"Why does the world hate the Jews?" Article
Why does the world hate the Jews?
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Many of the bitter controversies in every corner of the globe inevitably raise the same ancient question: why does the world hate the Jews?
Whether it’s the angry international reaction to Israel’s efforts to defend itself in Lebanon, or Mel Gibson’s drunken rant in Malibu, the age-old specter of anti-Semitism refuses to disappear. With only 13 million Jews in the world – less than one fourth of one percent of the earth’s population – why does this tiny group inspire such bitter, widespread and often violent animosity?
The answer is obvious to anyone who monitors anti-Semitic propaganda from all its multifarious sources. People who express hatred, resentment or fear regarding the Jews almost always focus on charges of Jewish arrogance, elitism, aggressiveness and lust for power. According to the classic logic of anti-Semites everywhere, Jews deserve harsher treatment than anyone else because they work harder than anyone else to enshrine their own superior status. This argument suggests that the only way to answer constant Jewish demands for special treatment and privilege is to impose special limitations and restrictions on their instinctive will to dominate. According to such logic, the rest of the world must work together to cut Jews down to size; only then will they function on the same plane as everyone else. As Hutton Gibson (Holocaust-denying father of the scandal-tarnished star, Mel) revealingly declared to interviewer Steve Feuerstein: “I don’t know what the Jewish agenda is except that it’s all about control. They’re after one world religion and one world government.”
This central, primeval charge that arrogant Jews seek global dominance originates from three distinct historical factors:
1- The emphasis on the “Chosen People” concept in the Bible
2- The prominence and prosperity of Jews in most nations in which they’ve established significant communities, and
3- The startling successes of the State of Israel in the mere 60 years of its existence.
These circumstances sometimes perplex even people of good will and therefore deserve deeper consideration and explanation.
I. CHOSEN PEOPLE CONCEPT
While it’s true that the Bible speaks repeatedly of a special relationship between God and the Jews, anti-Semitic agitators have always misunderstood or distorted the essential nature of that connection. According to Scripture, the Jews have been chosen for distinct responsibilities, not for unique privileges: we accept special obligations, rather than claiming special power. In Jewish tradition, non-Jews are expected to follow just seven commandments—the Noahide laws of basic morality. According to mainstream Torah teaching, gentiles who follow these rules (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit gross sexual immorality, and so forth) should be judged as righteous and assumed to earn their share in the World to Come (the afterlife). God, however, expects his covenantal people to apply far more numerous and stringent commandments to their behavior – 613 commandments, to be exact – regarding everything from food, to business ethics, marital relations, and Sabbath observance.
The concept of chosen-ness, in other words, involves a significant burden rather than privileged status —a burden reflected in the common phrase, “Ohl Malchus Shamayim” or “The Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” to describe the commitment of every Jew who accepts the covenant of Abraham. Moreover, Jews remain more a “choosing people” than a “chosen people” because so many non-Jews over the centuries (and particularly in recent years) have selected Jewish identity and converted to our faith. In the US, nearly 10% of today’s Jewish population of 5.2 million counts as converts to Judaism. Though we don’t emphasize proselytizing efforts in the style of Evangelical Christians, many of the leaders of the Jewish people (including hugely significant rabbis in nearly every era for the last 2000 years) have been “Jews by Choice” --- those who weren’t born Jewish, but chose to join our people through an ancient, well-established process of conversion.
Finally, the whole idea of the “Chosen People” has never brought the assumption that God selected us for unusual political, military or even economic authority. The Bible suggests that the Jews will be “a nation of priests and a holy nation” --- not some sort of all-conquering superpower within the Middle East or the world at large. Our tradition has always defined Jewish power as spiritual, rather than practical and worldly. No Jewish leader, going all the way back to Moses and Abraham, has ever suggested that our people should dominate the world and control other nations. The Bible specifies relatively modest borders for the Holy Land, and repeatedly mentions the much larger, far more formidable empires to the south (Egypt) and to the East (Babylonia, Assyria, Persia). Even during the glory days of ancient Israel under David and Solomon the Jewish state never achieved full control of that promised territory—let alone a world-girdling empire. At that time, as with Israel today, the Jewish people sought only to live unmolested within the confines of their own cherished land, each man “beneath his own vine and own fig tree.”
II. JEWISH PROMINENCE AND SUCCESS IN THE LANDS OF THE DIASPORA
No one can deny that Jews in the United States and in many other nations recently have achieved surprising levels of prosperity and influence but any talk of Jewish “dominance” or “control” in those societies remains the province of neo-Nazi propagandists. There is no significant industry or arena of endeavor – no, not one--in any nation in the world (outside of Israel) in which Jews outnumber or rule over non-Jews. Even the famous Jewish command of Hollywood is an ignorant myth concerning an increasingly international industry in which the prominence of influential Jews has actually decreased in the last seventy years. Most of the pioneering movie studios founded and owned by immigrant Jewish families have either gone out of the movie production business altogether (M-G-M) or else sold out to strikingly non-Jewish corporations (Columbia to the Japanese Sony Corporation, and 20th Century Fox to an Australian descendant of Presbyterian clergy, Rupert Murdoch). The two largest entertainment conglomerates in the world boast board chairmen who are African-American (Richard Parsons at Time Warner) and Arab American (George Mitchell at Disney) neither of whom are remotely Jewish. The yearly lists of Hollywood’s most influential power players, as identified by Premiere Magazine and other sources, regularly show that close to one-fourth of the movers-and-shakers are Jews—a disproportionate showing, to be sure, but hardly an indication of Jewish dominance. Similarly, the Fortune 500 list of the nation’s largest corporations features a top ten ranking that includes three oil companies with strong Arab ties and no affection whatever for Israel, as well as a car company (Ford) founded by one of history’s most outspoken anti-Semites, and a retailer run by conservative Christians from Arkansas (Wal-Mart)—but not a single corporation that was founded, run, or owned by Jews. Among the top 100, at most six (including Home Depot, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers) could classify in any way as “Jewish companies.” With these incontrovertible facts easy to verify for anyone with access to the internet or a library, it becomes even more difficult to explain the persistent, pernicious and utterly false belief that Jews “own” or “control” most of the world’s banks, newspapers, media companies and other important instiutions. Part of the confusion involves appalling lies and misinformation: many callers to my radio show somehow believe that the Rockefellers are Jewish (they were actually German Christians who arrived in Philadelphia in 1723) or that the Rothschild family—a favorite target of anti-Semites for more than 200 years-- still dominates world banking (the family’s power actually peaked in the Napoleonic era and their influence on the global economy today is either invisible or non-existent).
There is also a tendency on the part of paranoid anti-Semites to search out a few Jewish names even in areas in which Jews play minor roles in order to triumphantly affirm the myth of “Jewish control.” Consider the case of the Bush administration and the frequent, laughably absurd charge that it’s somehow dominated by Jewish “neo-conservatives” who forced the President to make war on Iraq for the sake of Israel. In truth, Jews remained conspicuously absent from positions of authority during the first Bush term: for the first time in more than 65 years (since the Presidency of FDR!) the President’s Cabinet (15 department heads in all) included not a single Jew. The true believers in a Neo-Con cabal invariably cite just two names who held sub-cabinet posts (Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) and a single civilian advisor to the Defense Department (Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board) who doesn’t even count as an administration employee. The anti-Semites focus on these names not because of their importance (anyone who believes that Wolfowitz and Feith secretly controlled their imperious, tough-as-nails boss, Don Rumsfeld, knows nothing about Rummy) but because they happen to be Jewish. Similarly, conspiracists like to blame Jews in the Senate for pushing us into war with Iraq, while ignoring the fact that a bare majority of the eleven Jewish Senators at the time (including such fierce anti-war advocates as Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer) actually voted against the resolution authorizing war –at a time when nearly 80% of their gentile colleagues lined up on the other side to support the President in deposing Saddam Hussein.
