Well, I will have to try to remember some of this stuff and I may not be able to!!! OK.
Stories of this nature were told in many countries. The Irish said it of the English, and so did the Scots. The Swedes told it about the Finns. Christians told it of Jews. And vice versa.
People did not really understand how disease was spread. It was always easy to make up a story about the perfidy of "the enemy". The first Smallpox vaccination in North America is supposed to have been in 1800 --- about 25 years after Jenner did his groundbreaking work. Vaccination had become quite common. (The 'vacca" in vaccination is Latin for "cow", btw, vaccination was first done using cowpox as the agent. A really interesting story. Jenner was NOT the first person to vaccinate against Smallpox!)
Gen. Amherst of the British army is supposed to have tried to infect the Delawares ( I think it was the Delawares) by giving them Smallpox infected blankets, I recall in around the 1760's. There is some dispute about this. Was it a deliberate act? Did it work? There had been European settlers in Eastern North America since the 1500's (the founding of Quebec City was in 1608 and it was not the first settlement.) The native population had been exposed to European diseases for over 150 years by the time Amherst supposedly made his attempt.
When it came to the western expansion of the US, many natives had already died of Smallpox and Measles, etc., long, long before white settlers arrived. The diseases rampaged from South America to North America, like a ghastly fire, and wiped out whole populations two hundred years before Europeans reached them, having come to the New World with the Spaniards. The western populations of Indians had, in fact, been exposed to European diseases for a very long time by the time of say, the fights over Sioux or Apache territories.
To hand out blankets from Smallpox sufferers? Well, I guess it could have been done, but it sorta says that the methods of contagion were understood, and they weren't. Smallpox is a horrible, horrible disease. Even nowadays 25% of those infected would die, should the disease reappear.
Sorry this is so rambling. I have read a lot about the subject, but my recall is imperfect!
The Gospel of Judas
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46478
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
But Cerin, Jewish people should be equally protected from characterizations that we feel unfairly present Jewish people in an unfavorable light. That is why this discussion puts us (all of us) between a rock and a hard place.We should certainly be protected from that kind of comment in this forum, if not on the site as a whole.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Holby, you are - a glutton for punishment, that is 
As Hobby pointed out, the part of your post that 'got me' was this:
You are certainly welcome to think that, and I hope I did not imply that you can't say such things. But of course I do not see them that way, and wanted to explain why I thought this wasn't true.
Creating a "safe haven" and a forum in which people are open and honest with each other is a tall order. Hopefully, we'll work that out. I know that everyone who posts here does respect each other. It is just sometimes a struggle to wrap our minds around each other's ideas, since we have such varied backgrounds. Hang in there, and stick with it!
As Hobby pointed out, the part of your post that 'got me' was this:
This (to me) is a claim that all religions are merely human institutions and therefore have no input from God - or at least no more input than the local police department, Boy Scout troop or political body.Religion will always be man's interpretation and nothing more. (emphasis mine, obviously)
You are certainly welcome to think that, and I hope I did not imply that you can't say such things. But of course I do not see them that way, and wanted to explain why I thought this wasn't true.
Creating a "safe haven" and a forum in which people are open and honest with each other is a tall order. Hopefully, we'll work that out. I know that everyone who posts here does respect each other. It is just sometimes a struggle to wrap our minds around each other's ideas, since we have such varied backgrounds. Hang in there, and stick with it!
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Mith wrote:Creating a "safe haven" and a forum in which people are open and honest with each other is a tall order. Hopefully, we'll work that out. I know that everyone who posts here does respect each other. It is just sometimes a struggle to wrap our minds around each other's ideas, since we have such varied backgrounds. Hang in there, and stick with it!
As someone in a play by Goethe said: "A word momentous calmly hast thou spoken."
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Well you think that because of my poor writing skills.This (to me) is a claim that all religions are merely human institutions and therefore have no input from God - or at least no more input than the local police department, Boy Scout troop or political body.
Allow me to rephrase.
Religions are human institutions, and even while there may be input from God, it is the humans that are attempting to interpret something that is way beyond comprehension. The fallable and feeble humans.
Many with agendas.
The message can get lost in the shuffle, and depending on the current century, social and political environment, religions change.
