Carrying old grudges
Bookworm on Apr 21 2011 at 1:38 pm | Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Christians, Islam, Jews, Religion
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” — Deuteronomy, 24:16.
One of the things that always struck me as bizarre about old-fashioned Christian antisemitism was how anachronistic it was. Present day Christians persecuted present day Jews because of events that happened hundreds of years before either those Christians or Jews were, as my father used to say, “even a twinkle in their daddy’s eye.” Despite Deuteronomy’s strictures, Jews were persecuted as if they had personally laid their hands on Jesus. Fortunately, Christianity has, for the most part, abandoned that bizarre little foible.
Sadly, though, it lives on in Islam. Fifteen hundred years ago, Mohamed had a tiff with the local Jewish community, which not only led him to massacre them, but led him to command his followers to massacre all Jews into perpetuity — in its convoluted, archaic way, when it comes to Jews, the Koran basically boils down to “Fathers shall . . . be put to death because of their children [and] children be put to death because of their fathers.”
This approach to a racial group (because Mohamed’s hostility had nothing to do with specific religious practices, which he actually admired), is both logically and morally bankrupt. It’s one thing to say that, to the extent Group A routinely does X, as long as they do X, they’re our enemy. It is another thing entirely to say that, because Group B is descended from some people we hated fifteen hundred years ago, let’s exterminate them.
All of which leads me to Barry Rubin’s astute (as always) commentary about Obama’s misuse of the Passover story to support uprisings in the Middle East that have, as one of their stated aims, the extermination of the Jews:
I think the greater problem here is the endless universalizing of specifically Jewish experiences that are never seen as sufficient in their own right, as well as the basic opportunism of making Passover into an event backing Obama Administration policy.
Race-hating should not be the type universal experience derived from Holy Books, an “experience” that the books’ followers then use to justify their turning to ancient feuds and behaviors into current genocides.
I freely admit that Rubin’s excellent post, which is the actual useful lessons that one should draw from the Passover story, is not quite on point with what I’m discussing here. However, to the extent it touches upon the universality of Holy Books, I really like the way he reminds us that, while the morals of the Good Book’s stories are universal, one should be very careful when dealing with ancient specifics.
The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land,
available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon or Smashwords.
Email This Post To A Friend
78 Responses to “Carrying old grudges”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Despite Deuteronomy’s strictures, Jews were persecuted as if they had personally laid their hands on Jesus.”
Well…not exactly. Actually, they were persecuted because in response to Pilate’s washing of his hands (“I wash my hands of this man’s death”), the Jews in attendance who were calling for Jesus to be crucified said “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children”.
To be honest, I’ve pondered about that. It seems like such an odd thing – is it perhaps connected to the blood feuds that have been common in the past? (Hatfields/McCoy type feud?) In other words, it seems to me that the practice then – and maybe now – is that if someone in your family is wronged, you have a familial obligation to even the score – to do back to the perpetrator as was done to you. Our system of justice has removed that requirement from the individual and placed it upon society – but maybe what the Jews of that time were saying is that they accepted responsibility for the action and if member’s of Jesus’ family were welcome to have at it???
Thanks, suek, for that correction. I haven’t read the New Testament in a good 30 years, and I’d forgotten that language. One does wonder if it was a common phrase or a reflection of blood feuds. There’s still, to me, an illogic in carrying that out for generations covering thousands of years.
Incidentally, I do practice what I preach, because I’ve never held the crimes of the Nazis or the Japanese Empire against the post-war generation of Germans or Japanese. To the contrary — I think that constant blame for something over which you had no control and in which you had no participation builds resentment that, in turn, leads to anger and stupidity.
I always thought of the Jews who shouted Jesus’s blood as stand-ins for the whole human race. If the crucifixion was deicide, as Christians believe, I can think of many, many examples of Gentiles pitching in to help with the deed over the centuries—the Russians, the Germans, the Mongols, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Spanish, the Aztecs, Teddy Kennedy, the abortion industry.
>>There’s still, to me, an illogic in carrying that out for generations covering thousands of years.>>
I understand – but that’s because _our_ system of justice has lifted that responsibility for achieving justice from the family or tribe, and made it the responsibility of our society. In tribal societies, there aren’t many jails – justice requires action of some sort by the family or tribe.
Even today – just a few months ago (if that long) when the contractor who was supposedly also a CIA agent was jailed for the murder or causing the death of some Pakistanis (I am still not clear about what actually happened), the news reported that the US had paid the families of the dead individuals whatever price was customary so that the contractor would be released.
I’m not saying I’m correct – but I really don’t understand it in any other framework. Given that I”ve grown up in the same system you have, I don’t understand it as reasonable either. But in _our_ society, we still have the Hatfields and the McCoys as a reference point. How many generations did that feud go on for? They didn’t ask the law to settle whatever injustice they felt had been done them – they felt an obligation to impose their own justice…an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.
Martel:
” . . . Ted Kennedy . . .”
snickering – that is a GOOD one!
Don’t forget the role of the Romans, Charles M…nobody ever held it against the Italians. You’re right – the Jews who brayed for Christ’s blood represented all of humanity. They simply fulfilled the prophecy.
I never got the idea of holding contemporary Jews accountable for the crucifixion. I look at the Aryans portrayed in the media who diss Jews but don’t diss Jesus (Yeshua) whom they worship in church??? Like I said I don’t get it. Here’s a radical thought: Without His permission the crucifixion AND subsequent resurrection would have never happened: ”12I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10
In the chapter John 10 careful reading shows there was a division among the Jews as to just who is this guy? It was mostly Jews who followed him, some even to their Roman State deaths for doing so. So it was in reality a powerful few who loved the praise of men more than the praise of G-d who got a few more whipped up into a small mob frenzy. Without these few putting political and social pressure on Pilate and Herod he would have not been crucified. Perhaps it was the same type of human frailties that led to the persecution of the opening paragraph. It is a black eye on the body of Christ. My apologies.
Additionally the opening paragraph has always been to me a bit of cognitive dissonance because for the soon to be Christians a Jew became the perfect Passover lamb as the Jew John the Baptist proclaimed at Jesus’ baptism “Behold the lamb who takes away the sins of the world”. The one who would lay down his life for his friends, the Ram in the thicket – the sacrifice provided by G-d Himself first for His chosen people, he was the unblemished sacrifice to fulfill the requirements of the law once and for all. As the bronze serpent was lifted up in the desert for those who would look unto it for relief from the life draining viper’s bite so those are promised relief from the grave “Where O death is thy victory, where o death is thy sting?”. So it is for any modern day Christian. Through the Jews a Savior was born.
Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years? The Christian scripture does contain any ‘kill’em if they do not comply’ verses that can be so easily interpreted in a literal fashion by those filled with righteous indignation. The message of our ‘messenger’ is Love the Lord your G-d with all of your heart soul mind and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself. When someone did not accept the journeying missionaries sent out they were instructed to GASP! Shake the dust from their feet and move on.
