Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Yeah. I saw someone on YouTube specifically say that when asked if he had any problems taking a Palestinian family’s house for himself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
He destroyed other people's property during an extremely violent rampage that was triggered by his anger at seeing moneylenders and merchants selling animals in the temple. So much for loving your neighbor as yourself, loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and "blessed are the peacemakers."
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The Jedi ignored evil and look what happened. Evil must be explored and reduced, not ignored.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
That was known, and predicted to Abraham.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Lol. With what? The dead victims are still dead.
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
Luke 19:27
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"
No, only you are talking about that.
You saw the word "motivated" in my post, made some bad assumptions about what I meant, and went off half-cocked.
For any event, we can point to all sorts of factors where, if not for that one thing, the event wouldn't have happened as it did. All of them are causal factors in what happened.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
We know that it started mainly as a European "Christian" issue,
but I don't think it is because they blamed Jews for the death of Jesus.
Why would they? If Jesus hadn't "died for mankind's sins", there would be no Orthodox Christianity.
You need to consider the relationship between Jews and Christians during Roman times. The Christian movements were an offshoot of Jewish religion and used the Septuagint Bible as part of their religious tradition. Jews had special status in the Roman Empire in that they were exempted from a requirement to acknowledge and worship Roman gods, but they regarded Christianity as an illegitimate version of their tradition. It came to appeal primarily to gentiles, because Christians were not obligated to adopt Jewish laws and traditions. The first three gospels of the orthodox New Testament were not strongly antisemitic, but the Gospel of John has usually been seen as a source of Christian animosity towards Jews. It is more explicit in blaming "the Jews" (hoi Ioudaoi) for killing Jesus.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Makes no sense..
If Jesus is God, and died for mankind's sins, then how can anybody be blamed for killing God?
I mean, if it hadn't happened, there would be no Orthodox Christianity..
no celebration of Easter etc.
No .. the plot is more fundamental .. one of envy and stereotyping .. filthy lucre.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Makes no sense..
If Jesus is God, and died for mankind's sins, then how can anybody be blamed for killing God?
I mean, if it hadn't happened, there would be no Orthodox Christianity..
no celebration of Easter etc.
No .. the plot is more fundamental .. one of envy and stereotyping .. filthy lucre.
I'm not one to argue that the stories make sense, just that the animosity started back at the very beginnings of the religion. The Gospel of John is thought to have been written after the other three and may well have reflected some personal animosity between its author and local Jewish authorities. But that is just speculation.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
just their bodies are dead... that's the idea
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Well, my intention was that each person would ignore it in themself, but I usually also include the option to reidrect those impulses.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
It's a criminal mindset, criminals can find logic in it. Not that I believe you actually heard someone say this, nor that the implication is anything, ya know, real.
DNB
Christian
When read in context, and with depth of understanding,. God killed those who had defied Him in the most contemptuous and blasphemous manner. And, He waited centuries for them to repent, as it is written.
Anti-semitism is not Biblically based - it is man's perversions and hatred based - they may construe what they want from the text, but the Bible does not endorse taking the law into one's own hands. I know that the Bible is extremely disparaging to the Hebrews, in both Testaments. But Paul explains that the mercy and favoritism, and subsequent rejection of one, lead to the mercy of another. But, that in the end, the Jews will be reinstated as part of the elect. God's rejection of the Jews is between Himself and them, not for us to exact punishment upon them. Any reasonable and honest person knows this.
DNB
Christian
I question the top of your head.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:9
God ordered the Israelites to wipe the Amalikites off the face of the earth (Exodus 17:8–13; 1 Samuel 15:2–3). According to the Bible, he told the Israelites, "Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’" (I Samuel 15:3). That's not mentioning the biblical story about God committing global genocide by drowning humanity (aside from Noah and his family) in a worldwide flood because he is royally pi**ed about how wicked humanity behaves. Well, so much for God being pro-life.
From the Jewish perspective. They are reasonable honest persons.
Since 1945 many detailed accounts have been written of anti-Jewish polemic in Christian literature. With few exceptions they begin with the major theologians of the second century CE. Spurred into action by the claim that there is a direct link between the Nazi Holocaust and the Church's negative attitude towards Judaism, scholars have subjected the views of the early Christian fathers to close scrutiny. Their research has demonstrated that antipathy towards Jews is never far from the surface in the writings of some of the most influential theologians. Consequently, this 'teaching of contempt', as the Early Church's presentation of Judaism has been aptly described, is regarded as containing the seeds of modern antisemitism.