The message never changes.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Holby, yes, I'll grant you that - I wouldn't say you were tearing anything down.
However, you did sound quite huffed at Mith, and I thought that she had a valid point (see also her post above).
Edit: crossposted with Holby.
*wonders if the thread will ever get back to Alatar's topic*
However, you did sound quite huffed at Mith, and I thought that she had a valid point (see also her post above).
Edit: crossposted with Holby.
*wonders if the thread will ever get back to Alatar's topic*
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
My impression is that he's saying "I'd sooner sell out my country than sell out you". That treason against his country would be a lesser crime than betraying Jesus. It's sometimes difficult to get clarity in the structure that music forces on lyrics, but that's my understanding.truehobbit wrote: Alatar, it's interesting that the song should present a similar view as the text of the document - I wonder how common the perception is (it had never entered my mind before you brought it up).
I must say I don't quite know what to make of those lines (me and pop-music again
I'd sell out the nation
For I have been saddled
With the murder of you
I have been spattered
With innocent blood
I should be dragged
Through the slime and the mud
I don't understand the first line and its relation to the second/third (to which it is connected by "for", so it must be cause and effect) at all, and I wonder if he's thinking he really should be "dragged through the slime and the mud", because he feels guilty, or whether he's saying that people are thinking that this should happen to him?
Also, I'm not sure that last line is accurate. I always heard it as "I shall be dragged through the slime and the mud".
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
Mith, allow me to pursue this for a moment ... not to be argumentative, and in fact Holby has already spoken for himself ... but I want to understand your understanding, so to speak.
Thinking along these lines - that whatever input God gives is given to a human person and therefore subject to human distortion.
You took the 'nothing more' to mean that religion is no more from God than a 'Boy Scout troop' would be.
It seems that you are suggesting that God can make input directly into a religion without going through humans, and that this is what makes a religion different from a Boy Scout troop. Could you elaborate on this a bit more, or explain differently if I've misunderstood what you meant.
Jn
p.s. can't seem to make the quote thing work as I want
eta: belated edit - finally figured out what was wrong with the quote function before and edited to fix it
When I read Holby's post I thought to myself that it was obviously true.MithLuin wrote:As Hobby pointed out, the part of your post that 'got me' was this:This (to me) is a claim that all religions are merely human institutions and therefore have no input from God - or at least no more input than the local police department, Boy Scout troop or political body.Religion will always be man's interpretation and nothing more. (emphasis mine, obviously)
Thinking along these lines - that whatever input God gives is given to a human person and therefore subject to human distortion.You took the 'nothing more' to mean that religion is no more from God than a 'Boy Scout troop' would be.
It seems that you are suggesting that God can make input directly into a religion without going through humans, and that this is what makes a religion different from a Boy Scout troop. Could you elaborate on this a bit more, or explain differently if I've misunderstood what you meant.
Jn
p.s. can't seem to make the quote thing work as I want
eta: belated edit - finally figured out what was wrong with the quote function before and edited to fix it
Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Voronwë, no one has characterized Jewish people in any way in this discussion! No one is attempting to present Jewish people in an unfavorable light.Voronwë wrote:But Cerin, Jewish people should be equally protected from characterizations that we feel unfairly present Jewish people in an unfavorable light. That is why this discussion puts us (all of us) between a rock and a hard place.
If you are saying that the Biblical narration of the death of Jesus casts Jewish people in an unfavorable light, then I believe you are mistaken, and I believe it is you who has a personal problem with that narrative because you are interpreting it in a certain way or making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. The problem is not in the Biblical narrative itself. I was never even aware that it had historical implications with respect to anti-Semitism until the dialogue surrounding Mel Gibson's recent movie.
If you are correct, and stating one's belief in that narrative constitutes defamation against Jews, then you might as well come out and say that Christians are not allowed to discuss their beliefs on this site, because to be a Christian and to speak of Christian beliefs is defamatory against Jews.
If you believe that, then please come right out and say it and implement a policy that will protect our Jewish members by outlawing discussion of (certain) Christian beliefs. But don't refuse to say it, and then allow explicitly disparaging remarks targeted against Christians in violation of our by-laws because you're angry about being defamed.
I'll state things again plainly, in case there remains any confusion.
