Epinoia

Please provide evidence as to (1) how these numbers are pure propaganda and (2) what numbers you believe are accurate, and whose they are.

Epinoia

Mag, No need to reveal details, but can you describe very generally what such critiques consisted of? Baal worship and the like was a big no-no among the Hebrews. Theoretically, I can see how OJs might take a dimmer view of pagans than other Jews. Is this the case?

Epinoia

Seebs, I agree with you that "insulting Christians" per se or anyone else just for the hell of it is rather pointless. Insulting them within a specific context, though, may be an unavoidable and frankly tolerable byproduct. For instance, here and elsewhere, the Passion was enthusiastically expounded on and critiqued by many without any seeming too worried that it might offend Christians (some/most/any/all). I certainly did not. I was glad. I think that lack of pussyfooting made for a more robust discussion. This despite the fact that a pro-x bias could be argued (but not conceded) in my case at least.

seebs

I thought about this, but decided not to. I have gotten really, really, sick of debunking anti-Jewish propaganda, but I've found that it's consistently nonsense.

Basically... If the problems with the claimed numbers aren't immediately obvious, I can only infer that the reader started with an attachement to a conclusion, and there's no point.

Epinoia

At first glance, I confess no obvious problems jumped out. I'm not therefore immediately saying no problems exist. Potential bias (i.e. drawing to a conclusion) is a problem with articles and papers ranging from Paxil to peanuts. It is entirely possible that bias compromises those that have to do with Israel. You may well be right to dismiss it all "as mere nonsense," but just saying so doesn't make the case. Frankly, if it can be unequivocally proven that there are bad numbers in the story or how this is a bad source, I very much would like to see this proved out so I can discard either or both.

If, however, the argument is (and I'm not saying it is, just if) is that all sources on Israel are disputed prima facie as anti-Jewish propaganda (as you allege mine was) or pro-Jewish propaganda (as I might consider, say, memri or danielpipes.org), I don't necessarily agree. But should this be your position, then OK, what's the point.

seebs

Well, for starters, "loans" and "grants" are very, very, different things. Lumping them together creates problems. It creates greater problems when you try to calculate interest on the total, ignoring the fact that loans tend to make interest as well.

That's the most obvious, I think. And it really should jump out at you.

Magdlyn

Well, it seems to me, and this is just my exp, that Reform Jews are more easy-going, more liberal. They seem to get that the stories in Tanakh may be mostly myth and that the people of the day did the best they could in understanding their world without the benefit of modern science.

The Orthodox ones come across as fundamentalists. They really seem to think YHWH gave them 613 mitzvot to follow and if everyone would just follow these rules, the Mosiach would come and everything would be hunky dory.

One of them got insulted when I said, well, you believe a god handed you rules down off of a volcano. When that seemed to be what she was telling me she believed in the first place.

They seems to get insulted when I make too big of a deal about how many early Israelites were worshipping Asherah.

Ditto the idea that the Exodus never really happened, the Israelites were just one more tribe living in Canaan all along, battling other tribes for possession of more land. (God doesn't "give" a "chosen" people the right to land over another people.)

Ditto the "no walls on ancient Jericho" idea, and the idea that the united kingdom of David and Solomon was not as united or glorious as it is depicted in Tanakh.

Yet, I still liike these Orthodox Jews much much better than fundie xtians as they are extremely tolerant of other people and their faith or lack of it today. They seem to have a live and let live philosophy. They have helped me alot in understanding religion and its uses. Their honoring of Sabbat is very sweet and they make it seem like a nice day full of focus on the family (not in the James Dobson sense!).

Again, this is just my experience.

jbernier

The Orthodox Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin put it best when he said that "The genius of Christianity is its concern for all of the people's of the world; the genius of Rabbinic Judaism is its ability to leave other people alone" (p. 232-233, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity). He goes on to argue that each one's genius is also its greatest flaw: Christians tend to butt their nose in where it does not belong whereas Rabbinic Jews have tended to be indifferent to non-Jews. He suggests that what needs to happen is that Christians and Jews need to learn from the best of each other's genius in order to counterbalance the liability that is generated by each one.

Epinoia

The word "aid" applies to both but can apply to either. It, like "casualties," is a troublesome word for this reason.

That you explained what you meant was constructive. Saying that I should have known what you meant before you said it is not.

Epinoia

These days, both statements apply more or less equally to each group: Witness the Xtians who get feted at AIPAC, for example. It must be nice, but not for lots of non-Jews. Certain Christians excepted, and their dollars accepted, of course.