NationStates Jolt Archive

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.

I'm not saying my position is right, or anything to that effect, but, I've found when two or three of my friends -all people who, like me, are generally quite liberal in our views- let our guards down and I raise the issue, people begin by reluctantly agreeing and end up expressing views that would make Hitler blush.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.

If you don't like Jews, doesn't that make you a hypocrite to have some that are friends?

If you don't like Jews, doesn't that make you a hypocrite to have some that are friends?
Maybe. As I've tried to explain, this isn't a logical view, or even one I can easily reconcile myself with

I gotta be honest, I think Judaism would act like islam if they had the numbers. All religions do.

If only everyone could come out and admit their anti-Semitism like you, instead of hiding it behind a thin guise of anti-Israel or anti-Zionism. Its very easy to distinguish legitimate criticism of the latter with anti-Semitism, yet people continue to insist their anti-Semitism is something else.

Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this, when at a 1968 speech at Harvard he was addressed with an anti-Semitic question veiled as anti-Zionism. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."

I gotta be honest, I think Judaism would act like islam if they had the numbers. All religions do.

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. Nor in the past when Jews were a majority in a population that lived by Jewish Law did they act like Islam throughout history.

Wait, aren't you jewish?

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. Nor in the past when Jews were a majority in a population that lived by Jewish Law did they act like Islam throughout history.
Christianity has never launched a crusade to wipe out another religion? Jews have never tried to wipe out another religion or race?

Wait, aren't you jewish?
Again, maybe. I'm 1/8th Jewish, tracing back through my mother and grandmother

I do not really know any Jews except for one of my friends who was a Puerto Rican-Jew. I find Jewish groups like the ADL and other major Jewish groups to be
overly sensitive calling for hate crimes legislation even if it destroys our constitutional rights all while keeping a blind eye to the Palestinian Massacre.

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers.
Ignorance and arrogance! *thumbs up*

Christianity has never launched a crusade to wipe out another religion? Jews have never tried to wipe out another religion or race?

Of course, that isn't what I said. I said that Judaism has not acted in its history like Islam does, and that Christianity currently doesn't.

Christianity, by nature, has the intent to wipe out all other religions. The Christian Utopia would be for everyone to become a Christian, and thus be saved. Of course, not all Christians believe this, but that is the general intent with religions that desire to convert. Judaism doesn't attempt to convert others, and doesn't have a history of attempting to wipe out other religions.

There are spurious accounts of genocide in the Bible - but why do the anti-Semites and the anti-religionists pick these out as accepted fact and then deny stories like Noah's Ark? Neither has any more substantial archaeological evidence than the other. We don't really start getting solid histories until the monarchy period. It just goes to show the double standard with which people will evaluate the Bible, for whatever reason.

But, back to the original point and response, because Judaism has not demonstrated anything within its history to Christian and Muslim crusades, or current trends in Jihad, and since Christianity (a similiar religion with a similiar size to Islam) doesn't exhibit those trends, there is no reason to assume that Judaism would given the same numbers.

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. .

If the Pope still controlled Europe it would be worse than Islam.

I don't like Visigoths. They smell funny.

... but really, I've never seen a Jew in my life.

I do not really know any Jews except for one of my friends who was a Puerto Rican-Jew. I find Jewish groups like the ADL and other major Jewish groups to be
overly sensitive calling for hate crimes legislation even if it destroys our constitutional rights all while keeping a blind eye to the Palestinian Massacre.

I wonder if you would consider a group like the ADL condemning a statement like this "overly sensitive." The fact that there is no "Palestinian Massacre" makes it a distortion of history and facts that serves only to demonize Israel, and thus Jews by association. Rather, the current "Palestinian Massacre" is in large part a result of Palestinians killing themselves. Lets review the statistics. These are from the Institute for Counter-Terrorism:

Between 2000-2005

3179 Palestinians have been killed
1099 of those have been non-combatants
406 have been killed by other Palestinians

1010 Israelis have been killed
764 have been non-combatants
22 were killed by their own side

A quick review of the statistics would show you that the majority of Palestinians killed have been terrorists, militants, or whatever else you would like to call them, whereas the majority of Israelis have been civilians. In addition, a large portion of Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, while virtually all Israelis are killed by Palestinians. It would seem that this "Palestinian Massacre" is in fact a massacre of terrorists, and a massacre at the hands of other Palestinians.