I believe the Biblical narrative of Jesus' death. I have never had an unfavorable thought about Jewish people because I believe that narrative. That narrative does not inherently present Jewish people in a negative light. If Christians stating on this board that they believe that narrative, allows another person to imply that anyone with those beliefs is obdurate, then this board does not protect Christians from remarks targeting our religion, and we should stop pretending it does.
Our by-laws state that we don't allow remarks targeted against religion. Imp's remark, as far as I can tell, is clearly targeted against Christians. I believe she was saying that to believe the Biblical account of Jesus' death and to express those beliefs here is to be obdurate. If this is incorrect, then I hope she will come and explain that that is not what she meant. If that is what she meant, then that remark is clearly out of bounds for this forum, and I believe, for this board. If that is what she meant and you don't believe is out of bounds for this forum and this board, then I believe you need to amend the by-laws to exempt Christianity from the group of religions that may not be targeted for disparagement.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46478
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Cerin, I think you misunderstand the dynamic at work here.
If you are saying that the Biblical narration of the death of Jesus casts Jewish people in an unfavorable light, then I believe you are mistaken, and I believe it is you who has a personal problem with that narrative because you are interpreting it in a certain way or making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. The problem is not in the Biblical narrative itself. I was never even aware that it had historical implications with respect to anti-Semitism until the dialogue surrounding Mel Gibson's recent movie.
(underline mine)
Voronwë is not the person who has interpreted the narrative that way, nor is he making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. We know how this narrative was interpreted and used by the churches until very recently. It is laudable and heartening that you did not personally confront the 'Christ killer thesis' in your religious education, but the fact that you are not anti-Semitic does not mean that no Christian has ever been anti-Semitic or been taught that these passages mean that one can and should hate Jews.
Neither I nor Voronwë have said that the problem of anti-Semitism arises with the Biblical narrative itself. I took pains to say that this was not the case. Anti-Semitism arises for non-religious reasons (imo) and then religion is used to justify it, or has been in the past.
When Imp used the word 'obdurate' she was not referring to Christian adherence to their religion but rather to the difficulty of conveying even in this thread in an understandable way, it seems, exactly why Jews object to implications that they are responsible for the death of Jesus.
You see, I think that the blame against the Jews is embedded so deeply in Western consciousness that we do not even realize the extent to which this tilts every discussion of Jesus' death. I hate to bring up Whistler's original statement again because we are long past that and I KNOW that he did not mean it pejoratively at all ... but why, for example, did he not say, "Jesus could have walked up to Pontius Piliate or the nearest Centurion and said, 'Are you guys looking for me?' " Because he does not think of the Romans as having been the ones who killed Jesus. If we sit and discuss it together logically, then we arrive very quickly at an understanding of what each of us means, but the first thoughts that pop into our heads are almost never analytical. They are emotional and cultural.
What's the moon made out of?
You know that answer cannot be true, but you cannot stop your mind from going there first.
Imagine that modern Americans of Italian descent should have to worry about ethnic slurs based on the death of Jesus. How absurd that would seem to you. And although it would certainly sound wrong to you to hear a modern Jew blamed for Jesus's death, I bet it would not feel absurd in the same way it would to hear such a thing said about an Italian. These responses are not logical. They are part of the deep structure of our consciousness, embedded in childhood and reinforced by society, depending on where we live and what kind of people our parents are. One cannot fight against them, or even be aware of them most of the time.
If modern Christians reach the point that they think of Jews in the same way that they think of Italians, we will be beyond anti-Semitism. But that will take a few generations to happen, I think. Meanwhile, discussion like this one will require a lot of patience on all our parts.
Jn
If you are saying that the Biblical narration of the death of Jesus casts Jewish people in an unfavorable light, then I believe you are mistaken, and I believe it is you who has a personal problem with that narrative because you are interpreting it in a certain way or making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. The problem is not in the Biblical narrative itself. I was never even aware that it had historical implications with respect to anti-Semitism until the dialogue surrounding Mel Gibson's recent movie.
(underline mine)
Voronwë is not the person who has interpreted the narrative that way, nor is he making assumptions about what the narrative means to others. We know how this narrative was interpreted and used by the churches until very recently. It is laudable and heartening that you did not personally confront the 'Christ killer thesis' in your religious education, but the fact that you are not anti-Semitic does not mean that no Christian has ever been anti-Semitic or been taught that these passages mean that one can and should hate Jews.
