Anti semitisam

[outhouse]

How is that even close to being relevant to a discussion of an English word?

Because mythology accurately describes the term diluvian when speaking of biblical text. With no date attributed the term is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

Abrahamic religions (Noah's flood)

The Deluge,

• Genesis flood narrative
  • Noah's Ark
  • Islamic view of Noah

 

[rosends]

No, I mean, that the word Jewish is used in different contexts, similar to, in this instance, 'Semitic'. The compound would be incidental to my statement.

But I was talking about how a word when used in a larger construct has a specific meaning which transcends the meaning of it when used as a root. you said the same could be said of Jewish. I don't see how.

 

[rosends]

If you talking only about singling out Jews, then you could certainly could make a good argument that there is anti-Semitism there. But I don't think that simply faulting a religion, either as a sceptic or as a member of another religion, or not thinking it correct, or preferring another belief system or religion, is to be anti- that religion in the sinister sense we mean when we speak of anti-Semitism. I think that stretches the notion of anti-Semitism and bigotry far beyond a sensible point. So, Christian School prayers cannot sensibly be considered anti-Semitic.

That's why I appended and attached it to the underlying suppersessionist thinking which inspires that prayer often. I then cited a NY Times article to show how often there is more than just "pro-christian" when people say and do things.

 

[rosends]

Because mythology accurately describes the term diluvian when speaking of biblical text. With no date attributed the term is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

Abrahamic religions (Noah's flood)

The Deluge,

• Genesis flood narrative
  • Noah's Ark
  • Islamic view of Noah

The word "diluvian" refers to ANY deluge. Not the biblical one. The word "antebiluvian" refers to the biblical one. These are English words. The existence of a date or not doesn't change what the words mean. Neither do cute cut and pasted pictures.

 

[outhouse]

I can't talk about "Noachide law" because historians don't accept that Noah existed?

I never said that, why do you so often put words onto others changing context at will?

Who is attributed to a law means little, compared to what the law only some follow is.


Much of the OT and NT is attributed to real and mythological characters.

, dictionaries everywhere have been hoodwinked into having the word "antediluvian" in them referring to the time before the biblical flood.

When one cannot accept the credible academic position, its known as fanaticism.

 

[rosends]

I never said that, why do you so often put words onto others changing context at will?

you had a question about a word and its meaning if it is predicated on an event that is not accepted by scholars as historically accurate. You can't make the argument about one word and not about another.

When one cannot accept the credible academic position, its known as fanaticism.

When one refuses to accept the meaning of words but instead assumes that they can mean whatever people want them to, that is known as ignorance.

 

[Desert Snake]

But I was talking about how a word when used in a larger construct has a specific meaning which transcends the meaning of it when used as a root. you said the same could be said of Jewish. I don't see how.

Yes, it's not literally the same thing, however, because the word 'Jewish' itself is used in different contexts, I notice a similarity. It's like a roundabout similarity.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

That's why I appended and attached it to the underlying suppersessionist thinking which inspires that prayer often. I then cited a NY Times article to show how often there is more than just "pro-christian" when people say and do things.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can't find this article you refer to. It is not anti-Semitic in the relevant sense to think Judaism today is flawed and wrong, and that Jews may be punished for not being Christians, unless you are singling Jews out from other non-Christian faiths, ascribing stereotypes and other prejudiced notions to them, and the like. The orthodox Christian position is Judaism is no longer a valid path to salvation, I believe. Is this what you mean by supersessionist? This is not anti-Semitic, and the school prayers are not. If the schools in question adhere to anti-Semitic positions like Martin Luther did, then this would be a different matter, but I doubt they do.

The bottom line is anti-Semitism is about prejudice, stereotypes, peculiar dislike and hatred. It does no good to stretch it beyond what is sensible to try to paint rejection of Judaism as a valid religious path to be anti-Semitic.

 

[rosends]

I'm not sure what you mean. I can't find this article you refer to. It is not anti-Semitic in the relevant sense to think Judaism today is flawed and wrong, and that Jews may be punished for not being Christians, unless you are singling Jews out from other non-Christian faiths, ascribing stereotypes and other prejudiced notions to them, and the like. The orthodox Christian position is Judaism is no longer a valid path to salvation, I believe. Is this what you mean by supersessionist? This is not anti-Semitic, and the school prayers are not. If the schools in question adhere to anti-Semitic positions like Martin Luther did, then this would be a different matter, but I doubt they do.