Of course, that isn't what I said. I said that Judaism has not acted in its history like Islam does, and that Christianity currently doesn't.
"This war is a crusade to wipe out evil...God is on our side" -George W Bush

Christianity, by nature, has the intent to wipe out all other religions. The Christian Utopia would be for everyone to become a Christian, and thus be saved. Of course, not all Christians believe this, but that is the general intent with religions that desire to convert. Judaism doesn't attempt to convert others, and doesn't have a history of attempting to wipe out other religions.On a number of occasions, in the Old Testament, the Jewish People attempted to wipe out Ba'alists

There are spurious accounts of genocide in the Bible - but why do the anti-Semites and the anti-religionists pick these out as accepted fact and then deny stories like Noah's Ark? Neither has any more substantial archaeological evidence than the other. We don't really start getting solid histories until the monarchy period. It just goes to show the double standard with which people will evaluate the Bible, for whatever reason.Because these events are confirmed in other history texts, and some historians believe there may have been a great flood on which the story of Noah's Ark was based, as prior to the Judeo-Christian tale of Noah's Ark, the Egyptians and many other civilizations (whom the Jews would later encounter) had similar stories

But, back to the original point and response, because Judaism has not demonstrated anything within its history to Christian and Muslim crusades, or current trends in Jihad, and since Christianity (a similiar religion with a similiar size to Islam) doesn't exhibit those trends, there is no reason to assume that Judaism would given the same numbers. Christianity has on a number occasions attempted to use war to wipe out an opposing religion, see The Crusades, and arguably see The War on Terror, the Jewish People, when they have been concentrated and powerful have attempted to wipe opposing religions, see their constant wars with Ba'alist nations.

Well, you might not like jews, but I flat out don't like you. There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of player hater. But there is something about the very notion of Rotovia that makes me... uneasy.


Im bored!

I don't really know any Jewish people... I wish I did though, just to see what all the fuss is about :p

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. Nor in the past when Jews were a majority in a population that lived by Jewish Law did they act like Islam throughout history.

Christianity has been forced to change with the West, though. I supposed Judaism has too.

If the Pope still controlled Europe it would be worse than Islam.

Think so? The early history of Islam was far more violent than the early history of Christianity. Islamic Caliphates engaged in civil war for hundreds of years. Muslims used to strap verses of the Koran to their lances and swords before going into battle with one another. While we have had warring in Christian Europe, there was less that could be called internal religious conflict than in Islam.

In any case, it is all speculation. Its meaningless to say "well if this, if that." We know what exists today, and what has existed throughout history. Proposing alternate histories does not make a party guilty; what makes a party guilty is their actions throughout history some and in modern times more. The fact that Muslims states have much poorer human rights records than the Jewish state can't be overlooked by the hypothesis that if Jews were larger they would do it too. Rather, its just a scapegoat to shift blame off of other groups and push it onto the Jews.

Well, you might not like jews, but I flat out don't like you. There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of player hater. But there is something about the very notion of Rotovia that makes me... uneasy.


Im bored!
It's the fact I'm 1/8th Jewish, you anti-semite!

It's the fact I'm 1/8th Jewish, you anti-semite!


Make that an anti-rotovian and you get yourself a cookie :p

Think so? The early history of Islam was far more violent than the early history of Christianity. Islamic Caliphates engaged in civil war for hundreds of years. Muslims used to strap verses of the Koran to their lances and swords before going into battle with one another.The first instutionalization of Christianity saw Roman Legions paint crosses onto their shields

Make that an anti-rotovian and you get yourself a cookie :p
I'm not allowed cookies...:(

Jews are sexy.

Athiests have a record of killing and abusing people too (communists and so forth).

I'm not allowed cookies...:(
Have some matzah.

Its very easy to distinguish legitimate criticism of the latter with anti-Semitism, yet people continue to insist their anti-Semitism is something else.

Again, I reserve the right to critisize Israel without being labeled Anti-Semitic, or even Anti-Zionistic.