Neither I nor Voronwë have said that the problem of anti-Semitism arises with the Biblical narrative itself. I took pains to say that this was not the case. Anti-Semitism arises for non-religious reasons (imo) and then religion is used to justify it, or has been in the past.
When Imp used the word 'obdurate' she was not referring to Christian adherence to their religion but rather to the difficulty of conveying even in this thread in an understandable way, it seems, exactly why Jews object to implications that they are responsible for the death of Jesus.
You see, I think that the blame against the Jews is embedded so deeply in Western consciousness that we do not even realize the extent to which this tilts every discussion of Jesus' death. I hate to bring up Whistler's original statement again because we are long past that and I KNOW that he did not mean it pejoratively at all ... but why, for example, did he not say, "Jesus could have walked up to Pontius Piliate or the nearest Centurion and said, 'Are you guys looking for me?' " Because he does not think of the Romans as having been the ones who killed Jesus. If we sit and discuss it together logically, then we arrive very quickly at an understanding of what each of us means, but the first thoughts that pop into our heads are almost never analytical. They are emotional and cultural.
What's the moon made out of?
You know that answer cannot be true, but you cannot stop your mind from going there first.
Imagine that modern Americans of Italian descent should have to worry about ethnic slurs based on the death of Jesus. How absurd that would seem to you. And although it would certainly sound wrong to you to hear a modern Jew blamed for Jesus's death, I bet it would not feel absurd in the same way it would to hear such a thing said about an Italian. These responses are not logical. They are part of the deep structure of our consciousness, embedded in childhood and reinforced by society, depending on where we live and what kind of people our parents are. One cannot fight against them, or even be aware of them most of the time.
If modern Christians reach the point that they think of Jews in the same way that they think of Italians, we will be beyond anti-Semitism. But that will take a few generations to happen, I think. Meanwhile, discussion like this one will require a lot of patience on all our parts.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
How about if we state that certain persons behaved in a disreputable manner thus causing the death of Jesus?
The people involved happened to be Romans and Jews to whatever extent.
Those people are not representitive of their entire people any more than I am responsible for acts against the Crown because my ancestors fought the Red Coats.
Where all of this falls is when we start speaking of people as a group rather than individuals. And I am not suggesting anyone here is doing that.
The people involved happened to be Romans and Jews to whatever extent.
Those people are not representitive of their entire people any more than I am responsible for acts against the Crown because my ancestors fought the Red Coats.
Where all of this falls is when we start speaking of people as a group rather than individuals. And I am not suggesting anyone here is doing that.
Yes, semantics do play a role, and I thank you for clarifying what you meant, Holby. It isn't your writing skills - Jny understood you just fine . And by the same token, I probably should have chosen a word other than 'disparaging' - I just happen to like the way it sounds 
(Hehe, a discussion of 'cellar doors' would really take this thread off topic!)
Jny, surely God cannot work except through humans. I agree with you, that sounds obvious.
The difference between a religion and the Boy Scouts is that religions are (in my opinion) more likely to be granted divine inspiration. Nothing wrong with the Boy Scouts, but they don't ask for it, you know? There are always (and only) human instruments. "Christ has no hands on earth but yours." But I do think that God reaches out to humans and helps us along. I am not saying that you have to be part of the Church (ie, organized religion) for that to work! But I will say that I do think that many graces are given through the Church. For instance, I cannot receive the Eucharist 'on my own.' I think that Jesus has chosen the Church as his bride, and he has died to sanctify her. So, naturally, despite a lot of very fallible humans running her, I think that there is an infusion of the divine throughout Church history. He could always raise up a Catherine of Sienna to badger the pope into doing the right thing.
The Church is made up of humans, surely. But I do not consider it to be merely a human institution, because I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit - working through people.
Hobby, you flatter me too much!
To help clarify those lyrics, when the Sanhedrin was discussing Jesus' fate (in the musical JCS), they say 'for the sake of the nation, this Jesus must die.' Meaning, to appease the Romans, and save the country from a backlash, they have to turn over the rebel.
So, Judas is saying that he now rejects that logic. He'd rather sell out the nation if he could get out of being Jesus' murderer.