To me, one of the most mystifying aspects of the stubborn belief in Jewish influence and power is the notion that our fractious, deeply divided, largely disaffiliated people somehow manages to get together to exert that authority. I’m a Jewish radio talk show host, and so is the appalling (and unfunny) Al Franken of Air America. We agree on nothing, and we’ve both managed to survive several very angry, bitter, public confrontations. Do Jew-haters believe that behind the scenes we receive the same secret memos from Jewish Conspiracy Central, or else get together in dank, shadowy rooms to study the one-hundred-year-old hoax, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? Less than half of the U.S. Jewish population (alas!) gives to any Jewish charity, or holds membership in any synagogue, Temple, pro-Israel lobbying group, B’nai B’rith lodge, or other Jewish organization.
In this context, the almost mystical, profoundly illogical belief in “Jewish power” based on our over-representation among accountants and dentists amounts to more than a delusion; it is, in fact, a sickness.
III: ISRAEL’S SUCCESS – AND ALLEGEDLY “EXPANSIONIST” AND “IMPERIALIST” NATURE
In order to credit Islamist denunciations of an “Israeli Empire,” or worry that the perennially embattled Jewish state might indeed count as uniquely aggressive and power hungry, one must remain incurably ignorant not only of contemporary history but of rudimentary geography. The merest glance at a map reveals the incontrovertible fact that Israel remains, in every sense, a tiny nation. Egypt alone – representing only one of Israel’s twenty hostile Arab neighbors—is more than 48 times the land area of Israel. Adding together only the various Arab nations (without including other vast Islamic homelands like Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan), the Arabs control well over 300 times the area of the New Jersey-sized Jewish state. In other words, even before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran succeeds (God forbid) in his plan to “wipe Israel from the map,” 99.7% of the Arab lands are already free of Jews.
Moreover, for nearly thirty years, Israel has been shrinking and retreating – not expanding – hardly the behavior of an aggressive empire bent on world domination. After capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza and the West Bank in a defensive war in 1967, Israel returned the vast Sinai to Egypt in 1978, agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian State on most of the West Bank and Gaza in 1993, vacated its security zone in Lebanon in 2000, abandoned Gaza entirely in 2005 and, under the current Prime Minister, committed to moving out of nearly all territory in the West Bank in the near future. In retrospect, some of these moves look like horrible policy mistakes, but they unequivocally indicate that there is no basis at all to suggest that Israeli aggression accounts for contemporary anti-Semitism.
The establishment of the modern Jewish state wasn’t a cause of Jew hatred, but a response to Jew hatred—not only in Europe, but throughout the Islamic world where some 800,000 Middle Eastern and North African Jews were driven from their ancient communities and found new homes in Israel. None of Israel’s eight major wars has been about a Jewish lust for new territory. All of them have been about a beleaguered nation’s ceaseless attempts to make its citizens secure from murderous attack in the distinctly limited area of their ancestral homeland. Every Arab child in Lebanon, in Gaza, and in the West Bank could sleep sweet, undisturbed slumber as soon as tomorrow night if the adults once-and-for-all gave up their long-standing project of driving the Jews out of the Middle East.
Contrary to anti-Semitic presumptions, Israel has never demanded special privileges of any kind, but yearns (and bleeds) only for the same rights other nations enjoy: to live undisturbed beside its neighbors without unceasing attack by terrorists, militias and, occasionally, major armies. Montenegro, the newest member of the family of nations after a referendum this year, won independence and worldwide recognition despite the fact that more than 45% of the electorate opposed bringing the nation into existence, and only a bare majority claims Montenegran (as opposed to Serbian) nationality. More than 80% of the residents of Israel are Jewish, and they have fought tenaciously for their nationhood for nearly sixty years. The desire for peaceful borders and acceptance from fanatical neighbors hardly amounts to an Israeli demand of privileged status, but the refusal to grant that recognition reflects the classical attitude of the anti-Semite: that Jews indeed deserve different treatment from all other nations on earth but in a negative, hostile and, ultimately murderous sense.
In conclusion, none of the three obsessive fears of Jew haters—the “Chosen People” concept, Jewish prosperity in the Diaspora, and Israel’s success (so far) in nation-building and self-defense –demonstrates in any way a push for world conquest or superior standing for the children of Abraham. How, then, can we understand the imperishable belief that Jews function as an arrogant, imperious, overbearing people? In a few words, that resentment stems in truth from the age-old Jewish refusal to abandon our separate identity, our irreducible distinctiveness through the millennia. My friends Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin provide the most compelling exposition on this dynamic in their invaluable book, Why the Jews?, recently reissued.
In any event, the logic becomes most accessible when considered in personal, intimate terms. If a small group among your neighbors refuses invitations to worship in your churches and mosques, to eat the food you prepare in your homes, to marry your daughters, to embrace your nationalisms, or to share your enthusiasm for the ultimate, universally applicable perfection of your Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Catholic, Islamic, Nazi or Communist worldview, then it’s all but certain you will resent the members of that stubborn group – and assume that they exclude themselves from elements of your society due to an innate, obnoxious sense of superiority.
For Jews who try to remain faithful to the old covenant, there’s no choice about the unyielding refusal to assimilate and disappear—and no surprise at the angry reaction in much of the world. After all, the Bible repeatedly predicts that response. This realization doesn’t make it any easier to cope with anti-Semitism, but it does make the eternal hatred comprehensible. No matter how inconvenient or unpopular, we get our marching orders from the commandments--including the crucial and celebrated injunction to choose life, for ourselves and our people.
*End*
My response
(specific to this article):
I don't hate anyone.
However, if someone lives in my nation, but refuses to integrate; and worse things everyone around them are "the flesh of an ass" but them.
It is perfectly reasonable, acceptable, and in your best interest to do what you can to get them to leave in the most humane way you can. Because, when war, famine, any tragedy comes, they are not going to have helped your nation/community prepare and, therefore, do not deserve to partake of what will help them survive along with everyone else. And they will not have the same sense of loyalty and priorities to the rest of the community as everyone else and cannot be trusted.
I could give a fuck if it is based on religion or their just being stuck-up assholes in general.
It is not hate, it is just smart.
That has nothing to do with killing or genocide or any other aspect of atrocity... laws must be obeyed. I am talking about do you do business with those who think of you as a thing or not?
The answer is no.
I have Jewish friends that are family to me.
I know Jewish people who believe that tenant and they are the same to me as a Klansman.
He said it best.
If a small group among your neighbors refuses invitations to worship in your churches and mosques, to eat the food you prepare in your homes, to marry your daughters, to embrace your nationalisms, or to share your enthusiasm for the ultimate, universally applicable perfection of your Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Catholic, Islamic, Nazi or Communist worldview, then it’s all but certain you will resent the members of that stubborn group – and assume that they exclude themselves from elements of your society due to an innate, obnoxious sense of superiority.
My response (specific to this article):
I don't hate anyone.
However, if someone lives in my nation, but refuses to integrate; and worse things everyone around them are "the flesh of an ass" but them.
