spectators there, too. I never thought to take on the audience, I would target the racist. But looking back on it now... that probably was pointless.

Anyway,
Measuring "too long" isn't done with only a ruler.

 

[Yoink]

All branches of Judaism have always accepted converts, and by Jewish law, they are considered as Jewish as one born so. It is even forbidden to mention that one is a convert unless that person brings it up first, lest we be discriminated against in any way.

By the way (and I hope this isn't a derail), but is this correct? My understanding was that Orthodox jews don't accept conversions performed by non-Orthodox rabbis. I'm sure I've read about this being a problem in Israel where there are Israeli citizens who are granted citizenship on the grounds of being "jewish" but are refused recognition as "jews" by the Orthodox religious authorities. Surely somebody has to be saying "person X is a convert" for this matter to get any discussion (and adjudication) at all?

 

[Z]

The phrase "the chosen people" is so widely misunderstood, and has brought us so much grief over the years, that we don't much use it any more. It refers only to the fact that we were chosen to bring the Torah to humanity. We did. End of implications. It never implied any special privilege or favor. History seems to have borne that out, too. Many Jews would (and do) say that it means "chosen to take a lot of crap."
Then there is the old Jewish joke: "Why can't God choose somebody else once in a while?"

Thanks. That's actually a concept that about half of the Jews I've spoken to embrace. (Interestingly, many of those that don't, are either converts from a fundie Xian sect, or have been pretty badly scarred from interactions with fundie Xians,)

Well, since I was born a Methodist and converted to Judaism at the age of 50, I think my views are clear.

Indeed.

All branches of Judaism have always accepted converts, and by Jewish law, they are considered as Jewish as one born so. It is even forbidden to mention that one is a convert unless that person brings it up first, lest we be discriminated against in any way.
Traditionally, the first convert was Jethro, Moses's father-in-law. Anyone who ever told you that Jews must be born Jewish is full of feces.

Honestly, most who have told me that weren't Jewish at all.

Interesting info, btw - thanks!

No Jew will tell you that. We believe that if there is a Heaven--Jews are not certain that there is an afterlife at all--that anyone, of any faith or none, is welcome. What one believes is of no consequence. One will be judged on the basis of what one does--and no man can know what that judgment will be, but only God alone. We aren't even allowed to have an opinion about that. Saying that one is "saved," or that anyone else isn't, is simply forbidden.

Fascinating.

Yeah, I've noticed that a pretty good number of the Jews I've interacted with have this "I'm a Jew, you're not, we're both OK" attitude, and even the more diligent and dedicated Jews have always been remarkably tolerant of me and my Pagan ways. I even had a neighbor who - while not particulary diligent, but was nonetheless a firm believer in her faith - would ask me to perform rituals or 'spells' to help her from time to time. I get the feeling she saw it as much as asking a Christian to pray for her - just the general idea of having a friend wish her well, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks for the good info - back to lurker mode!

 

[cnorman18]

--

Hi cnorman18. I've been reading your posts for a minute. I don't know any Jews, and it's been pretty interesting to learn about all things Jewish from you. I haven't ever posted in this board because I usually don't have much to add to the discussion, but it often makes for interesting reading.

Anyway, I can attempt to understand, but probably don't fully, why reading some stuff from an anti-semite can anger a Jew and posting something like that...well I don't blame you. Those people are bad guys, end of story, and being angry with them is normal for me as a non-Jew. I couldn't really begin to understand what a Jew would think.

But I think it's a little over the line and misdirected, especially the bit about I had nothing to do with that being the wrong answer. That's a gross oversimplification, and I'll tell you why:

Me myself, I'm mostly German, a smattering of other white backgrounds, and part American Indian, who came to the US before the Civil War, never owned a slave, and fought for the North. One set of my grandparents were the types of not really into church and all that Catholics that got a divorce and both remarried, while the other set was and still is mad devout Catholics, and all three of my grandfathers fought in WWII. I'm of the "don't really care"-ism religion, but my ma and my grandma and my wife all is, my whole ancestry as far as I can figure is and was some form of Christian. My daughter probably will be too, and that's cool with me. Or maybe she won't. Anyway, my wife is half Mexican, and half Polish, which, incidentally, both of her Grandparents fled Poland around the time the Nazis came around, but they are/were Catholic and both blind, so they'd have gotten it from the Nazis just the same regardless of religion. And that's just what I could figure out, I don't even know about the majority of my family.