While he was making his deal, he kept saying 'just don't say I'm damned for all time,' so my guess is that the reference to slime and mud is what he considers will happen to his name (how he will go down in history). And yes, it is his own guilt coming through.
The sympathetic interpretation of Judas in JCS is very interesting, but I think there is one key detail - Judas does not believe that Jesus is God, here. He considers him just another man, as is made clear in multiple places, including the "Superstar" (resurrection) song.
In JCS, Jesus and Judas do not make a deal - rather Jesus' choice of becoming a sacrifice offends Judas' sense of what should happen, leading to Judas' betrayal of Jesus. After the fact, Judas finally realizes that Jesus always intended to die, and now feels as though he has been 'used.' But Judas still misunderstands Jesus' purpose, and thus is asking the question 'who are you?' in eternity.
Here is their discussion of the betrayal:.
UGH Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Christians believe that Jesus died because we are all sinners. The proper response to the question "who killed Jesus?" is "ME! I did it! Come after me, if you will!" This isn't exaggeration - if even one person could have lived a sinless life, Jesus would not have needed to die at all.
Whether he was condemned by the Sanhedrin, the acting high priest Caiaphas, the mob, the traitor Judas, the Roman governor Pilate, the devil, or a combination of all of the above is really topical to the question of why he died. He himself said that he laid down his own life. Yes, he was executed as a Roman criminal - that's what crucifixion is! So was Peter, for that matter.
Historically, there have been other 'takes' on this event. There is a reason Mel Gibson didn't put subtitles in when he had the crowd shout 'His blood be upon us and upon our children!' While that line could be taken as the crowd unwittingly claiming the salvation that Jesus is offering...it wasn't. It has obviously been taken as an assumption of guilt down through the ages.
Anti-Semitism is very real, and it certainly has roots in the Biblical account of the passion (among other places). But honestly, Christians can still believe those texts without allowing any of that pernicious lie to taint it.
Killing God is a very bad thing to do....but luckily enough, his blood does wash over the entire human race. "O happy fault" indeed.
. And by the same token, I probably should have chosen a word other than 'disparaging' - I just happen to like the way it sounds (Hehe, a discussion of 'cellar doors' would really take this thread off topic!)
Jny, surely God cannot work except through humans. I agree with you, that sounds obvious
. The difference between a religion and the Boy Scouts is that religions are (in my opinion) more likely to be granted divine inspiration. Nothing wrong with the Boy Scouts, but they don't ask for it, you know? There are always (and only) human instruments. "Christ has no hands on earth but yours." But I do think that God reaches out to humans and helps us along. I am not saying that you have to be part of the Church (ie, organized religion) for that to work! But I will say that I do think that many graces are given through the Church. For instance, I cannot receive the Eucharist 'on my own.' I think that Jesus has chosen the Church as his bride, and he has died to sanctify her. So, naturally, despite a lot of very fallible humans running her, I think that there is an infusion of the divine throughout Church history. He could always raise up a Catherine of Sienna to badger the pope into doing the right thing.
The Church is made up of humans, surely. But I do not consider it to be merely a human institution, because I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit - working through people.
Hobby, you flatter me too much!
To help clarify those lyrics, when the Sanhedrin was discussing Jesus' fate (in the musical JCS), they say 'for the sake of the nation, this Jesus must die.' Meaning, to appease the Romans, and save the country from a backlash, they have to turn over the rebel.
So, Judas is saying that he now rejects that logic. He'd rather sell out the nation if he could get out of being Jesus' murderer.
While he was making his deal, he kept saying 'just don't say I'm damned for all time,' so my guess is that the reference to slime and mud is what he considers will happen to his name (how he will go down in history). And yes, it is his own guilt coming through.
The sympathetic interpretation of Judas in JCS is very interesting, but I think there is one key detail - Judas does not believe that Jesus is God, here. He considers him just another man, as is made clear in multiple places, including the "Superstar" (resurrection) song.
In JCS, Jesus and Judas do not make a deal - rather Jesus' choice of becoming a sacrifice offends Judas' sense of what should happen, leading to Judas' betrayal of Jesus. After the fact, Judas finally realizes that Jesus always intended to die, and now feels as though he has been 'used.' But Judas still misunderstands Jesus' purpose, and thus is asking the question 'who are you?' in eternity.