Curiously Mohammed said that any good Muslim will study the New Testament. They generally do not because they have been taught the liberal line that the texts have changed since Mohammed said that in 600 CE therefore they are not valid. However what can show for sure is that the New Testament that we have today are the same texts that Mohammed had because we have either full texts or fragments from at least 400 CE. But belief is the hardest thing to let go of for fear of betrayal, becoming an apostate questioning your teacher’s teachings. And if your teacher is a Hatfeild…
Where O delete button are you?
“Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years? The Christian scripture does contain any ‘kill’em if they do not comply’
Should read “Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years? The Christian scripture does NOT contain any ‘kill’em if they do not comply’ ”
If you think this is hard to read you ought to be in my head!
MacG: Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years?
How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism?
How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism? - Zachriel
Fairly recently. In the colonial period, Jews were banned in Massachuseutts, allowed to worship quietly in New Amsterdam, and not allowed to serve in the militia in Virginia.
I’m still a little suspicious of them papists though! :) In fact, I remember my Dad refusing to vote for Kennedy. (Though he wouldn’t have voted for him even if he hadn’t been Catholic).
I think Charles Martel has it about right, we are responsible for Jesus’ death, since he came to “save sinners, of which I am the worst.”
The irony is the Jews rejection of the Messiah allowed Gentiles to be grafted into God’s family.
“God demonstrated his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:7 Since love is expressed through action, what more perfect way for God to demonstrate to the universe what love is.
The thing about antisemitism–more of a human problem than a Christian problem–is that it dies down to the nasty little habit that it is unless encouraged by the powers that be for their own purposes. In the middle ages, the worst pogroms were whipped up from the pulpit. Today, they’re whipped up by state-run television. And state-run religions. And state-run child care . . .
MacG: Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years?
Zachriel: How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism?
BrianE: Fairly recently.
So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question.
To repeat what MacG pointed out, anti-Semitism is knit into Islam’s very bones by passages in the Qu’ran. Since the Qu’ran is the uncreated, eternal, unchangeable word of God, Muslims can and will never ever have an “ah ha!” moment where they decide to abrogate the suras that specifically call for the murder of and hatred toward the Jews.
Now when and if I find passages in the Bible that call for the same, I’ll believe that there’s a possibility Islam can rid itself of its bloodthirtstiness. But considering that Christians, despite clear admonitions from their savior that they should love all, could not rid themselves of their anti-Semitic mindset, it strikes me as foolish to believe that Muslims would ever betray a core element of their faith, which is Jew hatred.
The point to the Zach collective I would like to make is this:
“Should read “Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years? The Christian scripture does NOT contain any ‘kill’em if they do not comply verses’ ”
Regardless of the time it took for the majority to abandon this antisemitism, there is no justification for in the Christian scripture and there will be accountability for it, whereas in the Koran there is more than one verse that not only allows for killing Jews and Christians but calls for it. Contrary there is more than one verse that calls for respecting people of the book – even marry such. How do you think that will go over in Syria? Iraq? Perhaps the Persians will be ok with it over in Iran…
I have a shirt that has a cross on it tha says “This shirt is illegal in 51 countries” How do you suppose the Jews fair there?
Brian, still a litte suspicious? We can get a litte nuts wiith the denominations (shame, really), we have them since the sons of thunder arguing about who was the greatest while travelling with Jesus. Another Jesus slaps his head moment in the Accounts
. It seems we have not gotten muc better: Emo Phillips.
Charles Martel: Now when and if I find passages in the Bible that call for the same, I’ll believe that there’s a possibility Islam can rid itself of its bloodthirtstiness.
Here’s a justification for antisemitism, based on Biblical authority, from a very knowledgable theologian. It has been very influential.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
Oh, God, Zach, not your perennial Luther chestnut again.
Is it so important for you to have an opinion on everything in this room that you cannot see how abysmally ignorant you are about Christianity, Judaism and Islam?
Let me repeat in BIG BLOCK LETTERS: I ASKED FOR A PASSAGE IN THE NEW TESTMENT THAT CALLS FOR THE MURDER OF JEWS. Not your eternally recycled anti-Semitic screed from Luther. If you cannot cite such a passage—and, of course, you cannot—then butt the hell out of a discussion you’re not qualified to participate in.
Charles Martel: Not your eternally recycled anti-Semitic screed from Luther.
Are you really saying that Luther did not quote scripture to support his antisemitism? Didn’t you even look? Be assured, the text is chock full of scripture. This isn’t some aberration, but common apologetics for centuries.
Zach, I know that your favorite tactic when you’ve been outed is to either avoid answering a question or to pretend that you’ve answered it.
My question was, where is the passage in the New Testament that approves of the murder of Jews? As I predicted, you could not answer it. Not even Luther could find that passage, because it does not exist.
Again, you are so determined to be an expert on everything that you don’t realize how much you undermine your own positions with clumsy feints like this.
Don’t bother responding unless you can bring the passage I asked for to the table. We were comparing the Bible and Qu’ran, and it is clear you know next to nothing about either.
Zach “Are you really saying that Luther did not quote scripture to support his anti-Semitism? Didn’t you even look? Be assured, the text is chock full of scripture. This isn’t some aberration, but common apologetics for centuries. ”
You are simply pointing out Luther’s improper apologetics in this area. Hermeneutically speaking, he eisogeteing the quotes. In other words he was simply reading into the quotes to find support for his biases. This is called proof texting and is what was used to justify slavery in Europe and America. USED to support, misapplied. What Luther failed to do was to exegete the passages, that is, to draw out what it actually says minimizing the interpreter’s predisposed ideas. Even submitting those biases to the authority of the Word of G-d. Using this tool we see that anti-Semitism is never condoned for the Christian.
For instance, where Jesus says “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you cannot enter the kingdom of G-d”. The letterest says he speaks of cannibalism. However when we take the whole counsel of G-d, we know cannibalism is verboten and being a teacher who revered the word of G-d, we can therefore conclude that He was speaking figuratively (probably a local colloquialism or a reference to his being the Passover lamb who takes away the sin of the world, slain before the world began.). I figured this out by putting my nose to the grindstone and working my fingers to the bone, all the while pulling my hair out.
In Christianity you start out by acknowledging your faults, accept the forgiveness offered becoming a disciple of Christ you become transformed daily into the image and likeness of the Son. One in this life never makes it in toto there will always be faults among his followers (if they be followers who proclaim it). If one is transformed into the likeness of Mohammed what will you get?
MacG: You are simply pointing out Luther’s improper apologetics in this area.
Perhaps, but generations of theologians would disagree with you.
MacG: In other words he was simply reading into the quotes to find support for his biases.
Yet, theologians found the arguments convincing for about two thousand years.
MacG: Using this tool we see that anti-Semitism is never condoned for the Christian.