See what I mean? If you want to be bringing up things that didn't even happen in my lifetime, where do I even start? I'd have to apologize to myself, who I'm not even mad at, for driving myself off my own land. My daughter's got all kinds of reasons to be mad at herself for being a Polish German who fled from herself into land she stole from herself in both New York and Texas...?

That's a bit ridiculous, no?

I mean, what you're asking here is for me, when the day comes I have to explain this stuff to her, that she should feel bad about the Holocaust and all that other stuff she had nothing to do with. I'm not going to tell her that, and I'm not personally going to feel bad either.

Maybe I missed the point, but that's what I got out of it.

Thanks for your comments. You're not the only respondent, as you see, who has made these observations, so let me try to break it down.

"Does any individual Christian living today bear either direct or indirect responsibility for the Holocaust?"

No.

"Does Christianity as an institution?"

Yes.

"Why?"

Because the same doctrines and attitudes that led to and provided reasons for, not only the Holocaust, but the innumerable other atrocities inflicted upon Jews through the centuries, are still being taught and tolerated, and that connection remains unacknowledged.

"Should individual Christians be made aware of these facts and asked to confront them?"

Yes.

"Why?"

So that the Church can collectively take responsibility for the results of these teachings and attitudes and discard or change them.

"But you indicated that, at least sometimes, individual Christians are guilty in some way."

When they themselves exhibit those same attitudes and beliefs, and speak to Jews from an assumed position of moral and spiritial superiority--or when they tolerate or ignore blatant, murderous hatred and vicious falsehoods being openly expressed in their midst--personal guilt is beyond doubt, and ought to be called by its proper name and confronted.

Have you absorbed those attitudes, or do you hold those beliefs? It would appear not. Would you stand by silently in the face of open bigotry? That I cannot answer, but I would hope not. I certainly have no warrant to assume that you would.

Given all that, what guilt would apply to you here? You have concluded "None," and with that I would agree.

If I have only given you, and others, something to think about--well, I had no other goal; and I had that goal more on the other forum, most certainly, than here.

Atheists do not have the blind spots and assumptions of holiness and superiority that some Christians clearly do; and from what I have seen, they are more inclined to stand up for justice and truth than to support their opposites. Indeed, a dedication to truth and an opposition to lies are the very foundations of skepticism and atheism, are they not?

 

[my_wan]

cnorman18, you have pointed out an issue that nobody wants to even consider. People like to blame the Holocaust on Hitler. It was in fact a Christian phenomena that took place in any number of nations to varying degrees. Nobody wants to consider their own beliefs could contribute or facilitate such things. The Holocaust wasn't even a Christian phenomena that the protestant types can't blame on the Catholic version. The irony is that the same individuals prosecuting a whole race for the perceived wrongs of Judas committed such atrocities to amend those perceived wrongs. The same potentials exist today within the same groups denying responsibility the most. The pretense or self delusion that it is history and not relevant today only makes it more dangerous. Especially when fingers are still being pointed at those past wrongs. It's not over.

I must admit that I would be unlikely to respond to that thread you spoke of. I do watch the world through as many perspectives as I am capable. In the long run there will be more very ugly large scale events. They will proliferate essentially the same way you describe under different pretenses. The only thing I have ever promised myself is that I would help and protect anybody that was in danger regardless of risk. This today mostly includes stopping to help people that are stranded on the road. Cell phones has made this less common today but I still ask. Is this enough? I doubt it. Neither do I consider arguing with a wack job on a forum as a great help either.

 

[cnorman18]

--

If you get a tip on when the next ones start, feel free to come to my house.

Got firearms. Got ammo.

That might give a few of those pogromers pause.

DR

Texas CHL, Kel-Tec P3AT, 500 rounds of .380 FMJs and a selection of pocket holsters.

Yugo underfolder AK-47 w/red dot, 2,000 rounds of 7.62x39.

You're welcome at my house, too...

Sounds like we're both ready for SHTF. You're familiar with the expression, I trust...?

 

[blobru]

So I'm over on a Christian forum, trying to get a little respect for Judaism, and having about as much success as I am here (the subject being why Jews don't believe in Jesus), when a guy I'll call S***** comes on with the first of a series of truly horrifying posts. ...

That's sad; but inevitable... seems it's always there... never really goes away.

I have never been religious. Never got religion. Never went to church as a kid. Never read the bible.