Here is their discussion of the betrayal:
Needless to say, I don't think much of this portrayal of JesusJesus
Peter will deny me in just a few hours
Three times will deny me - and that's not all I see
One of you here dining, one of my twelve chosen
Will leave to betray me -
Judas
Cut out the dramatics! You know very well who -
Jesus
Why don't you go do it?
Judas
You want me to do it!
Jesus
Hurry they are waiting
Judas
If you knew why I do it . . .
Jesus
I don't care why you do it!
Judas
To think I admired you
For now I despise you
Jesus
You liar - you Judas
Judas
You wanted me to do it!
What if I just stayed here
And ruined your ambition?
Christ you deserve it!
Jesus
Hurry you fool, hurry and go,
Save me your speeches
I don't want to know - Go! Go!
...
Judas
You sad pathetic man - see where you've brought us to
Our ideals die around us and all because of you
But the saddest cut of all -
Someone has to turn you in
Like a common criminal, like a wounded animal
A jaded mandarin
...
Jesus
Get out! They're waiting! Get out! They're waiting!
Oh! They're waiting for you!
Judas
Everytime I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned -
Ah --- ah
.UGH Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Christians believe that Jesus died because we are all sinners. The proper response to the question "who killed Jesus?" is "ME! I did it! Come after me, if you will!" This isn't exaggeration - if even one person could have lived a sinless life, Jesus would not have needed to die at all.
Whether he was condemned by the Sanhedrin, the acting high priest Caiaphas, the mob, the traitor Judas, the Roman governor Pilate, the devil, or a combination of all of the above is really topical to the question of why he died. He himself said that he laid down his own life. Yes, he was executed as a Roman criminal - that's what crucifixion is! So was Peter, for that matter.
Historically, there have been other 'takes' on this event. There is a reason Mel Gibson didn't put subtitles in when he had the crowd shout 'His blood be upon us and upon our children!' While that line could be taken as the crowd unwittingly claiming the salvation that Jesus is offering...it wasn't. It has obviously been taken as an assumption of guilt down through the ages.
Anti-Semitism is very real, and it certainly has roots in the Biblical account of the passion (among other places). But honestly, Christians can still believe those texts without allowing any of that pernicious lie to taint it.
Killing God is a very bad thing to do....but luckily enough, his blood does wash over the entire human race. "O happy fault" indeed.
Last edited by MithLuin on Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alatar: If that means we have to move it to B77 then so be it.
So far we're fine here, Alatar. Thanks for your flexibility.
Why people of one religion might consider people of another religion to be obdurate in their views is also legitimate discussion.
Mith, thank you for that explanation. What you said makes perfect sense now. I don't usually think of a Church as having personhood, as in 'Bride of Christ,' although the Jews speak (and sing!) of the Sabbath as being the bride of the Jewish people.
Jn
So far we're fine here, Alatar. Thanks for your flexibility.
Why people of one religion might consider people of another religion to be obdurate in their views is also legitimate discussion.
Mith, thank you for that explanation. What you said makes perfect sense now. I don't usually think of a Church as having personhood, as in 'Bride of Christ,' although the Jews speak (and sing!) of the Sabbath as being the bride of the Jewish people.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Yes, Voronwë is one of the persons who has interpreted the narrative that way; yes, he is making assumptions about what the narrative means to some of the people here. Either that, or he is saying that because of the fact that some persons who are not here have interpreted the narrative in a certain way, we who are here and have not, should not discuss that aspect of our beliefs here.Jnyusa wrote:Voronwë is not the person who has interpreted the narrative that way, nor is he making assumptions about what the narrative means to others.
We, here, are not those churches.We know how this narrative was interpreted and used by the churches until very recently.
I'm not suggesting it does. In the same way, the fact that some Christians have been anti-Semitic and have been taught that these passages mean that one can and should hate Jews, does not mean that every Christian has been.but the fact that you are not anti-Semitic does not mean that no Christian has ever been anti-Semitic or been taught that these passages mean that one can and should hate Jews.
