Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 01-12-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I'm not talking about any originating anti-Semitism back in ancient history at all. The Subject Head was unfortunately all wrong. Ancient anti-Semitism was not what we were discussing back in the Corinthians thread. TODAY, we still have in certain influential quarters a "time-honored tradition" (YUK!) of reading the Jesus story almost exclusively through the GJohn lens, which is lethally anti-Semitic. I should know because I grew up in the Deep South as part of a skeptic academic family during the '50s and the '60s where we were surrounded by that fundie outlook as the norm.

Now that has nothing to do with ancient Rome, and everything to do with knee-jerk fundies TODAY who use GJohn in order to stress how totally and "exclusively" guilty "them Jews" were in "killing our Lord" (YUK!!).

That said, the ancient Rome angle is important in terms of general oppression via imperialism. But there is no institutional anti-Semitism there; it is instead broader and lethal colonialism by ancient Rome that's involved there. But even that was whitewashed in Rhutchins' typical fundie take in his post, shifting blame for the crucifixion entirely over to the high priest only! Today's typical fundie whitewash of imperialistic colonial Rome in the Jesus story is indeed anti-Semitic. Framing ancient Rome as a paragon of freedom in the Jesus story is typically anti-Semitic, and the heavy dependence on GJohn is the dead giveaway! In fact, the Romans themselves were fully as oppressive in their own way as the high priest. But their oppressiveness was colonial and targeted at freethinkers like Jesus, not at Jews per se. It's the whitewashing of that nasty record that helps target Jews as the "only" Christ-killers, Mary and Amen:-(

On the one hand, the appalling groupthink that I'm spotlighting in the Jesus story is the colonialist collusion in executing a freethinker. On the other, the appalling groupthink that I'm spotlighting from today is the typical fundie use of GJohn as the basis for an age-old anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story as somehow a crime by Jews only! A disgusting reading that is as old as countless Mediaeval pogroms and as modern as today's Deep South headlines.

I'm appalled that no one on this board -- no one -- is disgusted by a fundie -- a fundie! -- invoking this anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story out of a demented text like GJohn. Why in the world are fellow skeptics here suddenly applauding -- applauding! -- a fundie's reading? Doesn't anyone here know anything about Deep South fundamentalism? What kind of ostrich-like response is going on here? Why is my calling a fundie -- a fundie! -- on his anti-Semitic reading of the Jesus story suddenly turned into some kind of affront on a Skeptic board?! Doesn't anyone view the anti-Semitic reading from the fundie as the real affront here? Why is that O.K.?

Evasive posts about freedom of speech won't cut it. Jefferson says that speech, no matter how ludicrous, should still be free since reason can always combat it. Fine. So I'm applying reason and my bitter knowledge of a long and sickening history of anti-Semitic exegesis to Rhutchins' ludicrous post. How is my doing that an affront here? Why aren't the kneejerk anti-Semitic mouthings of a typical fundie like Rhutchins, spouting an age-old demonizing reading of GJohn and of the Jews' "exclusive guilt" (YUK!!) for "killing our Lord", also an affront? Aren't they? Do you really find that more attractive than some skeptic's calling him on it? That makes no sense! On a skeptic board! Why??!!

Chaucer

There is some truth to the idea that Jesus was protected by Roman authority. For the most part Rome did not seem to care about religious movements as long as they remained small and did not spread throughout the empire.

On the other hand, they cared a lot about rebellion and violence in their empire. Roman oppression probably protected Jesus from being murdered earlier by his opponents.

You are right the Gospels have been falsely used to fuel anti-Semitism. None of the Gospels – not even John – actually lay all the blame on “the Jews.” Herod let Jesus be killed because he would not perform and miracle and Pilate knowingly sentenced an innocent man crucifixion. Some, though not all, of the early church kept the blame on the Romans. The Apostles’ Creed says that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” laying the blame fully on Pilate’s shoulders. The idea that "the Jews" killed Jesus is wrong on so many levels.