I did read a fair bit of history growing up. Mostly from the Encyclopaedia my parents won on a gameshow: “Beat the Clock”. Read a lot about hatred towards the Jews -- dates, places, names, numbers; pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, holocaust -- but never where the hatred came from. I got the impression that “it was just there”, more or less taken for granted, it didn't have to be explained. Very odd, but ok, Jews were... 'different'.

In the language, too: "Man, I got jewed!" "What a jew job." "That guy's such a jew." Meaning, "cheat[ed]", etc.

It was honestly a mystery to me. Not that I was too concerned about it, of course. I was kid. I had stuff to do, comics to collect, bugs to squash, girls to tease. I had never even met a Jew (this is 1970’s Nova Scotia). All I knew of "Jews": I was conceived in a Jewish home -- my parents rented a room from a Jewish family in New Jersey just after they were married -- and my mom had very fond memories of babysitting for them; I learned a bit about Jewish-ness from reading sci-fi writers like Asimov, nothing remarkable though; I saw Jewish comedians on tv who would make fun of Jewish habits of pessimism and complaining, kvetching... it all seemed so harmless and charming; so where did this hatred come from? Why would this guy Hitler want to murder millions, many German citizens -- potential recruits -- in a time of war?

After high school, I started to dig a little, read seriously. I read the “classics”. I read the bible. I read the gospels. I read the gospel of Matthew. {Jesus and the Pharisees, Jesus seeming to say Jews were the children of murderers, a generation of vipers, condemned to Hell.} Then, Chapter 27; Verse 25:

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

I still remember how that line just floored me. JESUS CHRIST! Did I just read that? Does the Bible really blame all Jews forever for the death of Jesus? The same Jesus held up as a messenger of peace and love... whose praises even an atheist like me might absent-mindedly carol around xmas… is also responsible for two thousand years of hatred and the murder of millions? I couldn’t believe it! Sure I was an atheist, but I’d always assumed the Bible, the gospels anyway, were a string of “play nice”, “be kind”, lovey-dovey platitudes. Reading that chilled me to the core like no horror story or movie ever had.

And… finally hinted at an answer to those questions I had as a kid.

I'm still not religious. I still don't get religion. I have my own half-baked theory about it: a means to reinforce beliefs en masse that no one would believe individually; but who knows really. But having read the Bible, at least now I understand why so many people have hated, continue to hate Jews.

It's part of their religion. Part of our culture.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I still remember how that line just floored me. JESUS CHRIST! Did I just read that? Does the Bible really blame all Jews forever for the death of Jesus? The same Jesus held up as a messenger of peace and love... whose praises even an atheist like me might absent-mindedly carol around xmas… is also responsible for two thousand years of hatred and the murder of millions? I couldn’t believe it! Sure I was an atheist, but I’d always assumed the Bible, the gospels anyway, were a string of “play nice”, “be kind”, lovey-dovey platitudes. Reading that chilled me to the core like no horror story or movie ever had.

I always wondered how the anger for the alleged Jesus' alleged crucifixtion isn't direct at Italians. I seem to recall it was the Romans who actually did it.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Yes, but this all rather avoids my point. Do you or don't you think that it is possible to be "right" about whether Christ is the messiah? If yes, then surely we should be Christians (regardless of any history of exploitation) if he was the messiah, and not be Christians if he isn't--no? If no, (i.e., if you think that this is not a question that admits of a satisfactory answer) then why doesn't that also apply to Judaic beliefs?

As I've said before, Jews have no comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith. We claim to know only how God chose to speak to us; if He chose to speak to some other group in some other way--including to Gentiles through Jesus--that is no business of ours. We have never regarded Judaism as universally right for everyone--only for Jews. That's why we don't proselytize.

That may be unique as far as world religions are concerned.

Well, that's an unfalsifiable claim (you can always say "just wait!"). But then, isn't it just as true for any religion/ethnic group? Don't the Slav's tell exactly the same story of themselves--and with much historical justification? Don't the Muslims and the Hindus in India tell the same stories about each other? Again, that's fine if the point is "who is the best team," but it seems odd if the point is "who is right about God."

If I'm a Protestant controverting with a Catholic is it fair for me to instance the long, bloody history of Catholic oppression of Protestants as a reason for me to ignore their theological arguments? If it is, doesn't that suggest the theological arguments are hollow? If it isn't, then isn't the history of oppression (which, of course, the Catholics could also reproach the Protestants with) irrelevant?