It is perfectly reasonable, acceptable, and in your best interest to do what you can to get them to leave in the most humane way you can. Because, when war, famine, any tragedy comes, they are not going to have helped your nation/community prepare and, therefore, do not deserve to partake of what will help them survive along with everyone else. And they will not have the same sense of loyalty and priorities to the rest of the community as everyone else and cannot be trusted.
I could give a fuck if it is based on religion or their just being stuck-up assholes in general.
It is not hate, it is just smart.
That has nothing to do with killing or genocide or any other aspect of atrocity... laws must be obeyed. I am talking about do you do business with those who think of you as a thing or not?
The answer is no.
I have Jewish friends that are family to me.
I know Jewish people who believe that tenant and they are the same to me as a Klansman.
He said it best.
I have a hard time understanding your posts sometimes rkz. I just want to make sure I'm getting this right, because it's not clear what is quoted, and what are your thoughts.
Are you saying that some/all Jews living in the US are outsiders living in
your country, and that they contribute nothing to the community so they deserve nothing in return in case of emergency? Is the idea that the country isn't theirs, but that it's ours/yours? And that we should try to encourage them out of the country by not buying anything from them? But you don't hate them and don't wish them any harm? Is that what you are saying?
I understand that you say you have Jewish friends and you don't hate Jews, but I just wanted to make sure I read your post right.
Only in the case where that group feels as if, and behaves as if, they are outsiders and that they are of the persuasion that they are superior to all others (who are just animals).
It is like saying one is being unfair if they do not shop at a Nazi, white supremacist, black panther or Hamas grocery store that uses all profits for only those types of activities... taking your money while looking at you as something to be despised while doing it.
I have first-hand experience with these hard-line fundamental types. They are not your normal, just-like-you-&-me Jewish neighbors.
Just because you don't agree with everything, all in a group does, does not mean you are against the whole of the group.
One does not have to be a hard-core Zionist to love Jewish people. For some reason, in the US, this has become confused. There are many Jews who are not Zionists at all.
I have no stance at all, BTW. I don't think their religion has squat to do with their politics anymore.
I only care what an individual has in their heart and what their actions are.
This is all hypothetical. I have never boycotted a business nor do I think there are any worth doing so to, at least that I know of.
BTW... within this thread, I am only speaking the language of the article.
I think the perceived problem with those who have "issues" with Jews who have not known many/any is too little information, but just enough to cause negative emotions/thoughts.
The doctrine of the non-Jew as an ass is a fact, no one likes to be thought of that way, I sure don't.
Some who segregate themselves and practice a great deal of nepotism is also... but so is it with just as many other people's. I have no idea why people are not extremely suspicious of the Amish or others based on this, but I don't think that is the only reason. (any more are these traits of common Jews, just the occasional community)
I think it is the money thing... many have fear of Mormons, they have lots of money too (they have been the richest corporation in the US if religious corps. were included in those stats). Same thing... power and not sharing it... ooooohhhh, "They" got something bad going on!
snip~ I have no idea why people are not extremely suspicious of the Amish thing ~snip
Many of their neighbors are, and some downright hate the Amish/mennonites. :cool:
In truth, Jews remained conspicuously absent from positions of authority during the first Bush term: for the first time in more than 65 years (since the Presidency of FDR!) the President’s Cabinet (15 department heads in all) included not a single Jew.
And look where that got us.;)
Many of their neighbors are, and some downright hate the Amish/mennonites. :cool:
:3_eyes: What the hell do they based that on... their possible hay/preserves-based death ray?
:3_eyes: What the hell do they based that on... their possible hay/preserves-based death ray?
From what I can deduce, it's resentment of their standoffish attitude/nature and their wealth. :cool:
Basically envy? I would never admit to that. To each their own, I guess.
They don't admit to it....hense,;) deduced.
I get that... but making such statements without something to back them up is an admission.
You lost me ....what statements?:confused:
My Swiss-GERMAN mother, raised in the 20's and 30's, bitterly hated the Jews. I really don't know why. She could tell by a person's last name if they were Jewish or not - and I don't mean obvious names like Goldberg or something. Then after she divorced my Dad, she married a Jew! HUH? This man himself seemed to hate Jews. He was an odd man, yet crazy like a fox. Sometimes, I think he said he hated Jews,to win my Mom over - but why try to win over someone with such unreasoning prejudice?
My Mother also had a Christian German friend who had been born in Germany and gone thru WWII there and the whole 9 yards. I would hear this woman talking with my Mom and she'd say "The Jews! They are no good. They'd come pushing a wheelbarrow into town like Gypsies. Before you knew what happened, they'd taken over everything!" Sounds like jealousy to me.
BTW, in pre-war Europe, the Jews were really NOT allowed to integrate with the community in many areas. But this was different in the big cities. I remember once reading something by a Jewish man raised in pre-war Berlin. In effect, he wrote, "I never thought of myself as Jewish first and German second. In fact, religion mattered little to me. I thought of myself as a German just like the rest of my countrymen. It felt unreal when my own country began to turn against me and the rest of the German Jews."
I'll be honest here and give you the words that come to my mind when someone says, "Jew": Intelligent, clannish, highly interested in making and saving money, exotic (as in "other"). Some seem very compassionate. Some don't. I realize these are stereotypes that I probably learned from my Mom and have no real over-all validity.
The only Jew I have known well is my Jewish step father. His family escaped Armenia with the classic ploy of gold coins sewn into their clothes. They came to L.A. and prospered. My ex-step father's father was a pharmicist and invented the hyperdermic needle or something. My ex step father and ALL his brothers became doctors. The family was one huge dysfunctional mess, and it was atrocious what my ex step father did to both me and my mother at the end of their marriage.
But that's just a single individual. My ex step father could have been Norwegian and acted just like that.
I think the prejudice against the Jews is just xenophobia, pure and simple. I do my best to take people for what they are, not who they are.
I've had three Jewish boyfriends--one was a practicing Jew, the other two were not. All three were intelligent, kind, compassionate and thoughtful.
The mother of boyfriend #1 hated me because I went to a Catholic high school and she wanted her son to date Jewish girls.
She was vaklempt at my non-Jewishness.
the last Jewish boyfriend I had was a NYC Jew who didn't practice. He seemed very exotic to me more because of his NYC background than his Jewish background.
since this thread is about jew hatin', I thought I would post this here... Hamas hates Jews and has refused to abide by existing peace accords with Israel as well as refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. Apparently, Hamas has been in secret talks with the Democratic Party for some time now, and it is only coming out now that they have been. Maybe I'm wrong, but Hamas is flagged by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and it is the policy of the U.S. not to negotiate with terrorists?
here is the reportMaybe they'll miraculously release the hostages, oops - recognize Israel as soon as the Dems take power!
'Jews are cool' makes about as much sense as 'Jews are bad'. They're individual people.
There's not a very big Jewish population where I live. Down in Melbourne there's a few Jewish communities though. I think in all my life, I've only ever met one Jewish girl and she was the next best thing to a prostitute...and was a dealer...and spent most of her life stoned.
I didn't hate her, but she pissed me off big time once or twice.
The only people, who happened to be Jewish, that I met who I found to be disagreeable and fitting the description of the article were a group of Orthodox Jews I met on the subway (it got backed-up) and we began talking.
They were feeling-me-out, being from the south (I was wearing a cowboy hat, which I do often). I think they expected/wanted me to be a raging hate-monger.
What ended-up happening was that they were the hate-mongers. Holding the view of the Torah passage stating that all others were "less than they" and that Israel should practice genocide within their borders. Which they had a very liberal definition of... basically anything that had been occupied by Biblical Israelis.