That’s not the claim, of course. Rather, it’s that for the vast majority of Christian history, the Bible was, in fact, used to justify antisemitism. Luther’s screed is just a prominent example. It’s a rather uncontroversial claim, so it’s odd that anyone would take issue with it.
MacG, you know that one of the Adversary’s greatest weapons is the ability to twist an argument so it becomes something other than what it started out as:
“That’s not the claim, of course. Rather, it’s that for the vast majority of Christian history, the Bible was, in fact, used to justify antisemitism. Luther’s screed is just a prominent example. It’s a rather uncontroversial claim, so it’s odd that anyone would take issue with it.”
Was used by whom? Aquinas? Augustine? Erasmus? Duns Scotus? Paul? Origen? Pius XII? Note how he avoids naming any of the theologians he claims were up to this for almost 2,000 years (besides his boilerplate Luther URL).
Aside from his inability to support his argument, Zach subtly twists the issue away from the contention that Christian scripture nowhere condones the muder of Jews and turns it into “Did somebody somewhere use the Bible to condone anti-Semitism?” A completely different matter, and a great example of one of Zach’s patented straw men.
Zach: Perhaps, but generations of theologians would disagree with you.
They would be wrong> there is a lot of dirty bathwater the church ahs made and Jesus most of the tiem gets thrown out with it.
Zach: Yet, theologians found the arguments convincing for about two thousand years.
And they were wrong. What will correct the Muslims, the Caliphate?
Zach: That’s not the claim, of course. Rather, it’s that for the vast majority of Christian history, the Bible was, in fact, used to justify antisemitism. Luther’s screed is just a prominent example. It’s a rather uncontroversial claim, so it’s odd that anyone would take issue with it.
As I said they were wrong and that is the counter claim.
MacG: In other words he was simply reading into the quotes to find support for his biases.
Z responds: Yet, theologians found the arguments convincing for about two thousand years.
What Christians? What theologians? Were Assyrian and Coptic Christians biased against the Jews? How about the Eastern Orthodox? Christianity in only 2,000 years old – do you mean to say that Christian theologians (beginning with that noted Jewish anti-semite Saul of Tarsus, I presume) have been banging the drum of anti-semitism all this time?
Martin Luther was one theologian among many who lives about 500 years ago. He was a fallible human being. Jews were oppressed by many people for many reasons, not just by particular Christian individuals or groups. One major reason was tribalism – Jews did not, by their very faith, integrate well into other societies – they remained “apart” during periods of European history where “diversity” was not much appreciated. The bigotry expressed against Jews in Europe of that time was more of a tribal nature (the same was done against Gypsies, for example) in which the Christian Bible was (wrongly) used to justify the bigotry against a very economically and intellectually successful minority. As MacG points out, there is NOTHING in the Bible that justifies anti-semitism (unlike the Qu’ran). If you were to take the time to read it, you would have to agree. To broad-brush Christians and Christianity on the basis of what Martin Luther and others said 500 years ago is simple bigotry on your part.
Sure, envy and greed played major parts. To explain it but not to excuse it, this is human nature. As an oppressed religious minority, Jews in general found a very welcoming home in America (witness Washington’s letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island) : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bigotry.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bigotry.html
Martel,
I see we were relpying at the same time…I was starting to write along those lines but stopped. I was stating the the gospel was first to the Jews, the very early church was made primarily of Jews (unitl Saul [school of Hillel] Paul) who claimed no G-d but G-d and Ceasar was just a man unlike the select teachers of the Law reportedly saying prior to the crucifixion that they had no G-d but Ceasar.
Peter a Jew crucified upside down by the Romans for not recanting. The list goes on for all of the disciples/Apostles save for John who died in exile on Patmos. Zach’s argument was not ringing entirely true and I almost just replied Cites please. As we have said nothing like Kill the infidel so at what point did this unChristlike antisemitism creep into the Church?
Generations of theologians are not here disagreeing with anyone. Z likes to pretend he can speak for other people but he has problems just speaking for his own clique of multiple personalities.
When people use authorities and the claims of other people to say that you are wrong, it’s a way of avoiding the necessity of justifying their own arguments. If they can get you to accept the premise that a bunch of people with title X in their names says you are wrong, you spent so much time fighting an illusionary phantom that the real enemy gets off easy and is left alone to do real damage.
I have to note that it seems rather peculiar, even offensive, to have Z spouting off bigoted rants about the bigotry of (all) Christians against the Jews when, today, it is the Christians…esp. the conservative Christians…that are Judaism’s and Israel’s most devoted and outspoken (perhaps, in the case of Israel, its “only”) supporters.
Charles Martel: Was used by whom? … Did somebody somewhere use the Bible to condone anti-Semitism?
We could start with the Council of Nicea which said in 325, “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people.” Is that clear enough?
“The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.” —Benjamin Disraeli
MacG: As I said they were wrong and that is the counter claim.
That’s not a counterclaim. The claim is that there is a long history of Christian theologically-justified antisemitism. You don’t seem to be disputing this, only that you think they were wrong.
Danny Lemieux: Martin Luther was one theologian among many who lives about 500 years ago. He was a fallible human being.
Yes, and by far the most influential theologian of his age. That doesn’t justify his antisemitism, or undermine his larger point about Salvation.
Danny Lemieux: To broad-brush Christians and Christianity on the basis of what Martin Luther and others said 500 years ago is simple bigotry on your part.
In fact, we are emphatically rejecting such overgeneralizations, but you have no problem painting all of Islam based on your understanding of the Koran, even though many Islamic scholars reject your interpretation.
Danny Lemieux: I have to note that it seems rather peculiar, even offensive, to have Z spouting off bigoted rants about the bigotry of (all) Christians against the Jews when, today, it is the Christians…
Please try to read more carefully before casting aspersions. At no time did we state that all Christians were antisemites. Indeed, throughout Christian history there have been those that have stood up against oppression, often justifying their stands on Biblical principles. You might want to reevaluate your statement.
Zach: “That’s not a counterclaim. The claim is that there is a long history of Christian theologically-justified antisemitism. You don’t seem to be disputing this, only that you think they were wrong. ”
I never disputed that there wasn’t theologically justified antisemitism. Thankfully G–d is greater than those theologies and canon of the New Testament that says that they are wrong.
There is no doubt that the Bible has been abused to support antisemitism. I could use the California Driving Hand book to do the same – it does not mean that it is its intended purpose.
New Testament verses please.
OK, Z…I take up your challenge! The Koran is quite specific about what must be done to infidels. Tell us how this is a misinterpretation of Islam?
In fact, we are emphatically rejecting such overgeneralizations, but you have no problem painting all of Islam based on your understanding of the Koran, even though many Islamic scholars reject your interpretation.
The ones that disagreed were lynched and killed by your F buddies in Iran and Afghanistan, Z. Don’t come strutting around here on your moral high horse. It’s already dead.
Here’s a justification for antisemitism, based on Biblical authority, from a very knowledgable theologian. It has been very influential.- Zachriel
(As an aside, have you read Jews and Their Lies?)