I'm suggesting that you're bringing a historical "who has been the most oppressed" argument into a "who is right about God" fight. I'm also suggesting that that is only "fair" if the "who is right about God" arguments are, in fact, meaningless. You seem to think they aren't meaningless, so aren't you guilty of an argumentative fallacy here?

I don't think so. We're not arguing about football or verifiable facts. We're arguing about religion, and if someone tells me their faith is the holiest and most dedicated to truth, love and justice, with the highest moral standards, it's more than a little relevant that they've been murdering my people for generations. I'd call that grounds for rejection. Wouldn't you?

As for who's been most oppressed--it's not like that's a high honor that we're eager to hold on to. Jews have been happier, freer, more successful and more secure in the United States, right now, than in any country at any time in all our long history. But in 1930, that was true of Germany. We have no fears here; but it will always be in the back of our minds.

Mention to a Jew that there's never been a pogrom in the United States, and he will nod in agreement; and we are grateful for that. But in the back of his head is that one word--"yet." experience is a harsh teacher, and its lessons are not soon forgotten. We love it here, but we've learned to keep a bag packed.

Hindus, Muslims, Serbs, feh. They fought wars with each other. From 70 CE till 1948, what wars did we fight? What group or nation did we try to dominate? Where were we a majority? Where did we start a war of aggression?

Name another group that has been physically kicked out of every country in Europe at least once. Name another group that had 2/3 of its people on a continent, and 1/3 worldwide, murdered--not killed in war, but rounded up and murdered, man, woman, child. Name another group that has been the target of genocide almost continuously for two thousand years.

If you want to believe that we haven't had it harder than anybody else, feel free. I don't feel the need to prove anything. If you've never read a history of the Jewish people, you don't know, and that's not my problem to fix.

Think what you like. We don't bother to go there.

 

[cnorman18]

--

By the way (and I hope this isn't a derail), but is this correct? My understanding was that Orthodox jews don't accept conversions performed by non-Orthodox rabbis. I'm sure I've read about this being a problem in Israel where there are Israeli citizens who are granted citizenship on the grounds of being "jewish" but are refused recognition as "jews" by the Orthodox religious authorities. Surely somebody has to be saying "person X is a convert" for this matter to get any discussion (and adjudication) at all?

The matter is in dispute in the Israeli courts as we speak and remains unclear. Religious life in Israel is dominated by the Orthodox, though that is beginning to change. Most Israeli Jews are secular, and they're getting tired of the Orthodox making the rules.

I am a Conservative Jew, called a Masorti Jew in Israel. Some Orthodox rabbis would accept me as Jewish, since I went through the full ritual; circumcision, Beit Din, ritual bath, all of it. Some wouldn't. I don't care; I don't hang out with them anyway.

Someone asked me, when I began my conversion, if I was going to go Orthodox. I said, "I wasn't a fundamentalist when I was a Christian; why would I want to be one when I'm a Jew?"

 

[cnorman18]

--

Thanks. That's actually a concept that about half of the Jews I've spoken to embrace. (Interestingly, many of those that don't, are either converts from a fundie Xian sect, or have been pretty badly scarred from interactions with fundie Xians,

Yeah. They support Israel, but we don't trust 'em.

Honestly, most who have told me that weren't Jewish at all.

A lot of people think that. One reason, maybe, is that rabbis are traditionally required to discourage converts at first. The rule is, you have to turn them away three times before you even talk to them. In the old days, the rabbi would chase you out of his office with his cane: "Feh! Goyim!" Now they just don't return your calls. The third time, "Okay. Come on over, we'll talk." it's to see if you're really serious.

The idea is also, you're not doing somebody a favor by helping them become a Jew. In the Middle Ages, both the rabbi and the convert would be burned at the stake. One of our heroes is a Polish nobleman that chose to be burned alive rather than renounce his new religion.

Anyway, after you finally get started, it's just three years, more or less, of classes and individual study with the rabbi, and you're there.

Oh, yeah. If you're a guy--

Well, never mind.

Yeah, I've noticed that a pretty good number of the Jews I've interacted with have this "I'm a Jew, you're not, we're both OK" attitude, and even the more diligent and dedicated Jews have always been remarkably tolerant of me and my Pagan ways. I even had a neighbor who - while not particulary diligent, but was nonetheless a firm believer in her faith - would ask me to perform rituals or 'spells' to help her from time to time. I get the feeling she saw it as much as asking a Christian to pray for her - just the general idea of having a friend wish her well, I suppose.