Essentially, they were Jewish red-necks.
I talked of them to my Jewish friends and they told me that they had heard of these types and that very few of the Orthodox are like that.
Every group has their nuts.
For some, inexplicable reason, many think all Jewish people think like this vast minority.
I dated two Jewish men. I'm not fond of either of them.
I had a Jewish neighbor married to a Gentile man, who converted for her, including full circumcision at the age of 32, and then she left him because it turned out she needed a "really" Jewish husband after all. I thought she was kind of a bitch.
But my gay Jew former roommate, and all the rest of the Jews I've never met, are cool with me.
I'm in a law firm. Lots of Jews here.
They are individuals. I never thought of them as Jews or non-Jews. Now that I think about them as a distinct group, it occurs to me that the majority of them are very nice. Some are exceedingly nice. There are a few jerks though.
I just don't get this thread.
The thread is just viewing an article, that is a very skewed vision of the world.
I have not seen anyone endorsing it.
Well, I not only had a Jewish boyfriend but I was going to marry him. To do that I would have converted and received a biblical name, gone to Hadassah meetings, and observed all the family traditions, but I made it clear that I was not going to stop believing that Jesus WAS the Messiah. They actually had no problem with that! This was a liberal enclave in Washington DC in the 1960s. They all loved me as a person and knew I'd still be the same person whether I converted or not. I went through the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War with these people, learned how to cook, and was encouraged to paint, learn photography, and go to every art show within 100 miles. The only reason I am not Jewish now is because the "sensitive" boy I wanted to marry turned out to be incapable of choosing a direction for his life and felt overwhelmed when his formerly-virgin protege graduated from college, got a job with IBM, and became more of a confident personality than he was.
All in all, I have found the Jews (maybe it was MY Jews only, but I do not think so) to be funny, compassionate, generous to a fault, active, cultured, educated, flexible, uninhibited, and very observant. And Jewish men are well hung. What more could you ask for? ;)
You would have been a Jew fo' Jesus! Yo!
A point many do not understand is that Jesus can be the Jewish messiah, just not yet.
The messiah is not named until the end-days, upon his return from the dead and certain criteria are met. Even if his resurrection was accepted by the Jewish hierarchy, the criteria of ascension was not met, nor were the criteria for the end-times (obviously).
So, he can be, and many Jews think he will be, just not yet.
Yep, I would have been a Jew for Jesus. The sad state of affairs in organized religion today is that THE WAY THE JEWS LIVE AND WORSHIP IS CLOSER TO JESUS' TEACHINGS THAN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
Having studied "Religion" as a required subject in a Methodist college, I have read voraciously ever since and came to the conclusion that, rather obviously, Jesus having been a fine Jewish boy himself, his original teachings would have been based precisely in the traditions and teachings of that religion. In fact, the disciples originally proselitized as another Jewish sect, requiring their converts to observe Jewish religious law and be circumcized. This became a deal-breaker as they moved farther afield, because there were hardly any synagogs or Jewish support systems in places like Greece and they realized that separating themselves that sharply from the populations they wanted to convert might lead to martyrdom faster than acceptance. By the Third Century, as we know, the people who had taken over "leadership" of the fledgling Church went into the politics and power game and began solidifying the dogma and doctrine, enforcing it with the sword and fire, and we have been moving away from Jesus' teaching ever since and into the realm of fantasy and fiction :(
The only people, who happened to be Jewish, that I met who I found to be disagreeable and fitting the description of the article were a group of Orthodox Jews I met on the subway (it got backed-up) and we began talking...
I know you were being positive, balanced the issue well, but I wanted to use your experience as an example and expand on what you said. I hope that's ok.
As a Jew I'd like to apologize on behalf of all Jews for the experience you had with some stupid Jews. In all fairness though, I'd like to first point out that within every group, you'll find smart ones, stupid ones, holier-than-thou ones, and good ones. You happened to find a sampling of what I consider the worst community in any religion; not orthodox per-se, but those condescending fanatics who are so busy enjoying the smell of their own poop that they don't realize they've completely missed the point.
The roadmap to finding such counter-human attitudes based on their particular sect of the religion is not an exact or a reliable science. There's a sliding scale, where the more extreme groups will be more likely to show signs of idiotness, while the more secular sects will probably be more... well, more open to being a part of the solution. However, as I mentioned, this isn't an exact science. I myself tend to expect down-the-nose looks from the Chassidic sect of Jews, which if you don't know are our most "extreme" implementation ("extreme" is in quotes here so as not to denote violence but rather a steadfast devotion to the letter as opposed to the spirit of Jewish law); so yes, we Jews even look down on each other. But try and tell me you've never looked down on others or at least been looked down on by others, in your respective religions... All of you! Try to tell me that! I dare you. Not really, please don't bother me.
Anyway, that's where I tend to expect it, in the extremities, but you'll really find sporadic examples throughout. As for orthodox Jews specifically, I think there's more positivity than negativity. I could be wrong (it's happened before).
These might be points so obvious that many would wonder why I would bother to point them out. They might be the case with most religions (and I think they are). So if I'm telling you something you already know, please complain, as it will do you loads of good. But just in case you happen to be one of those unfortunate souls that had a chance encounter with an example of Jews that most Jews generally aren't proud of, I would hate to think you've passed judgment on the lot of us based solely on that, even unintentionally. So for you, this is just a heads-up. I don't think I'm any better than any of you. There, now you heard it from at least one of us.
I agree with you and have conversed with others that this article could have been written about anyone, any group, from any other group's perspective.
Welcome to the Cellar equazcion! Very eloquently put.
Thanks Dana, good to be here :)
One thing I was confused about:
The doctrine of the non-Jew as an ass is a fact, no one likes to be thought of that way, I sure don't.
Are you saying there's a Jewish policy of thinking of non-Jews as asses? This seems to be contradictory to everything else you said. Could you clarify what you meant there?
I'm not trying to be nitpicky, and I could be unduly assuming you meant something more general than you intended, but it really does sound much more broad-reaching than the manner in which you've described that same attitude elsewhere.
No... there is a line in some obscure text somwhere... honestly (unusual for me) I cannot remember where it is. I think it may be in one of the old transcripts of the Midrash.
If you dig deeply enough in most religions there is some kind of similar statement, something that states that "they" are less than "us".
Buddhism and Christianity are actually unusual in the respect that they do not do this, doctinally... of course, that does not stop sects from trying.
I think you're right that something somewhere does say that, but I don't remember the specific context well enough to comment on it. But Christianity... I mean don't they think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell? That would seem to qualify as believing everyone else is "less" than them. I mean, the Midrash is mostly made up of symbolism and stories that were passed down verbally, so just because Christians never wrote down that particular thing (I believe it comes from one of the apostles) shouldn't make it any less "doctrine". At least that's my opinion.
No... it does not say that. Many Christians have interpreted the text to say that, like I said. Many are addicted to the "us-&-them" thinking, it is ego and sickness and has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
"I am the way and the light and none may ..." does not state specifically that you have to be a Christian to go to heaven... there are many ways to interpret that statement.
I, and many Christians, look at it as his "path" is the Way, not just the Christian dogma.
Not all Christians believe in a God that needs to have his ass kissed.
I guess I can't really compare the two since I don't have either specific text to look at. I don't even know where your quote comes from. Maybe I'll come back and argue some more once I check.
Argue? Were we arguing?... huh... I did not know.
I said something and you said "No." In the strictest technical sense, that's an argument.