I’m not going to argue with Zachriel that much of Christian history includes hatred of Jews– for a variety of reasons. Luther wasn’t only loathsome of Jews as Jesus killers but also as blasphemers undermining the diety of Christ, disrespectful to Mary, well the list is long. But he wasn’t particularly unique and his hatred wasn’t confined to Jews.
But hatred of Jews began long before Christianity and the Old Testament chronicles the exile and subjugation of Jews throughout recorded history.
But yes, historical Christian treatment of Jews makes Jews suspicious today as BW has attested. We can’t undo the past. But it is the past. Christians are staunch supporters of Israel today and recognize that God will not abandon his chosen people in the future.
But I’m not sure what that has to do with BW’s post, which describes Christian antisemitism in historical terms and Muslim hatred in the present tense. I find it hard to believe Zachriel is trying to establish equivalence.
Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais is the leading imam of the Grand mosque located in the Islamic holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia.[84] The BBC aired a Panorama episode, entitled A Question of Leadership, which reported that al-Sudais referred to Jews as “the scum of the human race” and “offspring of apes and pigs”, and stated, “the worst [...] of the enemies of Islam are those [...] whom he [...] made monkeys and pigs, the aggressive Jews and oppressive Zionists and those that follow them [...] Monkeys and pigs and worshippers of false Gods who are the Jews and the Zionists.”[85] In another sermon, on April 19, 2002, he declared that Jews are “evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others'] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers [...] the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs [...]“[86]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Surely even Zachriel’s contrarian nature can recognize the distinction?
Danny, Zach will not take you up on Islam. It would take too long to get up to speed on a topic it’s obvious he knows nothing about. Therefore, he will either not respond to you or he will pretend to respond by quoting some Authority who claims that Islam is/soon will be a peaceable kingdom.
The problem is that I don’t think this room has ever had a visitor as deliberately dishonest as him—willfully, calculatedly dishonest.
The contention here was plain and simple: Unlike the Qu’ran, Christian scripture has no admonition to murder Jews. That’s all: no call to kill Jews.
Rather than admit that he cannot find such scriptural authority, he has distorted the discussion to insist that it’s about Christians who have called for violence against the Jews, an entirely different matter. (His citation of the Council of Nicea’s characterization of the Jews is just pathetic. This is the best that a kid caught with his intellectual pants down can come up with after a mad careen around the Internet.)
Whatever the basis of Zach’s dishonesty, moral or mental, it is disgraceful. If were the adult in charge of him, I’d restrict him to his bedroom or faculty office for a week.
MacG: I never disputed that there wasn’t theologically justified antisemitism.
Good. Then we don’t have to keep revisiting the subject. Your comments about other interpretations are welcome, but not directly relevant. The question concerns interpretation of sacred scriptures and relates to your question, “Why have so many Muslims not progressed past {anti-Judaism} in 1500 years?” It took much of Christendom 2000 years, and even today, there are those who still hold the Jews responsible the Crucifixion. When you explain why, for 2000 years, Christianity harbored a deep strain of anti-Judaism, then perhaps you will find some understanding.
Danny Lemieux: The Koran is quite specific about what must be done to infidels.
Yes, and centuries of Christian theologians found the Bible quite specific about the Jews and other infidels. That you reject their intepretation is as irrelevant to the point as your interpretation of the Koran being binding on Muslims.
Ymarsakar: The ones that disagreed were lynched and killed by your F buddies in Iran and Afghanistan, Z. Don’t come strutting around here on your moral high horse.
Need we point out that Christian nations initiated many wars and purges over ideology and race, and justified slavery, war and oppression on Biblical principles.
BrianE: Luther wasn’t only loathsome of Jews as Jesus killers but also as blasphemers undermining the diety of Christ, disrespectful to Mary, well the list is long. But he wasn’t particularly unique and his hatred wasn’t confined to Jews.
Thank you. That is the point, precisely. (We would mention that such hatred was not universally held by Christians, and many stood for justice, often based on Biblical principles, and as you rightly point out, hatred is as old as humanity.)
BrianE: But I’m not sure what that has to do with BW’s post, which describes Christian antisemitism in historical terms and Muslim hatred in the present tense.
If you remember, it was an effort to help MacG find an answer to his question.
MacG: Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years?
Zachriel: How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism?
BrianE: Fairly recently.
Zachriel: So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question.
{We’ve elided anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism somewhat. Though different, they have common historical roots. The particular meanings should be clear from context.}
Confused about the concept of “that was then, this is now”, Z nonetheless pontificates with near-papal infallibility: “Yes, and centuries of Christian theologians found the Bible quite specific about the Jews and other infidels.”
OK, I’ll bite: citations? Quotations? [note: must be linked directly to Biblical passages].
Z then proceeds to confuse Islamic theology with Western values thus, “That you reject their intepretation is as irrelevant to the point as your interpretation of the Koran being binding on Muslims.”
The Qu’ran is not open to interpretation!
Zachriel: Yes, and centuries of Christian theologians found the Bible quite specific about the Jews and other infidels.”
Danny Lemieux: OK, I’ll bite: citations? Quotations?
We’ve already provided support. Start with Luther, certainly not just some guy, but one of the preeminent theologians in Christian history.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
“…Nineteenth-century French Jewish intellectual and early Zionist Bernard Lazare maintained that the term “antisemitism” may only be applied to pre-nineteenth century events and attitudes anachronistically, given that the term originated in nineteenth century Germany.[7] He generally used the term “anti-Judaism” to describe theologically based hatred for Jews as it existed in the late medieval and Reformation periods.[8] He usually employed the terms “modern anti-Semitism” and “ethnological anti-Semitism” to denote the form that primarily encompasses racial and/or nationalistic overtones.[9]
“…The late medievalist Gavin Langmuir offered perhaps the most helpful definition of “antisemitism” in recent years, despite having to contend with the term’s bedeviled past. The term is “thoroughly contaminated with the erroneous presuppositions of the racists.” Yet, neither theories of “racism” nor “ethnic prejudice” provide us with that which is distinguishably unusual about anti-Jewish hostility.
“He defined it most succinctly when he said, “Antisemitism … both in its origins and in its recent most horrible manifestation, is the hostility aroused by irrational thinking about ‘Jews’.”[10] It is irrational thought that characterizes antisemitism; nonrational thought characterizes anti-Judaism.[11] Nonrational thought, characterized by nonrational symbols, lies in fact at the heart of religion according to Langmuir. The “nonrational symbol system” of the “Cross”, for example, is only “valid” for the Christians who espouse it. Thus, he avoided characterizing religious thought as irrational.