Hey, you never know. You might know somebody... Like I said, we don't claim to know.I

And it can't hoit...

Anyway, thanks for the good info - back to lurker mode!

Come back again. I like questions. PM me if you like.

Peace.

Charles

 

[cnorman18]

--

It's part of their religion. Part of our culture.

That passage has caused us a lot of trouble over the years. The really sad part is, the whole curse is lifted in the book of Acts. I don't have a Christian Bible any more, so I can't tell you where it is, but Peter, I think, is speaking to that same crowd, or people that were in it. The gist is, "What shall we do? We crucified the Lord!" and Peter tells them, "Repent and be baptized, for this same Jesus, whom you crucified, will take away your sins--and the blessing is for you, and for your children."

The Jew-haters know it's there, but it blows their whole show.

 

[Yoink]

I don't think so. We're not arguing about football or verifiable facts. We're arguing about religion, and if someone tells me their faith is the holiest and most dedicated to truth, love and justice, with the highest moral standards, it's more than a little relevant that they've been murdering my people for generations. I'd call that grounds for rejection. Wouldn't you?

Only if we agree that there's no possible truth content to any of the religion's claims. But I'd call that already a grounds for rejection; once you grant that precondition, the rest of the argument is null. If someone could actually demonstrate that acceptance of Christ is the path to salvation then, no, obviously the fact the many Christians have behaved badly would have no logical bearing whatsoever on whether I should accept Christ.

As for who's been most oppressed--it's not like that's a high honor that we're eager to hold on to.

The rest of your post rather undermines this claim

Hindus, Muslims, Serbs, feh. They fought wars with each other. From 70 CE till 1948, what wars did we fight? What group or nation did we try to dominate? Where were we a majority? Where did we start a war of aggression?

I know you've read your tanakh, and read it carefully. Ask a Canaanite when the jewish people waged a war of extermination on religious grounds. Oh, that's right, they're all dead. Or are you saying there's a time limit. In 2000 years time will the Shoah no longer matter?

I'm not suggesting that this makes the Jewish people any worse than any other people, or makes judaism any worse than any other religion. All people (ALL people) are capable of appalling injustices. In the right circumstances, with slightly different twists of history, any nation could perpetrate a holocaust against any other. We know that the ancient Jews almost certainly perpetrated one because they documented it (and celebrated it) in their holiest writings. And no, that doesn't suggest that they're any more likely to perpetrate one now than any other people or body of believers on the planet.

Name another group that has been physically kicked out of every country in Europe at least once. Name another group that had 2/3 of its people on a continent, and 1/3 worldwide, murdered--not killed in war, but rounded up and murdered, man, woman, child. Name another group that has been the target of genocide almost continuously for two thousand years.

If you want to believe that we haven't had it harder than anybody else, feel free. I don't feel the need to prove anything. If you've never read a history of the Jewish people, you don't know, and that's not my problem to fix.

And here we have that "my grievances are so much more important than your grievances" line that sounds very much as if this is a "high honor" that you want to hold on to.

I stipulate to all the historical persecutions you instance above; I haven't a clue, however, what they have to do with my argument, which at no point made a quantitive comparison of the sufferings of the Jews to the sufferings of any other people. Let me repeat myself:

"I'm suggesting that you're bringing a historical "who has been the most oppressed" argument into a "who is right about God" fight. I'm also suggesting that that is only "fair" if the "who is right about God" arguments are, in fact, meaningless. You seem to think they aren't meaningless, so aren't you guilty of an argumentative fallacy here?"

In other words even if the Jewish people ARE in fact the most persecuted people of all time, it has no logical bearing on the question: "who is right about God."

 

[Yoink]

The matter is in dispute in the Israeli courts as we speak and remains unclear. Religious life in Israel is dominated by the Orthodox, though that is beginning to change. Most Israeli Jews are secular, and they're getting tired of the Orthodox making the rules.

I am a Conservative Jew, called a Masorti Jew in Israel. Some Orthodox rabbis would accept me as Jewish, since I went through the full ritual; circumcision, Beit Din, ritual bath, all of it. Some wouldn't. I don't care; I don't hang out with them anyway.

Someone asked me, when I began my conversion, if I was going to go Orthodox. I said, "I wasn't a fundamentalist when I was a Christian; why would I want to be one when I'm a Jew?"