What I was referring to was really the beliefs of Christians, which I generally thought included a much more concrete sense of self-superiority.
Even if it's true there's nothing written down for Christians and there is for Jews, I really feel that Christians carry more of that than any other religion. I mean otherwise why would they be so interested in converting people? Aren't they trying to "save" everyone else? Jews don't try to convert anyone, in fact it's a policy that we have to make it difficult for people to convert into the religion.
Basically I just don't think the fact that it's written down means anything. It's what people actually believe and practice that makes the difference. Anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus can probably tell you they get the distinct feeling that Christianity has determined they're going to end up in hell. I certainly have that feeling.
So you had said you don't like to be thought of "that way." Well, you're not. That kind of thinking, even if it's written somewhere (and I'm still not sure that it is, at least not in a manner that's closed to interpretation), isn't part of any practical Jewish teachings that go on today, at least in general; I'm sure you can find some extremist group that does use it practically, but I've never even heard of anything like that.
That is like saying that because most suicide bombers are Muslim it is part of their dogma. Simply does not make it a true statement.
Because a lot of Christians have taken the evangelical ideal wrong does not make it part of Christianity.
You may have that feeling... is it based in fact, that is what makes it true or not.
I'm not sure if it's based on fact. But I did present some evidence that it's reasonable for people to make the assumption. Isn't it true that even non-evangelical priests are interested in converting people, that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved? I admittedly get this mostly from cultural references, TV and movies (quite a few individuals too), but that message does seem to be overwhelming. I don't think I've ever seen a priest portrayed as not holding those kinds of beliefs, and I'm not talking about contexts that aim to put Christianity down. I'm talking about everything, even realistic media, that's just all I've ever seen.
I hope someone has some information that might shed some light on whether or not this is true. Maybe there's a priest out there?
Anyway my point isn't to say anything negative about Christianity -- I'm only balancing the 'doctrine' you pointed out about Judaism. Jews may have it written down, but it is far from doctrine, and I'm pretty sure Christians have done more with their verbal version anyway.
I believe in defining people by what they practice, not by what they preach. I define Christians as practicing the mainstream interpretation of the Bible. I interpret it differently, and I don't call myself Christian. I could if I wanted to, but I wouldn't want to be confused with those other people, whom I don't agree with on several key points. So, for me it's all about clarity. Let the people who state that they are Christians be the ones who define what Christianity means. If that lumps a few good apples in with the rest, well I have an easy solution for that: they could cancel their membership to the club, if they don't like the direction it's going. I don't know what Christianity could possibly refer to, in the real world, if not Christians and what Christians actually do.
It's like saying "I'm a librarian but I don't actually work at the library, I sell ice cream at an amusement park. I know usually librarian means a certain thing, but I want you to forget that for now and pretend it means ice cream salesman. Those other librarians aren't really librarians. They're actually telephone repairmen who call themselves librarians, whereas I'm an ice cream salesman who is actually a real librarian." Can you see how confusing it gets when words aren't allowed to actually mean anything?
Let the people who state that they are Christians be the ones who define what Christianity means. If that lumps a few good apples in with the rest, well I have an easy solution for that: they could cancel their membership to the club, if they don't like the direction it's going.
The difficulty with the people who state that they are Christians, being the ones who define the meaning of Christianity, is that generally speaking those interpretations range along a spectrum so vast that they eventually become diametrically opposed to one another. The history of that definition is one of argument; orthodoxy, heterodoxy, they were just interpretations of the sacred texts, yet each could throw the charge of heresy at the other and the fight for dominance of those ideas was bitter. Sometimes the result was people dying and sometimes it was schism. Since the idea of personal salvation and a personal, individual relationship with the godhead, took off in a big way, those differences of interpretation may lead to much smaller consequences, but there are many more of those different interpretations around.
Oh....and I never really understood the idea that someone can just leave a religion that doesn't quite fulfil their needs/expectations. I don't believe there's a God, I do think if I did believe in God, I'd be rather inclined to find whichever interpretation seemed to actually tell me what God wants of me and then follow it. I'd need to feel pretty sure I was being sold the wrong path to actually change it.
With all these disagreements, it sounds like the word doesn't actually mean anything tangible.
If I thought I was calling myself a nonsense-word, I would drop the word, and keep my beliefs.
...if I did believe in God, I'd be rather inclined to find whichever interpretation seemed to actually tell me what God wants of me and then follow it. I'd need to feel pretty sure I was being sold the wrong path to actually change it.
As I said before my feeling is that Christianity as defined by Christians contains the premise that everyone else is just mistaken in whatever God they believe in. "Conversion" to them isn't just switching menu choices to something that looks more attractive; it's leaving behind your mistaken beliefs in favor of the correct ones, as many have been convinced is the case.
With all these disagreements, it sounds like the word doesn't actually mean anything tangible.
If I thought I was calling myself a nonsense-word, I would drop the word, and keep my beliefs.
That's a good solution, in theory, but I think it's too extreme for most people to actually put into practical use. "*gasp* You're saying you're not Christian anymore? Are you sure that's safe?" Dropping the word could in-and-of-itself be viewed as sacreligious. PS, that's not just the case with Christianity. Any religious person would be uncomfortable separating themselves from the general mass that way. It's like excluding yourself from a club, you don't get to belong anymore, you have to turn in your membership card and everything. Not a positive feeling.
As a jew who grew up in a town with very few jews, I had to hear everyday from other students in my school that I was personally responsible for the death of Christ.
With that and everything that I have seen since, I can say that, for myself, the world is made up of only two main types of people..People who aren't jerks and everyone else.
Well said Sheldon.
Equazcion, my comment about people abandoning their current beliefs or converting based, was in response to a comment made by Flint. I would imagine most people who change their religion don't do so lightly.
I have scraped smarter things than Paris Hilton off my shoes.
I understand the need to word it that way rather than "I have scraped smarter things off my shoes than Paris Hilton," because then it would sound like of the two of you, you and Paris Hilton, you're the one who's scraped more stuff off your shoes, but I think it would sound better if you said "I've scraped things off my shoes that were smarter than Paris Hilton."
Umm...don't know. I think I prefer Sheldon's....just seems snappier.
I understand the need to word it that way rather than "I have scraped smarter things off my shoes than Paris Hilton," because then it would sound like of the two of you, you and Paris Hilton, you're the one who's scraped more stuff off your shoes, but I think it would sound better if you said "I've scraped things off my shoes that were smarter than Paris Hilton."
So long as my shoes are clean, that's all that matters. :D
It's like, you start reading it, "I've scraped smarter things than Paris Hilton," and it sounds like you're saying you've scraped other people who were smarter than Paris Hilton, then you get to the "off my shoes" part, and you have to rethink the sentence. Whereas "I've scraped things off my shoes," makes it clear right away that we're talking about scraping something off shoes, not just going and scraping things. See what I mean? I know when I read it originally, I had to re-read it a couple times before it made fluid sense. Anyway it's just a suggestion. As far-reaching as the implications that this issue presents, I'm willing to concede to whichever version Sheldon decides on.
It's like, you start reading it, "I've scraped smarter things than Paris Hilton," and it sounds like you're saying you've scraped other people who were smarter than Paris Hilton, then you get to the "off my shoes" part, and you have to rethink the sentence. Whereas "I've scraped things off my shoes," makes it clear right away that we're talking about scraping something off shoes, not just going and scraping things. See what I mean? I know when I read it originally, I had to re-read it a couple times before it made fluid sense. Anyway it's just a suggestion. As far-reaching as the implications that this issue presents, I'm willing to concede to whichever version Sheldon decides on.