The distinction between anti-Judaism as “theological” hostility and antisemitism as “racial” or “ethnic” hostility is not empirically demonstrable and thus should be discarded in favor of his characterization. “Empirical distinctions can be drawn” if religious phenomena are construed in the manner in which he has argued.[12] Yet, nonrational thinking is not in conflict with rational thinking and can – and does – utilize it in a “subordinate capacity.”[13] I find this aspect of Langmuir’s framework of antisemitism[14] to be both helpful and convincing because the “theological” versus “racial” distinction is extremely difficult to maintain in light of Luther’s chief writings on Jews and Judaism, which intertwine the nonrational and the irrational….”
[snip]
…While it has been customary for many Protestants especially to rebut the charge that Luther’s polemic is antisemitic on the grounds of its theological nature, his frustration with the lack of Jewish conversions, or his failing health in old age, such approaches are in my view overly speculative and apologetic. For some in the Jewish community and elsewhere, Luther is seen primarily as the prototypical modern antisemite. Surely this too is not an accurate picture of Luther’s vast body of work and practically ignores the theological content of even his anti-Jewish works.
If Protestant Christians are to sincerely proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, including Jews, such an enterprise must be entered into with full knowledge of the horrendous mistakes – indeed sins – of Christian forebears, including Luther’s. They cannot breezily dissociate themselves from their Christian past when it saves them embarrassment and shame to do so. Protestant Christians also believe that Jesus died for sinners. Public acknowledgement and confession of such sins can serve as an example of integrity and humility to others and be a means to make the Good News of Christianity attractive to them.”[76]
http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html
I think this article to be an even-handed look at Luther given the period Luther lived. The author was a visiting scholar at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies and concludes that Luther’s writings, while mainly theological, crosses over to anti-semetic.
Here’s some additional information. Start with The Anti-Semitism of the Church Fathers, concerning the “condemned race and hated of God.”
http://www.sandrawilliams.org/ANTI/anti-semitism.html#4
To Charles Martel’s point.
“The contention here was plain and simple: Unlike the Qu’ran, Christian scripture has no admonition to murder Jews. That’s all: no call to kill Jews.”
That is absolutely true. Luther’s diatribes as well as others is a misapplication of scripture. Period. End of story. Think of Northern Ireland’s Catholic-Protestant war. This had nothing to do with Christianity, but everything to do with the sinful nature of man.
Luther may have understand the nature of grace in Christ’s work, but sadly it didn’t make him any less prone to give in to the “pride of life” in our sinful nature.
Zachriel, you can’t merely link to the source to prove the source. You’ll actually have to open your Bible and provide verses that prove Martel wrong.
The difficulty with the Koran is that it’s proscriptive, while the Old Testament is descriptive. Christians call to action is contained in the “great commission”.
Z, that was an excellent link. Very interesting. Thank you.
However, the link supports our contention that the antisemitism of the early Church (and the early persecution of the Christian Church by the Jews) were tribal in nature. Read a bit further in that link and the author concludes.
“On the other hand, the writings and speeches of the Church Fathers as presented in this paper, clearly speak for themselves as to the blatant anti-Semitism, Jewish hatred, and intolerance that was pervasive by the fourth and fifth centuries. The Church had begun to act in ways that were in diametric opposition to its founder. Jesus never taught his followers to convert people by force, or to persecute, oppress, or harm people simply because they disagreed with his message. It is not difficult to understand how Christian anti-Semitism has been perpetuated, since the very men who laid the foundational Christian theology and developed the Nicean Creed were, in fact, some of the worst anti- Semites in history.”
To whit, according to the author, there is nothing in the texts of Christianity that supports that historically expressed antisemitism. I would furthermore correct her last statement as follows: “Jesus never taught his followers to convert people by force, or to persecute, oppress, or harm people – ever!”
This is in marked difference from the writings of Mohammed in the Qu’ran, which a) are blatant, highly detailed exhortations to violence and slavery and the oppression of women and non-believers and b) are not open to interpretation in the way of the Torah or Bible.
Danny Lemieux: Z, that was an excellent link. Very interesting. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
Danny Lemieux: To whit, according to the author, there is nothing in the texts of Christianity that supports that historically expressed antisemitism.
Yes, that is the author’s view. Of course, many centuries of Christians disagreed, and had no problem finding Biblical justification. Indeed, Luther seems to make a very convincing case, and doesn’t have any problem finding verses to support his position. There are a great variety of Biblical interpretations. (Of course, yours is the one true version.) There are also a great variety of Koranic interpretations, and many Islamic scholars say you, and violent jihadists, are misrepresenting Islam.
Martel: “Danny, Zach will not take you up on Islam. It would take too long to get up to speed on a topic it’s obvious he knows nothing about. Therefore, he will either not respond to you or he will pretend to respond by quoting some Authority who claims that Islam is/soon will be a peaceable kingdom.”
Zach: “There are also a great variety of Koranic interpretations, and many Islamic scholars say you, and violent jihadists, are misrepresenting Islam.”
Danny, not to belabor the obvious, but do I have the Hive’s pattern down or what?
Indeed, Luther seems to make a very convincing case, and doesn’t have any problem finding verses to support his position.- Zachriel
So give me the best five two verses that make Luther’s case.
Zach: “There are also a great variety of Koranic interpretations, and many Islamic scholars say you, and violent jihadists, are misrepresenting Islam.”
You might want them to pass that on to the jihadists, since we’re not the ones cutting off people’s heads.
Z stamps their feet, insisting, “There are also a great variety of Koranic interpretations”
No, actually, it this is one of the great divides between Islam on one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other: Islam recognizes zero differences of interpretation of the Koran because, according to Mohammed, it is the directly transcribed word of god. You should learn more about Islam before making such a statement.
Z continues, blithely stating, many Islamic scholars say you, and violent jihadists, are misrepresenting Islam.”
I believe the operative word here is “taqiye”.
Charles M…hope springs eternal, wot!
All right, I fell for it.
Charles Martel does have”the Hive’s” pattern down.
Sorry, Zachriel, since you didn’t make that statement.
But still, give me the two best verses making Luther’s claim that Jews should be killed.
At the risk of sounding soooo judgmental because I fail to give the religion of pieces a pass based on centuries-old grudges and instead hold them to modern-day value systems, here comes another fine example of why Islam means “peace”, as in “peace of the grave”….
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/nigerian-muslims-lock-university-poll-workers-in-hostel-torch-it/
I know, I know….they are just misunderstood, poor dears. We all believe in the same god, don’t we?
BrianE: So give me the best five two verses that make Luther’s case.
We’re not going to argue Biblical interpretation. It’s enough to note that there are many such interpretations, some of which inspire violence.
BrianE: You might want them to pass that on to the jihadists, since we’re not the ones cutting off people’s heads.
Bin Laden was inspired by the towers falling in Beirut.
Danny Lemieux: No, actually, it this is one of the great divides between Islam on one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other: Islam recognizes zero differences of interpretation of the Koran because, according to Mohammed, it is the directly transcribed word of god. You should learn more about Islam before making such a statement.
Never heard of the one true Catholic Church?