The Taproot of Antisemitism
Although Christians are ready to scour patristic texts for the slightest trace of anti-Judaism, there is a reluctance to subject the New Testament to the same critique. While the works of the fathers may justly be regarded as the source of much of the persecution suffered by Jews at the hands of Gentiles, such a charge cannot be levelled at the Scriptures. Many biblical scholars are adamant that there is no connection between the prejudicial statements about Jews and Judaism found in the New Testament and the barbarian of Hitler. They refuse to believe that what has been termed the 'theological antisemitism' of the Christian era has any basis in the Bible and deny any possible link between biblical teaching and Nazi anti-Jewish policy.
They refuse to believe, for instance, that the hard sayings about the Pharisees attributed to Jesus in Matthew 23, the pointed remarks of Paul about the inferiority of Judaism, and the phrase 'His blood be upon us and upon our children', which, according to Matthew 27:26, was on the lips of the crowd of onlookers at Calvary, could in any way have augmented the sufferings of the Jews over the past two thousand years. They do not concede that one of the most belligerent references to Jews in all Christian Scripture, found in 1 Thessalonians 12:16 where the author states that they are the deserved recipients of God's wrath, may have been taken by countless generations of Christians as licence to harass and even murder their Jewish neighbours. They dismiss the antisemitic potential in Jesus' scathing description of his Jewish audience in John 8:44 as the children of the devil, and in John the Divine's reference to the 'synagogue of Satan' in Revelation 2:9.
But this standpoint has not gone unchallenged. Jewish theologians in particular have been vocal in their disagreement. Eliezer Berkovitz, for example, claims that 'Christianity's New Testament has been the most dangerous antisemitic tract in history. Its hatred-charged diatribes against the Pharisees and the Jews have poisoned the hearts and minds of millions and millions of Christians for almost two millennia. Without it Hitler's Mein Kampf could never have been written'. (Judaism 27, 1978, p.325.) Strong words which are totally unacceptable to many Christians. But Berkovitz, an Orthodox Jew, is supported by the eminent Reform theologian Samuel Sandmel. In the last book that he wrote, “Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? ” (1978), he concluded that 'it is simply not correct to exempt the New Testament from anti-Semitism and to allocate it to later periods of history. It must be said that innumerable Christians have purged themselves of anti-Semitism, but its expression is to be found in Christian Scripture for all to read' (p. 144).
Jewish scholars are not the only ones to come to this conclusion; their view is shared by reputable Christian theologians. The most extensive investigation to date of the negation of Judaism in Scripture is that carried out by Norman A. Beck, a Lutheran scholar. The subtitle of his book ‘Mature Christianity’ (2nd. ed. 1993) indicates his concern: 'The recognition and repudiation of the antiJewish polemic of the New Testament'. In her controversial study of the theological roots of antisemitism, ‘Faith and Fratricide’ (1974), the Roman theologian Rosemary Ruether argues that parts of the New Testament were intended by their authors to turn Christians against Jews. She asks pointedly, 'Is it possible to say, "Jesus is the Messiah" without, implicitly or explicitly, saying at the same time "and the Jews be damned"?' (p. 246) James Parkes, the Anglican clergyman who ranks as a doyen in the field of Christian-Jewish relations, stated categorically that after more than fifty years studying the topic he was convinced that it is dishonest to refuse to face the fact that the basic root of modern antisemitism lies squarely in the New Testament.
Since 1945 many detailed accounts have been written of anti-Jewish polemic in Christian literature. With few exceptions they begin with the major theologians of the second century CE. Spurred into action by the claim that there is a direct link between the Nazi Holocaust and the Church's negative attitude towards Judaism, scholars have subjected the views of the early Christian fathers to close scrutiny. Their research has demonstrated that antipathy towards Jews is never far from the surface in the writings of some of the most influential theologians. Consequently, this 'teaching of contempt', as the Early Church's presentation of Judaism has been aptly described, is regarded as containing the seeds of modern antisemitism.
The Taproot of Antisemitism
Although Christians are ready to scour patristic texts for the slightest trace of anti-Judaism, there is a reluctance to subject the New Testament to the same critique. While the works of the fathers may justly be regarded as the source of much of the persecution suffered by Jews at the hands of Gentiles, such a charge cannot be levelled at the Scriptures. Many biblical scholars are adamant that there is no connection between the prejudicial statements about Jews and Judaism found in the New Testament and the barbarian of Hitler. They refuse to believe that what has been termed the 'theological antisemitism' of the Christian era has any basis in the Bible and deny any possible link between biblical teaching and Nazi anti-Jewish policy.