The bottom line is anti-Semitism is about prejudice, stereotypes, peculiar dislike and hatred. It does no good to stretch it beyond what is sensible to try to paint rejection of Judaism as a valid religious path to be anti-Semitic.

Supersessionism teaches that Jews (and in particular Jews) have been replaced and lowered in status and by continuing to exist are disagreeing with God. This is about hatred specifically of Jews as those disagreeing with God. It is anti-Semitic specifically. More than just not being a path to salvation, Judaism is viewed as a path to damnation, and Judaism specifically. If this isn't anti-Semitism to you, then fine. Being told that I, on the basis of my existence and belief, am somehow inferior and deserving of punishment seems to me to be anti-Semitic. Being told that I am a christ-killer (and this is also a function of certain sections of Christianity's creed) is a problem. Being told that Christian prayers are valid and mine are not because I am Jewish (which is a step beyond simply asserting that ALL non-Christian prayers are not good) is a problem. In the article I cited, the anti-Semitism as an undercurrent is readily apparent. I was combining that hidden attitude with the overt act of endorsing one mode of prayer (among other examples of institutional behavior).

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Supersessionism teaches that Jews (and in particular Jews) have been replaced and lowered in status and by continuing to exist are disagreeing with God. This is about hatred specifically of Jews as those disagreeing with God. It is anti-Semitic specifically. More than just not being a path to salvation, Judaism is viewed as a path to damnation, and Judaism specifically. If this isn't anti-Semitism to you, then fine. Being told that I, on the basis of my existence and belief, am somehow inferior and deserving of punishment seems to me to be anti-Semitic. Being told that I am a christ-killer (and this is also a function of certain sections of Christianity's creed) is a problem. Being told that Christian prayers are valid and mine are not because I am Jewish (which is a step beyond simply asserting that ALL non-Christian prayers are not good) is a problem. In the article I cited, the anti-Semitism as an undercurrent is readily apparent. I was combining that hidden attitude with the overt act of endorsing one mode of prayer (among other examples of institutional behavior).

I think you are conflating different things. If you believe all Jews are Christ-killers, then you are being anti-Semitic. If you think Jews are peculiarly bad for rejecting Christ, compared to atheist, Muslims, etc., then you are being anti-Semitic. But if you simply think that Christianity has replaced Judaism as the one and only valid path to God, and even the Jews may be punished for not adhering to Christianity just as atheists, Muslims, etc., may well be, then this is not anti-Semitic.

I can't find this article you are talking about. I have hard time thinking that in contemporary America the invocation of Christian prayers includes much to do with anti-Semitism in the senses mentioned, or in any relevant sense.

 

[rosends]

I think you are conflating different things. If you believe all Jews are Christ-killers, then you are being anti-Semitic. If you think Jews are peculiarly bad for rejecting Christ, compared to atheist, Muslims, etc., then you are being anti-Semitic. But if you simply think that Christianity has replaced Judaism as the one and only valid path to God, and even the Jews may be punished for not adhering to Christianity just as atheists, Muslims, etc., may well be, then this is not anti-Semitic.

And I see this still as anti-Semitic because it looks at Jews, because of their religion, as being somehow lesser. It justifies hatred and violence. It isn't just saying that "other religions and non-beliefs are all equally unacceptable" (though this is problematic enough) -- it is specifying Judaism as particularly wrong/unacceptable. I could still hear the argument that if a person was exclusive in his opinion of his own, then he could be called "anti-x" AND "anti-Y" with X and Y representing any other beliefs, but I am not even trying to go that far.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

And I see this still as anti-Semitic because it looks at Jews, because of their religion, as being somehow lesser. It justifies hatred and violence. It isn't just saying that "other religions and non-beliefs are all equally unacceptable" (though this is problematic enough) -- it is specifying Judaism as particularly wrong/unacceptable. I could still hear the argument that if a person was exclusive in his opinion of his own, then he could be called "anti-x" AND "anti-Y" with X and Y representing any other beliefs, but I am not even trying to go that far.