One of the problems with this is that many, including several jews and pro-Israel individuals, see the state and the religion as one. I refuse to stoop to their level. A nation may change its course, and if Israel were to do this, I would embrace it, regardless of whether it was made up of jews or visigoths.

"This war is a crusade to wipe out evil...God is on our side" -George W Bush

Oh? When did Dubya say that? Can you actually show me a source?

On a number of occasions, in the Old Testament, the Jewish People attempted to wipe out Ba'alists

You must have ignored what I wrote, becuase you're doing exactly that. You've selected part of the Bible that you think you can use to demonze Jews, a part with no historical backing, while I'm sure you reject others.

It should also be noted that in the Tanach, Jews have attempted to remove pagan worship within the Jewish community. Not once have they gone "crusading" to wipe it out in non-Jewish lands. Quite a big difference than with Christianity and Islam.

Because these events are confirmed in other history texts, and some historians believe there may have been a great flood on which the story of Noah's Ark was based, as prior to the Judeo-Christian tale of Noah's Ark, the Egyptians and many other civilizations (whom the Jews would later encounter) had similar stories

Well lets see, can you show me one? I hold a degree in religious studies, and I can assure you that you wont be able to present any scholarship of merit to support this claim. The accounts of early genocide are no more substantiated than the main figures participating actually existed. Are you going to assert a genocide by Joshua, when there is no real proof Joshua existed?

Christianity has on a number occasions attempted to use war to wipe out an opposing religion, see The Crusades, and arguably see The War on Terror, the Jewish People, when they have been concentrated and powerful have attempted to wipe opposing religions, see their constant wars with Ba'alist nations.

Yes, Christianity has attempted to wipe out opposing religions. The majority of religions actually wiped out in Christianity have actually been 'heretical' Christian sects and the paganism it replaced. Islam was attacked for that purpose, as well. However, in Judaism, there were no "Ba'alist nations" that anyone tried to wipe out. That is something that can't be substantied with history, or even the Tanach. It simply isn't claimed by anyone. I think you just have a misunderstanding of what is actually in the Tanach and actual history.

I'll state it again - Jews attempted to remove pagan worship within the Jewish community, not outside of it.

Again, I reserve the right to critisize Israel without being labeled Anti-Semitic, or even Anti-Zionistic.

One of the problems with this is that many, including several jews and pro-Israel individuals, see the state and the religion as one. I refuse to stoop to their level. A nation may change its course, and if Israel were to do this, I would embrace it, regardless of whether it was made up of jews or visigoths.

I don't think you will find a serious Jewish work or Jewish group of note that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism. Or even that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Martin Luther King Jr did, in that one instance, because the question proposed to him was anti-Semitism veiled in the guise of anti-Zionism.

And on that note, it is important to remember that people who are anti-Semitic do attack Israel as a subverse way to express their anti-Semitism. Then, they claim it is legitimate criticism and not anti-Semitism. No one is saying that all criticism of Israel or Zionism is anti-Semitic, or even that most of it is. What is being said is that people do disguise their anti-Semitism in anti-Israel and anti-Zionism.

Jews are sexy.
Are you a Jew?

Athiests have a record of killing and abusing people too (communists and so forth).

Yes, but thats not really a fair analogy. Killing because of religion is different than being a certain religion, or non-religious, and then killing due to politics. Some groups have explicitly committed acts of violence and war in the name of their religion, whereas I don't think you'll find as many (or any) accounts of people committing acts in the name of Atheism.

People have done it in the name of communism. But again, communism is a political philosophy, and to equate it with Atheism is false.

I wonder if you would consider a group like the ADL condemning a statement like this "overly sensitive." The fact that there is no "Palestinian Massacre" makes it a distortion of history and facts that serves only to demonize Israel, and thus Jews by association. Rather, the current "Palestinian Massacre" is in large part a result of Palestinians killing themselves. Lets review the statistics. These are from the Institute for Counter-Terrorism:

Between 2000-2005

3179 Palestinians have been killed
1099 of those have been non-combatants
406 have been killed by other Palestinians

1010 Israelis have been killed
764 have been non-combatants
22 were killed by their own side

A quick review of the statistics would show you that the majority of Palestinians killed have been terrorists, militants, or whatever else you would like to call them, whereas the majority of Israelis have been civilians. In addition, a large portion of Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, while virtually all Israelis are killed by Palestinians. It would seem that this "Palestinian Massacre" is in fact a massacre of terrorists, and a massacre at the hands of other Palestinians.