However, your “fundie” speech shows as much bigotry as I have ever heard in any anti-Semitic speech that did not actually call for violence.

Whoever designed and wrote the NT story wanted the reader to understand the freedom of Rome as compared to the bondage of Jews in their own laws. In one part of the story, Pilate reminds the Jews of their own laws and ask them why they don't execute Jesus themselves. The crutch of the Jews is played on "we have a law" that demands Jesus be executed, and "we have a law" that prohibits us killing any man. It seems like a contradiction but if we consider that Jews were prohibited from killing each other per "thou shalt not kill", and their laws were meant for them alone, that would be why they petitioned Rome to do their dirty work for them, leaving no blood on their hands. Per OT God, who commanded the Jews to kill and slaughter all the people living in the land of Canaan and no blood guilt would be on their hands.

The Hebrew god was not a god of self-defence. He was an intentional murderer in the mind of the man who formed Him for just that purpose. Sky daddy was a psychopathic insanity.

bacht · 01-13-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Whoever designed and wrote the NT story wanted the reader to understand the freedom of Rome as compared to the bondage of Jews in their own laws. In one part of the story, Pilate reminds the Jews of their own laws and ask them why they don't execute Jesus themselves. The crutch of the Jews is played on "we have a law" that demands Jesus be executed, and "we have a law" that prohibits us killing any man. It seems like a contradiction but if we consider that Jews were prohibited from killing each other per "thou shalt not kill", and their laws were meant for them alone, that would be why they petitioned Rome to do their dirty work for them, leaving no blood on their hands. Per OT God, who commanded the Jews to kill and slaughter all the people living in the land of Canaan and no blood guilt would be on their hands.

Why do you read the gospel accounts as reliable history? Assuming there was a real Jesus we have no idea how he lived or died. You can't lay a charge of murder in a case like this, the facts are too nebulous.

Obviously the New Testament was written by Jews or converted gentiles who rejected the Torah. Do you really think we get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this source?

Quote:

The Hebrew god was not a god of self-defence. He was an intentional murderer in the mind of the man who formed Him for just that purpose. Sky daddy was a psychopathic insanity.

This is your opinion and frankly it sounds like slander more than a reasoned conclusion.

storytime · 01-13-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Whoever designed and wrote the NT story wanted the reader to understand the freedom of Rome as compared to the bondage of Jews in their own laws. In one part of the story, Pilate reminds the Jews of their own laws and ask them why they don't execute Jesus themselves. The crutch of the Jews is played on "we have a law" that demands Jesus be executed, and "we have a law" that prohibits us killing any man. It seems like a contradiction but if we consider that Jews were prohibited from killing each other per "thou shalt not kill", and their laws were meant for them alone, that would be why they petitioned Rome to do their dirty work for them, leaving no blood on their hands. Per OT God, who commanded the Jews to kill and slaughter all the people living in the land of Canaan and no blood guilt would be on their hands.

Why do you read the gospel accounts as reliable history? Assuming there was a real Jesus we have no idea how he lived or died. You can't lay a charge of murder in a case like this, the facts are too nebulous.

Obviously the New Testament was written by Jews or converted gentiles who rejected the Torah. Do you really think we get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this source?

Quote:

The Hebrew god was not a god of self-defence. He was an intentional murderer in the mind of the man who formed Him for just that purpose. Sky daddy was a psychopathic insanity.

This is your opinion and frankly it sounds like slander more than a reasoned conclusion.

Well of course it's my opinion. Are you saying you believe in the ancient Hebrew god, thus one is able to slander him? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Some ancient mind imagined a god, then set about to tell stories of that god. Did that someone have a psychopathic murderous mind filled with vengence and hate? Which Hebrew was credited with telling what god said in the statement "go, and kill all, leave nothing that breatheth alive." What about the guy who said "Thus saith the Lord God, my war against Amelek is forever". Why? Because a non Israel tribe would not permit Moses and the Israelites access through their land and the Israelites had to go in a different direction to reach their distination. What psychopathic mind wrote this stuff and decided that "God" should order a forever death sentence to the Amelikites?