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660
Or that some people believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God?
http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/bible-fundamentalist.html
Or that there are such a thing as Sunni and Shia Muslims? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ambassador_bush_didnt_know_there_were_two_sects_of_islam/
Or Sufi or Ahmaddiya?
http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/04/usa-ahmadi-muslims-condemn-attacks-on.html
The common fallacies, as they are commonly misunderstood:
Ad Hominem – Someone stupidly disagrees with me.
Argumentum ad populum – A lot of people stupidly disagree with me, even though they are right.
Straw man – You’ve created an accurate model or example that supports your argument, and I don’t feel like deconstructing it.
Argumentum ex silentio – I’m ignorant about that subject, so as long as I don’t admit that fact, no one can possibly know if it is true.
Circular reasoning – I’m right because I am, so you can’t possibly be right, too, you stupidhead.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc – I said something stupid earlier and can’t possibly back down now.
From a poster named Daniel on VoxDay blog.
Z, the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” comes from the Nicene Creed – it refers to “catholic” (small “c”) in the ecumenical sense.
Various Christian sects and denominations claim to have more accurate interpretations of Christianity, but that is why they are different: Christian fundamentalists believe in literal interpretation; Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians believe in the apostolic succession, Presbyterian Calvinists believe in men wearing skirts in cold weather, Lutherans believe in being painfully boring, etc. However, there is nothing in the Bible that says that there is only one interpretation of the faith and that anyone who deviates is to be put to the sword.
The prayer in the Nicene Creed is that all these divisions one day be united. That’s all.
BrianE: So give me the best five two verses that make Luther’s case.
Zachriel: We’re not going to argue Biblical interpretation. It’s enough to note that there are many such interpretations, some of which inspire violence.
I promise I won’t argue interpretation with you. Just give me two verses that make Luther’s case for killing Jews.
But we can’t not interpret until we have the verses to base our not interpreting on.
Or you can just stipulate there are no such verses and that Luther took his theological arguments against Judaism and applied a cultural proscription to deal with the ‘problem’. Luther was merely justifiying his prejudice with a covering of scripture along with other contemporary non-biblical works.
Whoa, as I predicted, the kids have been scrambling all over the Internet looking for a crash course in Islam. But, since they lack the knowledge base with which to process the information they’ve hurriedly dug up, they commit such howlers as:
“Never heard of the one true Catholic Church?”
I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. Are the kids analogizing the RC Church to something in Islam? What would it be? Islam has no apostolic succession, nor magisterium, nor Vatican. Yet, despite the religion’s remarkable number of self-appointed, fatwa-spewing clerics, most Muslims view the Qu’ran the same way: It is the unchangeable word of God. As a result, there is a remarkable uniformity of opinion across Islam: Jews are to be murdered, women are unclean, Christians must submit to dhimmitude, all the world must become dar al-Islam. (As noted ad nauseum, the kids have not been able to produce a single New Testment admonition to kill Jews.)
“Or that some people believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God?”
More new information! Of course left out is what everybody else here already knows: Almost all Muslims believe the Qu’ran is the eternal, uncreated word of God. Most Christians believe the Bible is God-inspired, but not God-written. Mohammed (peace be upon his little girl-loving soul) recited God’s words (Qu’ran = “act of reciting”), he did not sit down and record events or ponder upon them as biblical writers did.
“Or that there are such a thing as Sunni and Shia Muslims?”
This smacks of the Hive learning for the first time about Islam’s great divide. Of course the essential difference between the two is the question of proper succession after the death of the Chief Pedophile (pbuh). And there are messianic and devotional elements in Shi’ism that are off-putting to Sunnis, but the Hive should have known that Islam has elements of Christianity in it that Muslims don’t like to admit.
“Or Sufi or Ahmaddiya?”
The Hive dug deep! Too bad that most mainstream Muslims hold both these groups to be peripheral, even bordering on heresy (especially the Sufis), because of their misconception of Allah. Notice, too, that the kids link to an Ahmaddiya newspaper article and assume that we’ll believe such nonsense as “Wasim Malik, Vice President of AMC-USA said that reverence for life is a part of Islam,” and that the Ahmaddiya community has “membership exceeding tens of millions across the six continents.” Our vaunted contrarian couldn’t even bother to be skeptical about such bilge?
Now that is hand waving!
“Presbyterian Calvinists believe in men wearing skirts in cold weather, Lutherans believe in being painfully boring, etc.”
LOL! Classic Danny!
Charles M, and just where do you think that famous Scots expression “Shrivel me timber, Lad!” came from?
Danny, LOL.
Or as Leontyne Price once said when she caught a chill, “Shiver, me timbre.”
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Zachriel: So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question”
In reality my original question was rhetorical. I answered it. But to humor you yes for about two thousand years there has been antisemities in the Church at sometimes blatant and horrific even with express language forbiding it and no language commanding it. With the authority of the Koran it will never stop.
I’m still trying to understand Z’s value system as it pertains to religion. From what I can discern thus far,
1. There was antisemitism in the Christian community hundreds of years ago and the head anti-semite was one Martin Luther. Although there is nothing in Christian texts that Z can point to that justifies these positions, those passages in scripture must be there because Christians did bad things.
2. Muslims can kill, stone, mutiliate, rape, burn and otherwise abuse people of different faiths (Hindi, Buddhist, Christian) because their scriptures tell them to do it, but that’s OK, because there was antisemitism in the Christian Church hundreds of years ago.
3. We should not take Muslim scriptures seriously because they don’t really mean it, despite the fact that… (see 2 “above”). I guess they just can’t help themselves.
4. The problem is not that Muslims are doing bad things to other people, it is that we Christians (and Israeli Jews, presumably) just aren’t very tolerant about all these things Muslims are doing in the name of their religion. We should be more understanding.
5. Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity when it comes to doing bad things. Therefore, if only we stay tolerant and wait about 500 years, all will be fine.
Did I miss anything?
Need we point out that Christian nations initiated many wars and purges over ideology and race, and justified slavery, war and oppression on Biblical principles.
Those who support evil as you do, have no right to judge any of us. Nor do you have the power. So why continue your whining as if it matters to the denizens of the world.
Danny Lemieux: Z, the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” comes from the Nicene Creed – it refers to “catholic” (small “c”) in the ecumenical sense.
We’ll try again.
Danny Lemieux: No, actually, it this is one of the great divides between Islam on one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other: Islam recognizes zero differences of interpretation of the Koran because, according to Mohammed, it is the directly transcribed word of god. You should learn more about Islam before making such a statement.
Many Christians have and do insist there is only one true interpretation, which has led to violent conflict in the past. Many Muslims have and do insist there is only one true interpretation, which has led to violent conflict in the past. The Bible is considered the Word of God by many Christians. The Koran is considered the Word of God by Muslims.
BrianE: But we can’t not interpret until we have the verses to base our not interpreting on.
Sorry. Thought we had posted the link. Luther made his argument, including numerous Biblical citations, here:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
Danny Lemieux: Did I miss anything?
Yes. Any connection to what we wrote.