How does it single out Judaism? What you seem to be saying is the Christian must believe Judaism is a true path to salvation and a valid religion today. Must Jews do the same for other faiths? Must the Christian do the same for other faiths but Judaism? Whether or not there is some risk of tension between exclusivists, why in itself does it amount to bigotry to be an exclusivist? Is the atheist an anti-Semite, then?

The argument that being an exclusivist believer is the same as being an anti-Semite is to water down anti-Semitism far beyond a sensible point. It is like the throwing around of terms like racism and Islamophobia. It does no one any good. Anti-Semitism denotes hatred or irrational dislike. It denotes negative stereotypes and prejudiced beliefs about Jews and singling out Jews. It cannot be expanded to include just not believing Judaism a valid religious path, unless one is singling out Jews, without diluting its meaning.

 

[rosends]

How does it single out Judaism? What you seem to be saying is the Christian must believe Judaism is a true path to salvation and a valid religion today. Must Jews do the same for other faiths? Must the Christian do the same for other faiths but Judaism? Whether or not there is some risk of tension between exclusivists, why in itself does it amount to bigotry to be an exclusivist? Is the atheist an anti-Semite, then?

The argument that being an exclusivist believer is the same as being an anti-Semite is to water down anti-Semitism far beyond a sensible point. It is like the throwing around of terms like racism and Islamophobia. It does no one any good. Anti-Semitism denotes hatred or irrational dislike. It denotes negative stereotypes and prejudiced beliefs about Jews and singling out Jews. It cannot be expanded to include just not believing Judaism a valid religious path, unless one is singling out Jews, without diluting its meaning.

Supersessionism isn't the belief that other religions are invalid. it is the belief the Judaism has lost its position and been demoted, It is an attitude specific to Judaism. That's what it is. To be exclusive is difficult enough, To be exclusivist and then, additionally, demean another specific single group? Very problematic. It smacks of an particular hatred and an irrational (or, in the mind of the supersessionist, perfectly rational) dislike. It singles out Jews. That's just what it does by definition.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Supersessionism isn't the belief that other religions are invalid. it is the belief the Judaism has lost its position and been demoted, It is an attitude specific to Judaism. That's what it is. To be exclusive is difficult enough, To be exclusivist and then, additionally, demean another specific single group? Very problematic. It smacks of an particular hatred and an irrational (or, in the mind of the supersessionist, perfectly rational) dislike. It singles out Jews. That's just what it does by definition.

I don't agree that exclusivist is difficult enough in the sense we are discussing. Whatever one's problems with exclusivism, I don't think it by any means necessitates one holds the sort of bigotry inherent in anti-Semitism. And wouldn't the atheist be in just the same position as the exclusivist? Are agnostics and atheists bigots?

Anyway, I'm not sure if you are referring to something more particular when you refer to supersessionist, but I don't think the belief that Judaism is no longer valid is anti-Semitic. It only singles out the Jews in the sense it suggests their faith was once inspired but is not now. Otherwise, it is just another aspect of the exclusivist Christian position that one must be a Christian to be saved.

 

[rosends]

I don't agree that exclusivist is difficult enough in the sense we are discussing. Whatever one's problems with exclusivism, I don't think it by any means necessitates one holds the sort of bigotry inherent in anti-Semitism. And wouldn't the atheist be in just the same position as the exclusivist? Are agnostics and atheists bigots?

Anyway, I'm not sure if you are referring to something more particular when you refer to supersessionist, but I don't think the belief that Judaism is no longer valid is anti-Semitic. It only singles out the Jews in the sense it suggests their faith was once inspired but is not now. Otherwise, it is just another aspect of the exclusivist Christian position that one must be a Christian to be saved.

I didn't say that exclusivism is anti-Semitism, just that the attitude that only one group is "saved" and ALL others are condemned is troubling. Are atheists exclusivist? Yes in their own way. Did I say "bigots"? No, I didn't.