Have you read the OT story as to why non Hebrew people were "anti" against Israelites?

And, I don't think your analysis of converted Gentiles writing the bible is applicable as the OT doesn't reflect that particular idea, nor do the Jewish people claim such. The NT however, is suspect in all it's flavoring of "Jewishness". As the Jews in those days already had their Torah and laws, why would they have needed "a new testimony[testiment]? What Jew in his right mind would not have known that following a god-man meant a death sentence? I tend to go along with Mountainman's theory about Esuebius cherry picking the OT to create the NT with its dying and rising saviour.

Of course I can lay a charge of murder when the evidence provided says that its there. The Hebrew god was a psychotic murderer as told by his people who worshiped him. I'm amazed that you can't see this in the story itself. They didn't declare "our god is a murderer" and they believed they had right to kill at his will. No blood on their hands as "God" told them, relieving them of guilt should they perhaps have had doubts. Do you think a psychopath could not have written this story? But then, we gotta turn around and look at what constitutes "murder" in their way of thinking. Was it when they killed their own tribesmen? Remember, their commandment was "thou shalt not kill" and was intended for their own people, the Israelites, and not intended for any other peoples.

Chaucer · 01-17-2010, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well of course it's my opinion. Are you saying you believe in the ancient Hebrew god, thus one is able to slander him?

You have still not addressed Bacht's main point:

"Why do you read the gospel accounts as reliable history? Assuming there was a real Jesus we have no idea how he lived or died. You can't lay a charge of murder in a case like this, the facts are too nebulous.

Obviously the New Testament was written by Jews or converted gentiles who rejected the Torah. Do you really think we get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this source?"

Chaucer

Brimstone · 01-17-2010, 06:22 AM

Why does it matter if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus? It certainly does not justify hatred of Jews. It's not like Christians and Muslims do not have a history of killing false prophets and blasphemers, which is exactly what the Jewish authorities considered Jesus.

As for Rome being less repressive, that would be no surprise either. Many people believe that relatively secular Rome was less repressive than Europe in the dark ages and the early medieval period.

Chaucer · 01-17-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

Why does it matter if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus?

Right there we see a clear illustration -- through sheer careless word usage -- of just what a slippery slope this traditional age-old deeply bigoted "reading" of Scripture can be. While I generally agree with Brimstone's general assertion that one crime is hardly justification for hatred of a whole people, this very question and the way it's worded here can be used by others as an excuse, however unreasoned, to foster the very hatred Brimstone condemns.

How/Why?

Because this poster (and such carelessness is hardly a sign of any kind of culpability nor is it maliciously meant, but it's still profoundly unfortunate) has said "if THE Jews were responsible" rather than "if Jews were responsible". Any bigoted reader seeing this, even in the context in which Brimstone has framed it, can still take away the bald statement here that "THE Jews were responsible" rather than "Jews were responsible". THE Jews can be inferred as referencing an entire people, while Jews are clearly certain individuals. Unfortunately, the general phrase "THE Jews" in this context has become so normal in certain circles that it can be inadvertently used (as here) without realizing the full deadly magnitude of what's effectively said through using it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

It certainly does not justify hatred of Jews.

My thanks for your saying this. Unfortunately, the other aspect of this discussion hinges on whether or not we are seeing such hatred evinced by certain kneejerk biblical readings in the first place. Plainly, we are. And I find the grotesque pretense by some here that we somehow aren't seeing such hatred in such biblical exegesis to be just as fully sickening as the kneejerk hatred itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

It's not like Christians and Muslims do not have a history of killing false prophets and blasphemers, which is exactly what the Jewish authorities considered Jesus.