The fact is the Jews should of never established a state in the Middle East it was absolutely stupid of them to establish a state surrounded by people that hate them. The fact is there is no god and they are not the chosen people and they never had any right displacing the native population. They should have chosen another place to live instead of the Middle East. I could care less about your statistics the Jews should not be in the Middle East it is there fault this war is happening they displaced the native population and now they will be fighting them till the end of time.

Think so? The early history of Islam was far more violent than the early history of Christianity. Islamic Caliphates engaged in civil war for hundreds of years. Muslims used to strap verses of the Koran to their lances and swords before going into battle with one another. While we have had warring in Christian Europe, there was less that could be called internal religious conflict than in Islam.


*sigh*

The first century of Islam was not spent waging civil war, rather, it was spent conquering lands at camel-speed. The empire fell apart as the last follower of Muhammed (may he rest in peace) died, and was further weakened by the influx of central-Asian tribes such as the Turks.

As for the peaceful nature of christian Europe, let me just mention the crusades (were the cross was farly visible), and the 30-years war between protestants and catholics. And a bit off topic, the Inquisition... not a war as such, but the body count was still high enough to mention. And more recently, we have the Bushite Empire who revels in medieval rethorics such as "they're evil, hence they must die", and "God likes us lots, the others... not so much"

The fact is the Jews should of never established a state in the Middle East it was absolutely stupid of them to establish a state surrounded by people that hate them. The fact is there is no god and they are not the chosen people and they never had any right displacing the native population. They should have chosen another place to live instead of the Middle East. I could care less about your statistics the Jews should not be in the Middle East it is there fault this war is happening they displaced the native population and now they will be fighting them till the end of time.

Well, to start, the idea that there is "no god" is no more a fact than there "is a god." Neither can be proven, and as smart-assy as I am going to sound by saying it, when you blindly assert one position or another you already lose.

Second, they didn't displace the native population. Displacement didn't occur until the '48 war, when Arab nations attacked Israel and displaced Palestinian Arabs themselves. It was these Arab nations - Egypt, Syria, and Jordan - that annexed the land set aside for a Palestinian state. Rather, when Jews settled from the late 19th century up until 48, less than 2,000 Arab families were displaced. And these were all fellaheen, Arabs that owned no land and worked on the land of other Arab landowners who sold it to Jews. Displacement pre-48 is a myth. Displacement to form the State of Israel is a myth. Displacement as a result of a war that Arabs started, and due in part to Arabs annexing the land set aside for a Palestinian state, is quite real.

So now that you know the history, and the facts, you'll have to come with another argument other than "Jews displaced them."

*cough* Crusades *cough*

Christianity's peaceful, eh?

Think so? The early history of Islam was far more violent than the early history of Christianity. Islamic Caliphates engaged in civil war for hundreds of years. Muslims used to strap verses of the Koran to their lances and swords before going into battle with one another. While we have had warring in Christian Europe, there was less that could be called internal religious conflict than in Islam.

In any case, it is all speculation. Its meaningless to say "well if this, if that." We know what exists today, and what has existed throughout history. Proposing alternate histories does not make a party guilty; what makes a party guilty is their actions throughout history some and in modern times more. The fact that Muslims states have much poorer human rights records than the Jewish state can't be overlooked by the hypothesis that if Jews were larger they would do it too. Rather, its just a scapegoat to shift blame off of other groups and push it onto the Jews.

All religion is a plague upon humanity.

As for the peaceful nature of christian Europe, let me just mention the crusades (were the cross was farly visible), and the 30-years war between protestants and catholics. And a bit off topic, the Inquisition... not a war as such, but the body count was still high enough to mention. And more recently, we have the Bushite Empire who revels in medieval rethorics such as "they're evil, hence they must die", and "God likes us lots, the others... not so much"

I'm not disputing that Christianity has a bad track record and a high body count. I would question if Christianity was more violent in its history than Islam, but that is another issue. My original point is that Judaism does not have a track record anywhere near those two. And while people may speculate and say "Well the Jews would have done it if they had the chance", its really just absurd hypothetical and meaningless dialogue used to shift the blame off the real guilty parties and put it onto Jews.