BrianE, just keep in mind that you’re dealing with one of Cinderella’s sisters here. By God, he’s gonna stuff that big foot into that way-too-small shoe no matter how many times you politely point out that it’s not gonna fit.
Good link, Z. You’ve done a good job proving your point: Martin Luther was an anti-semite and he used Jewish and Christian scripture to support his antisemitism. Let’s leave aside the finer points of scripture and their interpretation aside, for now.
It’s not that we haven’t read all that you have written, it is that some of us are a bit puzzled as to where you are going with your screeds. So, let me ask you all for some constructive advice….
1. What about here, now, today? How does the Z gang propose to address the question of Muslim-induced violence?
2. To what do you attribute all the violence taking place in the world of Islam?
3. Are Muslims behaving the same or differently than other groups in the world today (TODAY, that is…not 500 years ago) and, if so, why?
4. What should be the response of America and the world to Islam-induced violence.
Please…we’re dying to know how you IED and deal with these issues (ha, ha…puns and wordplay intended!).
Danny, I think part of the violence that’s going on in the Muslim world is women’s insistence on showing their ankles.
According to Prof. Azziz al Shabazz ibn Aleikum of the University of Upper East Cairo, exposure of the tarsal bones of females has been proven to raise men’s testosterone levels 256 percent, thus creating in them an overhwelming and irresistable urge to rip off women’s burqas, fling the temptresses to the ground, roughly mount them and repeatedly penetrate them until the Jews take away their erections.
Oh, wait a minute. You meant Muslim-on-Muslim man violence, right?
Well, according to Dr. Iksander ibn al-Samarrie of the University of Baghdad, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is the result of Jew-created rivalry.
How it works is that devout Muslims, enraged by the New York Times-reported atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, become so anxious to don explosive belts and hit a Tel Aviv Chuckie Cheese that they begin taking it out on one another. The Jews, by restricting their ability to hop a bus or tram and head over the border for a little “Hey, Allah, where’s my 72 cherries?” force them to channel their righteous energies onto other Muslims, instead of at Jew children where they belong.
Sheesh, you meant Muslim-on-Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/animist violence, didn’t you? Silly me. Well, the reason is pretty easy to discern: Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, are pretty prickly when you read up on them in the Qu’ran. Allah’s always ranting about dropping unbelievers into rivers of fire, and Mohammed kind of gloats over his willingness to chop off people’s heads and limbs. (Don’t get me wrong, it’s all in a good cause!)
Well, devout Muslims certainly want to help their Lord Master Supreme Being receive a steady stream of unbelievers he can chuck into Hell, and Muslims are admonished to imitate Mohammed, who is considered the perfect man in Islam. I know that if my perfect man relished beheading unbelievers (and diddling little girls), what the heck, I’d want to, too!
Charles M, now that Z have set the table, I am curious to know where they place themselves at the seating. At the head of the table or on the meat plate?
Danny Lemieux: You’ve done a good job proving your point: Martin Luther was an anti-semite and he used Jewish and Christian scripture to support his antisemitism.
Furthermore, that Luther was not an anomaly, but one of a history of theological justifications for anti-Semitism; for instance, the early Church, as shown above, but continuing well into the last century. (Though, it’s worth again pointing out that many Christians stood against this injustice.)
Danny Lemieux: How does the Z gang propose to address the question of Muslim-induced violence? To what do you attribute all the violence taking place in the world of Islam?
This returns us to our original comment on this thread.
MacG: Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years?
Zachriel: How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism?
BrianE: Fairly recently.
Zachriel: So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question.
It took 2000 years for Christendom to move beyond its anti-Semitic past, but only after being confronted with the fruit of their hatred, the Holocaust. The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism, and conservative forces are resisting this change.
Danny Lemieux: Are Muslims behaving the same or differently than other groups in the world today (TODAY, that is…not 500 years ago) and, if so, why?
Religious bigotry isn’t confined to the Muslim world, as this thread demonstrates. The difference is that liberal democracies have strong institutions that protect the rights of minorities while providing a forum for peaceful resolution of disputes.
Danny Lemieux: What should be the response of America and the world to Islam-induced violence.
Change has to come largely from within. Muslims need to confront the hatred in their midst. The U.S and its allies need to live up to the ideals they espouse. There has to be a reasonably just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Change will come. We can hope it doesn’t take as long as it took the Christian community, or the lesson be so painful. Change is coming now.
Zach says, “It took 2000 years for Christendom to move beyond its anti-Semitic past, but only after being confronted with the fruit of their hatred, the Holocaust. The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism, and conservative forces are resisting this change.”
There is so much that is offensive and just plain wrong here, I don’t quite know where to begin or whether I can address it all:
1) “Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”. Christendom includes Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks and many others. Yes, there was bigotry expressed by some Christians toward Jews, for many reasons…not just scriptural. Your own link to Martin Luther referenced the past persecutions of Christians by Jews as one reason that is not scriptural.
Finally, despite many inducements, you have not been able to provide any quote from Christian scripture that justifies violence against Jews (sorry, Martin Luther was so off-base with his references that they don’t apply …e.g., because Jesus referred to some Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, therefore all Jews were condemned by God. Please! There was never an exhortation to do violence against non-Christians in the Bible…anywhere!).
You could not find those references, I suspect, because a) it terrifies you to have to actually read Christian scripture to try to understand it and b) you know that such references just aren’t there. Finally, you completely overlook the haven that America provided for Jews, beginning in the 1600s…a country into which Jews were welcomed as any other group and in which Judaism could prosper as it never had been able to prosper since the destruction of the Temple.
That doesn’t stop you from applying a broad historical condemnation of all of Christianity, though. No…for you, in your pathetic world view, the sins of the fathers are forever to be suffered by their children.
You, sirs, are bigots! You are no different from those Christians that still blame the Jews for the persecution of Christians in the early days of the Church.
2) Citing the Holocaust as the fruit of Christianity is so deeply offensive and plain historically wrong that it shows once again your deep, deep loathing for Christians. The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists. Hitler’s rantings made clear that religious issues had nothing to do with their singling out of Jews for destruction. The National Socialists were just as dedicated to the destruction of Christianity as they were to Judaism and sought its replacement with a state-controlled religion centered around the Nordic gods – not for religious reasons, but for ideological reasons.
Because it fits your Leftwing Temple of Orthodoxy template, you are only too quick to try to lay the Holocaust on Christianity….a blood libel!
3) Regarding your comments that “The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism”. Yes….and so what? The Muslim world has been largely colonial since the time of Mohammed (Mamluks, Ottomans). So have Hindus (South Asia), Christians (Africa) and Buddhists (Central and SE Asia). However, we don’t non-Muslim colonials waging the equivalents of Jihad the world over. The least-colonized nation in the Islamic world is Saudi Arabia…a breeding ground for Muslim terrorists.