This sounds a lot like a "who's a true Jew" argument. You said as an absolute statement that Jews don't ask about whether you're a convert. Now you agree that Orthodox Jews do, in fact, ask if you're a convert. So either Orthodox Jews aren't "true" Jews or your initial statement was false: Jews do, in fact, make distinctions between converts and non-converts.

 

[cnorman18]

--

I always wondered how the anger for the alleged Jesus' alleged crucifixtion isn't direct at Italians. I seem to recall it was the Romans who actually did it.

Yeah, they did Peter too, in Rome. And upside down.

I think when they were editing the NT, it went like this:

"Well, why CAN'T I say the Romans did it?"

"See those two big ugly guys over there with the swords?"

"Oh. Uh, yeah... Okay, I've got it! The Jews did it! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

 

[Yoink]

I still remember how that line just floored me. JESUS CHRIST! Did I just read that? Does the Bible really blame all Jews forever for the death of Jesus?

Well, Matthew was a Jew writing (primarily) to other Jews (about that other famous Jew, Jesus). I've always assumed the point of the passage was not "blame those filthy Jews" but "We are all guilty of Christ's death"--e.g., all humanity shares in the guilt--not just those filthy Romans.

It only gets to be taken up as an anti-semitic idea when Christianity becomes (by a sheer historical accident) primarily Roman. then it becomes "it's not the nice Roman boy's fault--it's those filthy Jews!" Although there's always a certain cognitive dissonance on this point in Christian theology. That is Christian's DO believe that we all share in the guilt for Christ's crucifixion. It's a central element of Christian meditation to blame oneself for the wounds suffered by Christ during his Passion etc. etc. (it's very traditional, in particular, to regard each act of sin as adding a further injury to Christ's sufferings). So there was never really a sound theological basis for the "blood guilt" idea.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Only if we agree that there's no possible truth content to any of the religion's claims. But I'd call that already a grounds for rejection; once you grant that precondition, the rest of the argument is null. If someone could actually demonstrate that acceptance of Christ is the path to salvation then, no, obviously the fact the many Christians have behaved badly would have no logical bearing whatsoever on whether I should accept Christ.

The rest of your post rather undermines this claim

I know you've read your tanakh, and read it carefully. Ask a Canaanite when the jewish people waged a war of extermination on religious grounds. Oh, that's right, they're all dead. Or are you saying there's a time limit. In 2000 years time will the Shoah no longer matter?

I'm not suggesting that this makes the Jewish people any worse than any other people, or makes judaism any worse than any other religion. All people (ALL people) are capable of appalling injustices. In the right circumstances, with slightly different twists of history, any nation could perpetrate a holocaust against any other. We know that the ancient Jews almost certainly perpetrated one because they documented it (and celebrated it) in their holiest writings. And no, that doesn't suggest that they're any more likely to perpetrate one now than any other people or body of believers on the planet.



And here we have that "my grievances are so much more important than your grievances" line that sounds very much as if this is a "high honor" that you want to hold on to.

I stipulate to all the historical persecutions you instance above; I haven't a clue, however, what they have to do with my argument, which at no point made a quantitive comparison of the sufferings of the Jews to the sufferings of any other people. Let me repeat myself:

"I'm suggesting that you're bringing a historical "who has been the most oppressed" argument into a "who is right about God" fight. I'm also suggesting that that is only "fair" if the "who is right about God" arguments are, in fact, meaningless. You seem to think they aren't meaningless, so aren't you guilty of an argumentative fallacy here?"

In other words even if the Jewish people ARE in fact the most persecuted people of all time, it has no logical bearing on the question: "who is right about God."

OK, I see your point, but, no offense, that's a textbook-classroom academic logic approach. In real life, looking at it like that makes no sense at all.

"Here, use this mechanic; he's better than yours."

"But every car he works on breaks down."

"So what? He might still be the best mechanic."

"Uh, right..."

If you're trying to decide whether to adopt the teachings of a religion whose followers seem to have a habit of killing you, the precious little intellectual chess-game approach of using rigorous logic to answer every question doesn't seem very sensible to me. If you insist that it's the only logical way, please explain what PROOF would be acceptable to you in making that decision.

I think I could write your answer for you, but go ahead; I want to see this.

On the massacres in the OT; we hardly "celebrate" them. They're more troubling to us than anyone. It's a bit of a relief to us to find out that archaeology indicates that they probably didn't happen.

I have to wonder if it's logic or polemics that make you think it makes sense to pronounce events that happened 3,000 years apart as morally equivalent, anyway.