They refuse to believe, for instance, that the hard sayings about the Pharisees attributed to Jesus in Matthew 23, the pointed remarks of Paul about the inferiority of Judaism, and the phrase 'His blood be upon us and upon our children', which, according to Matthew 27:26, was on the lips of the crowd of onlookers at Calvary, could in any way have augmented the sufferings of the Jews over the past two thousand years. They do not concede that one of the most belligerent references to Jews in all Christian Scripture, found in 1 Thessalonians 12:16 where the author states that they are the deserved recipients of God's wrath, may have been taken by countless generations of Christians as licence to harass and even murder their Jewish neighbours. They dismiss the antisemitic potential in Jesus' scathing description of his Jewish audience in John 8:44 as the children of the devil, and in John the Divine's reference to the 'synagogue of Satan' in Revelation 2:9.
But this standpoint has not gone unchallenged. Jewish theologians in particular have been vocal in their disagreement. Eliezer Berkovitz, for example, claims that 'Christianity's New Testament has been the most dangerous antisemitic tract in history. Its hatred-charged diatribes against the Pharisees and the Jews have poisoned the hearts and minds of millions and millions of Christians for almost two millennia. Without it Hitler's Mein Kampf could never have been written'. (Judaism 27, 1978, p.325.) Strong words which are totally unacceptable to many Christians. But Berkovitz, an Orthodox Jew, is supported by the eminent Reform theologian Samuel Sandmel. In the last book that he wrote, “Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? ” (1978), he concluded that 'it is simply not correct to exempt the New Testament from anti-Semitism and to allocate it to later periods of history. It must be said that innumerable Christians have purged themselves of anti-Semitism, but its expression is to be found in Christian Scripture for all to read' (p. 144).
Jewish scholars are not the only ones to come to this conclusion; their view is shared by reputable Christian theologians. The most extensive investigation to date of the negation of Judaism in Scripture is that carried out by Norman A. Beck, a Lutheran scholar. The subtitle of his book ‘Mature Christianity’ (2nd. ed. 1993) indicates his concern: 'The recognition and repudiation of the antiJewish polemic of the New Testament'. In her controversial study of the theological roots of antisemitism, ‘Faith and Fratricide’ (1974), the Roman theologian Rosemary Ruether argues that parts of the New Testament were intended by their authors to turn Christians against Jews. She asks pointedly, 'Is it possible to say, "Jesus is the Messiah" without, implicitly or explicitly, saying at the same time "and the Jews be damned"?' (p. 246) James Parkes, the Anglican clergyman who ranks as a doyen in the field of Christian-Jewish relations, stated categorically that after more than fifty years studying the topic he was convinced that it is dishonest to refuse to face the fact that the basic root of modern antisemitism lies squarely in the New Testament.
As cited in the gospel of Matthew:
en.wikipedia.org
The Gospel of Matthew is often evaluated as the most Jewish of the canonical gospels, and yet it is sometimes argued that it is anti-Judaic or antisemitic.[27]
The Gospel of Matthew has given readers the impression his hostility to Jews increases as his narrative progresses, until it culminates in chapter 23.[28] In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard, which is strikingly similar to Isaiah 5:1-30,[29] is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:[30] "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[31] The Old Testament allusions appear to suggest that the author thought God would call to account Israel's leaders for maltreating Christ, and that the covenant will pass to the gentiles who follow Christ,[32] a view that arose in intersectarian polemics in Judaism between the followers of Christ and the Jewish leadership.[33] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:
The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people:
Antisemitism and the New Testament - Wikipedia
Gospel of Matthew
Main articles: Rejection of Jesus and Blood curseThe Gospel of Matthew is often evaluated as the most Jewish of the canonical gospels, and yet it is sometimes argued that it is anti-Judaic or antisemitic.[27]
The Gospel of Matthew has given readers the impression his hostility to Jews increases as his narrative progresses, until it culminates in chapter 23.[28] In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard, which is strikingly similar to Isaiah 5:1-30,[29] is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118:[30] "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".[31] The Old Testament allusions appear to suggest that the author thought God would call to account Israel's leaders for maltreating Christ, and that the covenant will pass to the gentiles who follow Christ,[32] a view that arose in intersectarian polemics in Judaism between the followers of Christ and the Jewish leadership.[33] Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:
Certain passages which speak of the destruction of Jerusalem have elements that are interpreted as indications of Matthew's anti-Judaic attitudes. Jesus is said to have lamented over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate".[35][36] Again, Jesus is made to predict the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down".[37][38] Such visions of an end to the old Temple may be read as embodying the replacement theology, according to which Christianity supersedes Judaism.[38]
The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people:
This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus. Shelly Matthews writes:
Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[41]
The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[42]