;) I'm gonna stick with the version I have already. It has a better cadence to my ear. But thanks for noticing it and making suggestions.
We now return this thread to the subject of Jews and hatred.
Yeah I was gonna say, I didn't mean to halt the whole conversation, just present some comic relief. Please, continue. Anyone?
I'm not sure if it's based on fact. But I did present some evidence that it's reasonable for people to make the assumption. Isn't it true that even non-evangelical priests are interested in converting people, that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved? I admittedly get this mostly from cultural references, TV and movies (quite a few individuals too), but that message does seem to be overwhelming. I don't think I've ever seen a priest portrayed as not holding those kinds of beliefs, and I'm not talking about contexts that aim to put Christianity down. I'm talking about everything, even realistic media, that's just all I've ever seen.
I hope someone has some information that might shed some light on whether or not this is true. Maybe there's a priest out there?
Anyway my point isn't to say anything negative about Christianity -- I'm only balancing the 'doctrine' you pointed out about Judaism. Jews may have it written down, but it is far from doctrine, and I'm pretty sure Christians have done more with their verbal version anyway.
The difference between what you are doing and what I have done is that you are lumping all those who follow Christ into one group... some are following a faith, others the business of the religion. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I have not done so with the Jewish faithful.
I didn't say all those who follow Christ. I'm saying Christianity. I'm not lumping anyone into anything. I know plenty believers in Jesus don't hold those beliefs, but it still stands that it is doctrine for Christianity that everyone else is going to hell. It's not doctrine for Judaism that everyone else is "an ass," as you said.
...But Christianity... I mean don't they think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell? That would seem to qualify as believing everyone else is "less" than them...
I'm not sure if it's based on fact. But I did present some evidence that it's reasonable for people to make the assumption. Isn't it true that even non-evangelical priests are interested in converting people, that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved? I admittedly get this mostly from cultural references, TV and movies (quite a few individuals too), but that message does seem to be overwhelming. I don't think I've ever seen a priest portrayed as not holding those kinds of beliefs, and I'm not talking about contexts that aim to put Christianity down. I'm talking about everything, even realistic media, that's just all I've ever seen.
I hope someone has some information that might shed some light on whether or not this is true. Maybe there's a priest out there?
Anyway my point isn't to say anything negative about Christianity -- I'm only balancing the 'doctrine' you pointed out about Judaism. Jews may have it written down, but it is far from doctrine, and I'm pretty sure Christians have done more with their verbal version anyway.
I guess I misunderstood all of this then. Sorry.
That's alright, I forgive you.
...my comment about people abandoning their current beliefs or converting based, was in response to a comment made by Flint...
To be specific: what I've posted here was the opposite of abandoning your beliefs. What I've posted was that your beliefs should be stronger than your loyalty to a social club; therefore if you're in a club that doesn't share your beliefs, you should stop being a member of that club.
Right, Flint, but again I don't think the average person has the courage to put that into practice.
Alternatively, people believe that their grouping has it right, but that some people within it are pushing a harder line/slightly different interpretation and making it unpleasant, but not to the point that they are made to doubt the basic idea that unites them.
Christianity is a little strange in that respect now. The religion does believe that theirs is the only correct religion and everyone else is going to hell -- but that notion is so archaic that a good percentage of individual Christians probably don't even believe it, as we've demonstrated here; not to mention that it's so politically incorrect that no one states it publicly. I mean, this isn't a belief that you can get away with in today's world, what with tolerance and such. Imagine what would happen if a Republican senator went on TV being asked simple, factual questions about Christianity: "What's your religion?" "Christianity." "Do you believe in Christianity and all its teachings completely?" "Yes, of course." "Does Christianity teach that all Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and homosexuals are going to hell?" "Er, well, I suppose, but-" "-so being such a complete believer in Christianity and all its teachings, you must believe all those people are going to hell too, right?" "I must refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me."
That particular aspect should probably just be changed... but how can you just change something sacred that way? That would probably take all the sacredness out of your religion.
Christianity is a little strange in that respect now. The religion does believe that theirs is the only correct religion and everyone else is going to hell....... snip
I was not taught that, although the Roman Catholic kids I grew up with, were. I was taught that ending up in heaven or hell depended on own behavior, how well I lived my life, how I treated others. :cool:
Again, I speak of Christianity as a system, not of its practical implementation by individuals. People can ignore the rules, but that doesn't mean the rules aren't there.
What, my church wasn't part of the system? I think in your desire to boil it down to a few general statements, you've lost the tremendous diversity that exists under the broad banner of "Christian".
I cited one error. :2cents:
I never said this described all of what Christianity is. I've been working on general statements because that's all anyone seems to be responding to, but a while ago I mentioned priests specifically. So somebody respond to what I said about them and then maybe we can get somewhere.
Here it is again:
Isn't it true that even non-evangelical priests are interested in converting people, that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved? I admittedly get this mostly from cultural references, TV and movies (quite a few individuals too), but that message does seem to be overwhelming. I don't think I've ever seen a priest portrayed as not holding those kinds of beliefs, and I'm not talking about contexts that aim to put Christianity down. I'm talking about everything, even realistic media, that's just all I've ever seen.
I hope someone has some information that might shed some light on whether or not this is true. Maybe there's a priest out there?
"Spreading God's word" is not the same as forced conversion.
It is simply their wanting to spread the happiness they have felt in their own lives from what they have experienced. It is not a judgmental thing like the Evangelicals or other more aggressive sects.
It is often part of charity work, and not "only if you are Christian" works like the Evangelicals.
So, no, not in the way you are making it seem.
Christianity is a little strange in that respect now. The religion does believe that theirs is the only correct religion and everyone else is going to hell --.
Please, show me,
specifically, where you read that. I have been studying the religion for over twenty years, and have not found that... funny.
Sure, some individuals and groups claim it, but it is Biblically incorrect. Just like many other things that are said.
Some say that one of the Mary's was a whore, homosexuality is a sin and there will be a rapture. None have a Biblical basis.
Oh, & John, chapter 12:46 & 8:12 have many interpretations... they are not clear and do not absolutely support that point, they can just mean his path and are often interpreted that way. The Catholic church just stated it that way, BTW.
Whoa! Don't you dare do that. Forced conversion? You've got to be kidding me. I don't know who you're answering, but it sure isn't me.
Try again, if you'd like. Here it is, yet again; For youre convenience, I've narrowed it down to just three specific questions, for which you can provide three specific yes-or-no answers:
Isn't it true that even non-evangelical priests are interested in converting people, that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved?
Are they interested... you sure have come a long way from your initial point.
All religions and paths like to see their numbers grow, no?
What "some" believe isn't the issue. Priestly doctrine is a good representation of what the religion itself entails, which is the whole reason I brought them up.
...and it doesn't need to "say it" anywhere, which was the whole point of bringing up priests to begin with. Not mention that homosexuality bing a sin is definitely in the bible. Check the index under "the destruction of Sodom", city of homosexuals.
And you sure are going to great lengths to avoid actually answering my questions.
"Does Christianity teach that all Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and homosexuals are going to hell?" "Er, well, I suppose, but-"
The answer to this question is "No".
Nope, the word homosexual never comes up, nor the reason God destroying the city of Sodom.
Where the hell are you getting your info?
What happened to the specific questions I just quoted to you for the 3rd time?
Are they interested... you sure have come a long way from your initial point.
All religions and paths like to see their numbers grow, no?