And unfortunately, unreasoning kneejerk hatred has now been revved up against, for instance, Muslims just as thoughtlessly, merely because MUSLIMS -- _not_ THE Muslims! -- happened to plan and carry out 9/11 and 7/7, etc. That hatred does not make either Jew-hatred or Muslim-hatred any better, of course. But it does show that this kneejerk pattern of collective guilt laid at the feet of a whole people is unfortunately not confined to Jew-hatred at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

As for Rome being less repressive, that would be no surprise either. Many people believe that relatively secular Rome was less repressive than Europe in the dark ages and the early medieval period.

That's not what Rhutchins said. He(?) said that Jesus would have been totally free under direct Roman rule -- totally! Huh? So he didn't just imply they were less repressive as you have. Instead, he implied they were perfect paragons of freedom!

As I said earlier, DOUBLE YUK!!!

Chaucer

storytime · 01-17-2010, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well of course it's my opinion. Are you saying you believe in the ancient Hebrew god, thus one is able to slander him?

You have still not addressed Bacht's main point:

"Why do you read the gospel accounts as reliable history? Assuming there was a real Jesus we have no idea how he lived or died. You can't lay a charge of murder in a case like this, the facts are too nebulous.

Obviously the New Testament was written by Jews or converted gentiles who rejected the Torah. Do you really think we get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this source?"

Chaucer

Why do you not listen? I do not consider either the OT or the NT to be history and I read each as a story. "Story" indicating fabrication and intentional lies. Thus, it is my opinion that "the bible" is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated onto mankind.

"Assuming there was a real Jesus," as you say, you can glean enough from the story to figure out that Jesus ministry was to his fellow Jews and not to any Gentiles. He said, "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel". His purpose was in dividing Jews from Jews. Jesus was "anti-semetic" toward those he called "children of the devil". "Woe to the Pharisees and the Sadducees and elders", in his condemning them to hell. What you're reading is a story of Jew hatred in that setting. Later you see the characters Peter and Paul drawing Gentiles into the story and speaking against the Jews who Jesus hated. "And ye shall see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Might this be eventful after the Gentiles[Romans] were fully pumped-up to squash Jerusalem? This is a story that presents an aftermath of chaos as the death cult moves forward.

According to the storyline, Jews didn't reject the Torah[Law]; what they did was argue it's precepts, thus the opposing anti-semitic hatred between the Jews typecast in the main characters of Jews for Jesus and Jews oppossed to Jesus. Both groups were anti-semites. Gentiles on the other hand, were not involved in this argumentative process over Jewish laws and custom.

Do we get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this source? Do you mean do we Gentiles get a balanced picture of Jewish attitudes and laws from this story? No, not a balanced picture, and partly because the church decided to use a Jewish theme in order to create its own religion, so readers are not going to get a balanced picture from the Gentile NT story. It was written with a bias slant just as the OT stories were written with a biased ideology. What would you suggest doing about this prejudice? Consider that in those days both the Jews and Gentiles were on opposite sides of the fence. Come to think of it, they still are today. You have your anti-Jews and your anti-Gentiles. Or don't you think there's enough hate on both these sides to cover all the bases? But I think I know what you want to do from the way you're hitting on Rhutchin. You want to accuse him of having committed a hate crime via your version of anti-semitism. Dare he think to speak against the biblical Jews or Judaism without being accused of anti-semitism by zealots as yourself. You are imo slinging the term around not considering the possible consequences of harm. And, I think you'd need some actual proof of a hate crime committed before standing in front of an actual jury.

storytime · 01-17-2010, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

Why does it matter if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus?

Right there we see a clear illustration -- through sheer careless word usage -- of just what a slippery slope this traditional age-old deeply bigoted "reading" of Scripture can be. While I generally agree with Brimstone's general assertion that one crime is hardly justification for hatred of a whole people, this very question and the way it's worded here can be used by others as an excuse, however unreasoned, to foster the very hatred Brimstone condemns.

How/Why?