You took pains to explain that that is not what you meant; Voronwë hasn't said anything about it yet, beyond apparently validating Imp's remark as appropriate.Neither I nor Voronwë have said that the problem of anti-Semitism arises with the Biblical narrative itself. I took pains to say that this was not the case. Anti-Semitism arises for non-religious reasons (imo) and then religion is used to justify it, or has been in the past.
The only thing I can make of Voronwë's response is that he does believe the problem arises with the Biblical narrative itself, and believes that it defames Jews and that anyone stating belief in it defames Jews. That is the only interpretation I can come up with that would allow Imp's remark to be seen similar in nature (and therefore appropriate).
Perhaps that is what she meant, but if so, her statement was not clear and the word 'obduracy' was misused. 'Obdurate' doesn't describe the nature of a subject; it describes an attitude or state of mind.When Imp used the word 'obdurate' she was not referring to Christian adherence to their religion but rather to the difficulty of conveying even in this thread in an understandable way, it seems, exactly why Jews object to implications that they are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Even if that is what she meant (and if so, she should clarify), then I think she is mistaken, because I believe people have conveyed that they do understand the points you took the trouble to explain.
but why, for example, did he not say, "Jesus could have walked up to Pontius Piliate or the nearest Centurion and said, 'Are you guys looking for me?' " Because he does not think of the Romans as having been the ones who killed Jesus.
I would hazard it is because he believes the biblical accounts, which relate that certain of the Jewish religious authorities wished Jesus to be gotten rid of. However, that's beside the point. We believe Jesus was put to death because it was God's plan to save us from our sin. It doesn't matter to us who wanted him dead or who killed him. It doesn't matter.
Does discussing the fact that the Romans crucified Jesus disparage Italians as a people? Of course not. Does believing certain of the Jewish religious authorities wanted Jesus gotten rid of disparage Jews as a people? Of course not. There are human beings within every ethnic and religious group through whom corruption and cruelty are manifested. There is no perfect ethnic or religious group of people on the face of the earth.
Yes, it does, as I said earlier. I was dumbfounded when I first heard of this in the dialogue surrounding Mel Gibson's movie. I thought it was utterly laughable, until I realized that the people were saying that it had been used as a weapon of anti-Semitism through the ages.And although it would certainly sound wrong to you to hear a modern Jew blamed for Jesus's death, I bet it would not feel absurd in the same way it would to hear such a thing said about an Italian.
Yes, I understand that discussions like this will take alot of patience on all our parts. At the same time, being who I am, I need certain things to be clear. I need to know what Imp meant by what she said; if she meant what it seemed she meant, then I need to know if that is acceptable for this forum and this board. If that is what she meant and it is deemed acceptable, then I think our by-laws should specify that Christians or certain aspects of Christian belief are not protected against targeted remarks.
I think that's exactly right.Holby wrote:How about if we state that certain persons behaved in a disreputable manner thus causing the death of Jesus?
The people involved happened to be Romans and Jews to whatever extent.
Those people are not representitive of their entire people any more than I am responsible for acts against the Crown because my ancestors fought the Red Coats.
Thank you, vison.
You of course have every right to believe that all Christians or all believers in the biblical account of Christ's death are obdurate, but I don't believe, according to our by-laws, that you are allowed to say that here. That's the point I'm seeking clarification on.
Jnyusa wrote:Why people of one religion might consider people of another religion to be obdurate in their views is also legitimate discussion.
According to our TE sticky, I do not believe such a discussion would appropriately take place in this forum, and I do not believe it could be presented in terms of discussing the group as a whole (according to our by-laws), but rather, it would have to focus on the particular people they were discussing with.
In other words, I do not believe our by-laws would allow for a thread titled, 'Why are Christians obdurate in their views?'
If you think they would, then again, I think Christians and Christianity would have to be specifically exempted from the by-law protecting religions from targeted remarks.
Cerin, I wasn't commenting on anything at all. I am not in this discussion, only reading it.
I had a suspicion that there was some misunderstanding of the word "obdurate" so I posted the definition.
My own opinions on this subject are not going to see the light of day here, I assure you, but I do find the thread extremely interesting.
I had a suspicion that there was some misunderstanding of the word "obdurate" so I posted the definition.
My own opinions on this subject are not going to see the light of day here, I assure you, but I do find the thread extremely interesting.
Dig deeper.