Jews don't, at least not by conversion. Now how bout the other two questions? This will be the last time I ask. If you don't answer I'll just take that as you being terrified of what the answers would connote regarding our argument.
...that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved?
This guy is trying to think of a way to answer truthfully without incriminating Christianity, so if anyone knows of a way to do that please feel free to bail him out.
I am not a Christian and could care less what you think of it.
I am not going to try to speak for all Christians or priests... that would be ridiculously presumptuous.
I am saying there is no specific Dogma for it.
In practice, sure many want others to be happy with it like they are, as do other religions. Why do Jews build Synagogues that are much larger than their existing congregations? Same thing... it is simple, they want others to be happy, you are implying something sinister when it JUST is not there.
They build bigger synagogues because they're hoping to attract more existing Jews to move into the area and make the community grow. It has nothing to do with conversion. I didn't ask you to speak for all Christians, only priests, for whom there is set doctrine. If you just don't know what that doctrine is, then say so, and let's wait and see if someone else knows.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
Abomination is not sin. You are supposed to stone people to death for eating shrimp or wearing a mixed thread shirt too, by Levitican law. Has nothing to do with sin or Christianity.
It's detestable and they must be put to death. Sounds like sin to me. Christianity follows the bible, in which Leviticus is contained. You're really reaching.
And yes, mixed thread shirts and shrimp are a sin according to the old testament, but Jesus got rid of some of those "old" laws so Christians didn't need to abide by them. Homosexuality wasn't one of the ones he got rid of.
Jews don't, at least not by conversion. Now how bout the other two questions? This will be the last time I ask. If you don't answer I'll just take that as you being terrified of what the answers would connote regarding our argument.
...that they feel they're doing something God wants, and when they do it they feel the person has been saved?
I have no idea what they feel... it is not dogma.
Jews in the Torah did their share of converting, lots of it actually, whole cities... and their conversions were FUN, circumcision with a rock, wheeeee!
Leviticus is the Torah... talk to your Jewish friends. Not Christian law.
Was there something about the statement "Abomination is not sin" that was confusing?
Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible as a sin or even an abomination.
Torah = Old Testament = Christian law, along with the New Testament. What exactly do you think the Bible is? Old plus New Testaments. Jews did conversion in the bible but there are very clear rules that say it's not allowed now, except under certain strict conditions.
LOL... suuuurrre it is, NOT.
Where did you hear that gem? Please tell me, ohpleaseohpleaseohplease!
LOL... suuuurrre it is, NOT.
Where did you hear that gem? Please tell me, ohpleaseohpleaseohplease!
I'm not sure what you're asking, so I can't attempt to answer your sarcastic immaturity. You'll have to be clearer.
Specifically, where did you see that Levitican law applies to current day, or even Jesus' day, Christianity?
If you have, actually, read the Bible, they did not follow it then, not even Jesus or the hard line Jews. It was hygiene law for those in the desert.
Nope, I honestly don't remember being told to teach anyone to stone anyone else if they come within 100' of a chick on her period in seminary prep in college, LOL!
"If you have, actually, read the Bible, they did not follow it then, not even Jesus or the hard line Jews. It was hygiene law for those in the desert."
You can't be serious. I'm Jewish, and I've read the bible, and it's a rule for all Jews to not eat any shellfish, not have sex with your wife during her period (or a week after it's over), not to wear clothes with mixed threads, and everything else it says there. The shellfish thing as part of Kashruth, or Kosher. Shellfish isn't kosher. Religious Jews don't eat it. Mixed threads are called Shatnes, and religious Jews don't wear it; there are even experts trained to study fabric under a microscope to check for these things. It had nothing to do with hygiene in the desert, as that, is, utter, nonsense. Not that Jews are what we're arguing about; I just thought I'd point out that you don't know what you're talking about.
Furthermore:
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/christianity.htm
"The Bible is the Christian sacred text, regarded as the ultimate authority by all denominations. It consists of the Old Testament (roughly equivalent to the Jewish Tanakh) and the New Testament. While the New Testament is the specifically Christian part of the Bible, both parts are regarded as equally authoritative."
That was just after a short google search, first result I got. I could cite more if you like.
So, reformed Jews are not "religious"?
Jews who play football (touching the skin of a pig) are sinning?
Again, Abomination is not sin. It is very simple.
You go ahead and think what you would like... have fun.
Did you come in here just to troll in this thread? Because we have had this conversation before.
Show me something that says we're not allowed to touch the skin of a pig (we are), and show me something that says footballs are made of pig skin (they're not).
So something punishable by death is not a sin? Ok... I suppose that could be one possible interpretation...
Be well.
Show me something that says we're not allowed to touch the skin of a pig (we are), and show me something that says footballs are made of pig skin (they're not).
So something punishable by death is not a sin? Ok... I suppose that could be one possible interpretation...
Be well.
Lev 11:6-8
Why is a football called a pigskin? --Ben Schwalb, Laurel, Maryland
Dear Ben:
Because calling it a pig's bladder, which is what it actually is (or was), is a bit too real even for football players. In the days before vulcanized rubber, animal bladders were easily obtained, more or less round, readily sealed and inflated, and reasonably durable--just the thing if you wanted to play the medieval equivalent of soccer. In later years the bladder might be covered with leather (not necessarily pigskin) for added protection.
The main drawback of a pig's bladder was that inflating it by way of the obvious nozzle was too grotty for words. Still, it was an improvement over what the English traditionally regard as the original football, namely the noggin of an unsuccessful Danish invader. If you were offended by the aesthetics of this you could always stuff a leather casing with hay or cork shavings or the like, but such balls lacked zip.
Happily for the sensibilities of modern youth, pig's bladders faded from the scene not long after intercollegiate football began in 1869. One account indicates rubber bladders were being used in 1871 and they were probably around long before that, Charles Goodyear having patented vulcanization in 1844. Couldn't have been too soon for me.
The real question here, if you don't mind my saying so, is how footballs got to be prolate spheroids ("round but pointy," for you rustics) rather than perfectly spherical. As usual with these pivotal episodes in history, it was an accident. Henry Duffield, who witnessed the second Princeton-Rutgers game in 1869, tells why:
"The ball was not an oval but was supposed to be completely round. It never was, though--it was too hard to blow up right. The game was stopped several times that day while the teams called for a little key from the sidelines. They used it to unlock the small nozzle which was tucked into the ball, and then took turns blowing it up. The last man generally got tired and they put it back in play somewhat lopsided."
The odd shape of the ball, eventually enshrined in the rules, was turned to advantage with the introduction of the forward pass in 1906, which was made possible by the fact that you could grip the ball (barely) around the narrow part. Passing got a lot easier in the 1930s when the rules committee ordered the watermelon of previous decades slimmed down by an inch and a half, opening the door for the modern aerial game. How fortunate for the future shape of the game that the Ivy Leaguers of yesteryear didn't have any more lung power than today's.
--CECIL ADAMS
Aww, don't be a poor sport... you know, admitting you were wrong about things can garner more respect than anything.
Right, they used to be made out of a pig's bladder, and now they're not. Furthermore, players only actually touched the bladder for a short time before it was encased in leather, which wasn't necessarily pig skin, which now isn't even leather at all, it's rubber or vinyl.
I myself would still like to know about priestly doctrine, if anyone out there cares to be constructive regarding the real point here...
What's wrong... didn't like my answers?
Aww, don't be a poor sport... you know, admitting you were wrong about things can garner more respect than anything.
How was the above wrong?