4) Re. your comment that Muslim violence somehow has something to do with “There has to be a reasonably just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.” Ludicrous! There is only one “just” solution that Palestinians see to the Israeli question: its complete destruction and the destruction of its people.
The only thing that this dispute has to do with Islam is that Israelis, a people marked for extinction in the Koran, inhabit land that Muslims believe belongs to Dar es Islam. Far more injustice has been wreaked on the Palestinians by other Muslims and each other than has ever been committed by Israel. In addition, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has nothing, nothing to do with the violence committed by Muslims against Christians (Egypt, Africa, Algeria, Turkey, Europe, United States, Philippines, Indonesia), Hindus (India, Indonesia, Malaysia), Buddhists (Thailand) or each other, for that matter.
Danny: “There was never an exhortation to do violence against non-Christians in the Bible…anywhere!).”
I’ll do you one better. When Judas led the Roman/Jewish contingency to arrest Him in the Garden of Gethsemene one of the disciples tried to defend Him and cut off the ear of “the enemy”:
” While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him.” Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. “But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled. ” Matthew 26
Wait! As side from the command to put away the sword against their enemy there’s more:
” While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.” Luke 22
Note the value in having more than one account/witness you get the fuller story of how He treated His enemies, what behavior He modeled for His followers and what He commanded them to do with their swords against the Jews and Gentiles.
Mohammed came after Jesus. While Jesus brought peace to the Middle East, Mohammed led an army, sacked many a city, and destroyed the Library of Alexandria.
That’s a list of accomplishments even Obama would envy.
Danny: “2) Citing the Holocaust as the fruit of Christianity is so deeply offensive and plain historically wrong that it shows once again your deep, deep loathing for Christians. The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists”
Obviously he has never read Deitrich Bonhoeffer.
1) “Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”.
Danny, Z here didn’t even know that Protestants and Catholics were both Christians. How do you expect him to know the context of Martin Luther’s protests?
because Jesus referred to some Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, therefore all Jews were condemned by God. Please!
The Pharisees were enemies of the Jews and Palestinians to boot once the historical transfiguration is applied. And yea, Jesus would be right to call Arabs or Palestinians a brood of vipers. That is what they were. And still is.
Finally, you completely overlook the haven that America provided for Jews, beginning in the 1600s…a country into which Jews were welcomed as any other group and in which Judaism could prosper as it never had been able to prosper since the destruction of the Temple.
This is part of why Z wants to paint America as not being Judeo-Christian in philosophical and ethical influence. He wants to divide people and make them fight, partially for his own amusement.
No…for you, in your pathetic world view, the sins of the fathers are forever to be suffered by their children.
That’s true in Islam, since they don’t recognize Christ as divine, just another prophet that got staked. Thus without Christ dying for Original Sin of Adam and Even, who is left to pay the price Allah demands in the Old Testament? Why… nobody, except suicide bombers in jihad.
Because it fits your Leftwing Temple of Orthodoxy template, you are only too quick to try to lay the Holocaust on Christianity….a blood libel!
The Left only minds blood on their hands when they can’t wipe it off on somebody else’s shirt. While that somebody else lays dying.
Yes….and so what?
While Z means British colonialism, he is ignorant or ignoring the colonialism the Mohammedans have done in the world.
Z wouldn’t know violence even if the Mohammedans cut off his arms and used it to beat his head in with.
Obviously he has never read Deitrich Bonhoeffer.
Even if he did, he would simply claim it as false. Such is the mind of the fanatic and zealot that they cannot accept anything other then their Faith.
Why do you think Z, who whiningly insists on imposing DC solutions to communities hundreds of miles away, now starts talking about Muslim solutions that must come from within?
Z actually acts like Obama can do whatever he likes in crushing dissent because Americans agreed to abide by the Constitution. Loyalty to the DC. And only loyalty to DC. Whatever you get from DC is a trickle down, unintentional side effect.
Since the Muslims are fighting and killing us, does that mean they don’t have to cooperate with us or that there’s no authority for external forces to impose a solution on them? So if 25 states in the Union decided it was time to kill Obama and get out of the US Constitution, Z would say that the solution has to come from within those 25 states?
Regardless of what Z thinks Z believes, none of it works in the real world. All of it is garbage. Un recyclable and biologically toxic garbage at that.
I’ve often wondered what sociopaths, dictators, and tyrants were thinking when they put so much pressure on people that they erupted in violent rebellion. All I have to do is to look at Z’s meaningless ideological claptrap to get a hint.
Danny and MacG, bless you both for trying so patiently to reason with somebody who simply will not listen. I think Zach’s problem—and it is a huge one—is his refusal to allow anyone here to frame the argument in any way he does not wish us to, so we watch in fascination as he endlessly creates and destroys his own straw men.
You can see from the pattern that he has established here that dialogue or the lack of it isn’t the point. I think the boy/man/hive is lonely and simply wants human contact, no matter what the cost. If you look at his websites, you will see that nobody visits them or communicates with him. He doesn’t know how to bring people to himself, so he does the second-best thing and goes to other people—in this case, us. However, there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance at work in him: He looks down on us, thinking he is our intellectual superior. But I believe he also senses, uneasily, that this may be one of the best places on the Internet for him to truly test an intelligence that, so far, has impressed only himself.
He knows as well as us that his arguments persuade none of the bright people here, but the more urgent thing for him is to be taken as somebody important. There is power in being able to manufacture morte main nonsense and have good minds respond to it seriously. The fact that most here have treated his mental shenanigans with some respect must be like a feast for a very hungry man. Laugh at him, rebut him, show him up all you want, the important thing is that, no matter how shabby, he finally has a place at the table.
I, for one, appreciate what Zachriel brings to Bookworm Room. He is to this blog as Michael Kinsley was to Firing Line, a reliable foil.
“Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate,” William Kristol once said.
Zachriel is reliably liberal, and I think exposes for all readers who pass through that underneath the veneer of liberalism lies the heart of a statist.
Danny Lemieux: Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”. Christendom includes Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks and many others.
No, Martin Luther is not Christendom, which usually refers to areas of the world where Christianity is prevalent. Anti-Judaism is a common current throughout the history of Christianity.
Danny Lemieux: sorry, Martin Luther was so off-base with his references that they don’t apply …
It’s easy to wave your hands, but apparently many Christians, including theologians and religious leaders, found the arguments persuasive for most of history.
Danny Lemieux: You could not find those references, …
You were pointed to them. You merely wave them away as if they had no weight in Christian theology or history, but that is simply not the case.
Danny Lemieux: That doesn’t stop you from applying a broad historical condemnation of all of Christianity, though.
In fact, we repeatedly stressed that anti-Semitism wasn’t universal among Christians, only that prominent Christian theologians have long justified violence and oppression by reference to the Bible. It’s not a controversial position in historical studies.
Danny Lemieux: The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists.
“Early Christian thought held Jews collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. This religious teaching became embedded in both Catholic and Protestant theology during the first millennium, with terrible consequences for Jews.”
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/