Because this poster (and such carelessness is hardly a sign of any kind of culpability nor is it maliciously meant, but it's still profoundly unfortunate) has said "if THE Jews were responsible" rather than "if Jews were responsible". Any bigoted reader seeing this, even in the context in which Brimstone has framed it, can still take away the bald statement here that "THE Jews were responsible" rather than "Jews were responsible". THE Jews can be inferred as referencing an entire people, while Jews are clearly certain individuals. Unfortunately, the general phrase "THE Jews" in this context has become so normal in certain circles that it can be inadvertently used (as here) without realizing the full deadly magnitude of what's effectively said through using it.

My thanks for your saying this. Unfortunately, the other aspect of this discussion hinges on whether or not we are seeing such hatred evinced by certain kneejerk biblical readings in the first place. Plainly, we are. And I find the grotesque pretense by some here that we somehow aren't seeing such hatred in such biblical exegesis to be just as fully sickening as the kneejerk hatred itself.

And unfortunately, unreasoning kneejerk hatred has now been revved up against, for instance, Muslims just as thoughtlessly, merely because MUSLIMS -- _not_ THE Muslims! -- happened to plan and carry out 9/11 and 7/7, etc. That hatred does not make either Jew-hatred or Muslim-hatred any better, of course. But it does show that this kneejerk pattern of collective guilt laid at the feet of a whole people is unfortunately not confined to Jew-hatred at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brimstone

As for Rome being less repressive, that would be no surprise either. Many people believe that relatively secular Rome was less repressive than Europe in the dark ages and the early medieval period.

That's not what Rhutchins said. He(?) said that Jesus would have been totally free under direct Roman rule -- totally! Huh? So he didn't just imply they were less repressive as you have. Instead, he implied they were perfect paragons of freedom!

As I said earlier, DOUBLE YUK!!!

Chaucer

If Jesus had been a Roman citizen, a non-Jew, he would have been free of Jewish religion and Jewish laws. Thus Rome was less repressive. Yes, Rome was the perfect paragons of freedom from Judaism, in this regard. Why would you think to disagree with this?

Chaucer · 01-18-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

If Jesus had been a Roman citizen, a non-Jew, he would have been free of Jewish religion and Jewish laws. Thus Rome was less repressive. Yes, Rome was the perfect paragons of freedom from Judaism, in this regard. Why would you think to disagree with this?

But Rhutchins did NOT posit Jesus being a non-Jew. He posited Jesus being a Jew and THEREFORE potentially blissfully free of any oppression HAD THEM BIG BAD KI -- er -- JEWS NOT BEEN GIVEN TOO MUCH CONTROL -- tsk tsk tsk. Evidently, according to the Gospel of Rhutchins, Jesus the Jew -- a JEW -- would have been totally free under the wise paternal Romans who knew what's what unlike them there big bad Jews. Ridiculous.

As for you, you seem to be implying that the polytheist religion of the Greeks/Romans is somehow not so "evil" as Judaism -- WHY/HOW?! What's the difference? Why is one worse than the other to you? And you still haven't really addressed why you feel a fundie's take in which the Romans come out as veritable angels(!!) is so perfectly reasonable. Rather than address the Romans' blatant imperialism, which is just as bad in its way as any intolerance from a native high priest, you repeat your own take on Scripture instead, which is so similar to a fundie's that it makes my skin crawl.

Chaucer

jgreen44 · 01-18-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

The idea that "the Jews" killed Jesus is wrong on so many levels.

Acts 3
12 When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.

Acts 10
39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree,

1 Thessalonians 2
14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2010, 06:22 AM	#45
Brimstone Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 176	Why does it matter if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus? It certainly does not justify hatred of Jews. It's not like Christians and Muslims do not have a history of killing false prophets and blasphemers, which is exactly what the Jewish authorities considered Jesus. As for Rome being less repressive, that would be no surprise either. Many people believe that relatively secular Rome was less repressive than Europe in the dark ages and the early medieval period.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.