Footballs aren't made of pig skin. It said so in your article. But I was actually referring to... well, almost everything else you've claimed. That desert hygiene thing really took the cake. Homosexuality isn't a sin, only an abomination, when the bible says it's punishable by death? What IS a sin then? The Torah being only Jewish and not Christian, that was classic... there's more, I'd have to go back and look, but you get the idea.
And it was really easy to get you to stop saying "believe whatever you want" and "chill" and pull you right back into the argument. Not so easy to be the bigger person, is it... :)
Hey not that I'm trying to argue more, by the way, only pointing it out. I'm done with you if that's what you want. I still want to know what priests are taught regarding other religions and such, but from someone who actually knows, not more non-answers.
Peace brother.
I was in seminary prep for several years... I have told you. Have fun fishing for something to fit your pre-conceived notion though.
All you told me is that you didn't want to speak for everyone else. That's why they were non-answers.
I'd really like to hear from a priest, although a good reference would do.
You are going to get a lot of variation across Christian sects so any one answer won't hold. Lots of Christians believe I'm going to hell because I'm a Catholic. The Catholic Church has always tap danced around the issue of "righteous heathens" being saved. Room was made for it in Catholic teaching because nobody wanted Aristotle to fry.
To the question of conversions: You have to remember that you come from an exclusive tradition, while a major part of Christian teaching is that God's love isn't exclusive. So while you view Christianity as a black hole sucking everything in they see it as a supernova freeing the "truth" from being the exclusive property of a chosen people.There is a very good chapter on prosteletyzing in The Gods Drink Whiskeycalled My God can Beat Up Your God. The philosophy prof that wrote the thing does a good job of explaining why folks who think they're saved and that salvation is exclusive really do think they're in the right when they treat other religious traditions with such contempt. He actually makes their view understandable even though he (and I) hold it in contempt. It is like anything else that people come to believe in democracy, communism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, they really think they have all the answers even though you can drive a bus undetected through their blind spot.
edit: I also forgot to mention that there is variation on the amount of weight given to the Old Testament. Catholics hold that the new covenant supercedes much of the earlier stuff but wisdom can be found found there. Some other sects read the bible literally and get themselves in deep do do. YMMV especially in religion.
Thanks for the added view, Griff.
You have to remember that you come from an exclusive tradition, while a major part of Christian teaching is that God's love isn't exclusive.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Yes, I do come from an exclusive tradition, but that exclusivity hardly entitles me to exclusive love from God. As was mentioned in the original post's quoted article, Judaism believes that everyone is loved by God, but the Jews have a special responsibility to him.
I understand completely about conversion, and I never thought of Christianity as a "black hole". My aim here wasn't to point a finger at Christianity and say "EVIL!! EEEEVIIIIIIILLLLL!!!," you know, like grandpa Simpson said about the talking Krusty doll in the third Halloween special. I know they truly feel like they are doing a justice by showing people the "light". Hey I would feel that way too. But the point of bringing up the conversion thing was to be able to say whether or not the belief is that everyone else is "going to hell," since conversion is usually referred to as being "saved." Now I understand what you say about there being variation, but still, my only issue with that is that I've ALWAYS heard this as being the viewpoint for priests. Christianity is unlike Judaism in that it's portrayed much more publicly in the media, like movies, TV shows, cartoons, etc., and anywhere I've ever seen the issue arise (as I mentioned, even just talking to random Christian individuals I happened to get into such conversations with), the stance on others is always the same.
I may be making unfounded assumptions based only on what I can observe. That is definitely a possibility. But still, I think the message is very overwhelming. If this isn't a commonly-held belief among Christians, then they should probably be doing a better job of making their real message public, getting offended when they see their religion being represented by extremists, and speaking out more.
I know they truly feel like they are doing a justice by showing people the "light".
& what we are saying is that there is no "they".
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Yes, I do come from an exclusive tradition, but that exclusivity hardly entitles me to exclusive love from God. As was mentioned in the original post's quoted article, Judaism believes that everyone is loved by God, but the Jews have a special responsibility to him.
What I'm getting at is that Judaism developed in a tribal time/place among competing gods. Maintaining an exclusive group identity was crucial to survival. Christianity developed first as a minor Jewish sect but being mostly unsuccessful embraced its mission to the gentiles. Expansion became critical to its survival. Of course that is just my construct of it, I don't know how it squares with official histories.
That is very accurate. In fact, for some time, there were several different "Christianities". It took some doing to get a consensus, or a semblance of one... there is not really one now.
Early Bibles had many books that do not exist in today's and each had different books from each others. One would have two or three different Gospels that another did not have and vice-versa.
Expansion became critical to its survival.
Ok... Even if that's true, I'm not sure what bearing it has. Unless you're saying that the whole idea of "saving" people was just an excuse to get more people and keep the religion alive... which I don't think is what you were trying to say.
That is pretty much what I'm saying. They had a message that they found important. At some point the delivery system of the message became more important than the message itself and here I am 2k years later sifting through the layers of institutional debris for the real message.
Unless you're saying that the whole idea of "saving" people was just an excuse to get more people and keep the religion alive...
That sounds accurate, to me. However, the expansionist aspect loses it's luster, when the actual message is forgotten.
So you're saying the real message has gotten lost. I'd say that's accurate.
So you're saying the real message has gotten lost.
I'd say it is still there available but don't expect the institutions to hand it to you without amendment.
I don't expect that at all. Kind of a shame.
Yeah, its like any organization. You put NASA together to get to the moon, you get there but now you've got a bureacracy to run and you don't want to put a bunch of nice folks out of work.
As a Catholic and a sometime cynic I can watch the company men, church/state combiners and the prosteletyzers with pretty dark humor. I know my church was (and many in it still are) awful that way, but groups broke away to protest and helped reform things. Now the descendents of some of those break away groups are busy losing the message in the name of promoting their true way. Speaking of charlatins, Billy Grahams kid is coming to town... as my Jewish/Irish Catholic roomate used to say oy ve Maria
psst... the message is love your neighbor as yourself
gee whiz that doesn't sound exclusive to Christians at all does it?
Not at all. As I've always said, I don't think Jesus was a bad guy, and his teachings alone are pretty much in line with universal truth. It's the perversion of organized religion and politics that got in the way of something that's essentially good, as it usually tends to do.
Read the Sermon On The Mount and then the Diamond Sutta... pretty astounding.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
Does it count if you're not really laying with the other guy; just standing behind him and going at it? :D
Does it count if you're not really laying with the other guy; just standing behind him and going at it? :D
Haha... no that's probably ok. It's the laying down that's the real issue. :)
No, it's saying that you don't have to tell a guy that his ass doesn't look fat.
No, it's saying that you don't have to tell a guy that his ass doesn't look fat.
I feel really stupid cause I didn't get this right away. Good job :D
Not at all. As I've always said, I don't think Jesus was a bad guy, and his teachings alone are pretty much in line with universal truth. It's the perversion of organized religion and politics that got in the way of something that's essentially good, as it usually tends to do.
AMEN! I wish more people understood that it's not about the damn church.... it's about treating others with respect. :thumb2:
Respect doesn't mean you have to agree with their views. You might even think they are idiots. But you have no right to interfere with their lives....not even to "save" them.
Though this can't and shouldn't be construed as prohibiting telling them what way you think would be better.
Otherwise this forum should not exist. (Not in the sense of its being forbidden, but in the sense of its not being a matter of will.)
Expression opinion is allowed, making demands of change are ignored, possibly ridiculed.:D