So you concede that supersessionism singles out Jews but now that singling out isn't enough? Before you were concerned because you felt that it didn't single out Jews. You have shifted your line of sensitivity. It doesn't say "all religions are equally invalid" it says "Jews are specially rejected because they rejected God and their continued existence is a continued rejection so they, like other religions, are invalid."

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I didn't say that exclusivism is anti-Semitism, just that the attitude that only one group is "saved" and ALL others are condemned is troubling. Are atheists exclusivist? Yes in their own way. Did I say "bigots"? No, I didn't.

Then it is largely irrelevant to this discussion.

So you concede that supersessionism singles out Jews but now that singling out isn't enough? Before you were concerned because you felt that it didn't single out Jews. You have shifted your line of sensitivity. It doesn't say "all religions are equally invalid" it says "Jews are specially rejected because they rejected God and their continued existence is a continued rejection so they, like other religions, are invalid."

It is usual in dialectic for one to redefine one's terms and understandings.

What you seem to be saying is that there is something especially troubling in believing that Judaism, that of the Old Testament, was once inspired and yet now Judaism is no longer a valid path to salvation. I would agree if one held that the Jews were especially guilty for rejecting Christ, especially if by Jews you meant all Jews done the ages, this would be anti-Semitic. But I don't see how believing Judaism was once valid but is not now singles out Judaism in such a way as to make one an anti-Semite for believing it. If the Christian simply believes that Jews now are wrong in the sense that Muslims, Atheists, etc., are wrong, then I don't see how he can be described in any sensible way as an anti-Semite.

 

[rosends]

If the Christian simply believes that Jews now are wrong in the sense that Muslims, Atheists, etc., are wrong, then I don't see how he can be described in any sensible way as an anti-Semite.

But supersessionism doesn't. It believes that Judaism is wrong and unacceptable in a completely unique and specific way, lowered from a unique status in a way that other religions aren't. The dislike for Judaism because of its explicit rejection after having had favored nation status separates it wfrom other religions and their "wrong" beliefs.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I should say I think singling out, without qualification, is not enough for anti-Semitism. What is required is a prejudiced or irrational singling out, like holding Jews, even those born today, as especially perverse for rejecting Christ.

But there are ways, perhaps, you might single out Judaism without being anti-Semitic. If, for example, you were a sceptic who felt religions with particularly extensive religious laws were especially silly and pernicious, then you might single out Judaism and Islam (and perhaps a few other faiths) as even worse than other faiths. I don't think this would amount to anti-Semitism because it is based on a rationally defensible point about the nature of religions, and not any irrational prejudice against Jews. But if you disliked Judaism for this quality but not Islam, then this would suggest some kind of prejudice.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

But supersessionism doesn't. It believes that Judaism is wrong and unacceptable in a completely unique and specific way, lowered from a unique status in a way that other religions aren't. The dislike for Judaism because of its explicit rejection after having had favored nation status separates it wfrom other religions and their "wrong" beliefs.

I disagree, if one is just referring to it being lowered to the status of al other faiths. If we are talking about something more, some special dislike of Jews, even today, for rejecting Christianity, more than followers of other faiths or no faiths, I think you have a point. But I don't see no longer accepting Judaism as valid is enough is bigoted against Judaism.

Let us not forget, as well, that Judaism will tend to mean Rabbinic Judaism, and the relationship of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism, and the Old Testament Judaism is complex.

 

[rosends]

I disagree, if one is just referring to it being lowered to the status of al other faiths. If we are talking about something more, some special dislike of Jews, even today, for rejecting Christianity, more than followers of other faiths or no faiths, I think you have a point. But I don't see no longer accepting Judaism as valid is enough is bigoted against Judaism.

Let us not forget, as well, that Judaism will tend to mean Rabbinic Judaism, and the relationship of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism, and the Old Testament Judaism is complex.

I'll skip your final statement because "Old Testament Judaism" and "Christianity" are irrelevant to this discussion. You can feel free to think that the specific demoting of Judaism and considering it more egregious than other religions in its rejection is not particular enough to rise to the level of anti-Semitism. I think it is. It isolates Judaism. It focuses on Judaism qua Judaism and it justifies behaviors and thoughts towards Judaism that wouldn't be called for against others. Other groups aren't called "christ rejecters" even though they equally might not accept his role.