Difference between a Jew and a pie?

A pie doesn't scream when you put it in the oven.

The fact is the Jews should of never established a state in the Middle East it was absolutely stupid of them to establish a state surrounded by people that hate them. The fact is there is no god and they are not the chosen people and they never had any right displacing the native population. They should have chosen another place to live instead of the Middle East. I could care less about your statistics the Jews should not be in the Middle East it is there fault this war is happening they displaced the native population and now they will be fighting them till the end of time.


Its stupid that they want their home land back after being displaced for 2000 years?

All religion is a plague upon humanity.

Well, it should make you somewhat happier to know that early Zionism was not predominately religious in nature. The majority of Jewish immigrants were not religious Zionists, but secular Zionists. They did not return to Palestine due to a belief that they were the chosen people, or because the land was promised to them, etc. Some did, but not most. They returned to Palestine to establish Israel due to politics and law. The fact that they were promised a legal right to the land and the fact that they needed the land. Because Israel today is a secular state, the most prosperous in the region, with the highest standards of living, and better civil rights record than most European countries and the United States, goes to show how well the secular and free roots of Zionism established themselves.

Oh? When did Dubya say that? Can you actually show me a source?Yes, it's from a book of Bush quotes I returned to the library last week, so kindly wait until tomorrow, when I can go to the library and provide the source for you.

You must have ignored what I wrote, becuase you're doing exactly that. You've selected part of the Bible that you think you can use to demonze Jews, a part with no historical backing, while I'm sure you reject others.

It should also be noted that in the Tanach, Jews have attempted to remove pagan worship within the Jewish community. Not once have they gone "crusading" to wipe it out in non-Jewish lands. Quite a big difference than with Christianity and Islam.
Are you seriously saying that if a part of history makes a group look bad, you cannot use it to make them look bad? Think about that for a moment

Well lets see, can you show me one? I hold a degree in religious studies, and I can assure you that you wont be able to present any scholarship of merit to support this claim. The accounts of early genocide are no more substantiated than the main figures participating actually existed. Are you going to assert a genocide by Joshua, when there is no real proof Joshua existed?Ian Wilson, 'Before the Flood'. Andrew Heywood, 'The Origins of Religion'


Yes, Christianity has attempted to wipe out opposing religions. The majority of religions actually wiped out in Christianity have actually been 'heretical' Christian sects and the paganism it replaced. Islam was attacked for that purpose, as well. However, in Judaism, there were no "Ba'alist nations" that anyone tried to wipe out. That is something that can't be substantied with history, or even the Tanach. It simply isn't claimed by anyone. I think you just have a misunderstanding of what is actually in the Tanach and actual history.The Catholic Church is a 'heretical sect' now? That's news to me. The wars with the Canaanites were motivated by a 'divine order' to end the practice of Ba'alism.

Its stupid that they want their home land back after being displaced for 2000 years?
Yes. Especially when they stole it form another race to begin with

Are you a Jew?
Define "Jew"..

Killing because of religion is different than being a certain religion, or non-religious, and then killing due to politics.

Well in a sense most killing is due to politics - the religion thing is just a bind holding the killing people together. I.e. Osama would kill you for opposing his world order - (that world order happens to be Islamic) but if you didn’t oppose it he wouldn't bother trying to kill you. Similarly a communist might destroy a church or assassinate a church leader (as I am sure has happened in the same way that they killed capitalists and destroyed their houses) as a step on the way to establishing communism.

Maybe we should all promote agnosticism. If your not sure you can’t quite be confident you aren’t fast-tracking your way to hell.

Define "Jew"..
Being Jewish.

Yes. Especially when they stole it form another race to begin with
Is this a serious debate? I seriously thought it was a copy-cat thread..

Being Jewish.
Ah, then no.

:p

Define "Jew"..
Either racially Jewish, by birth, or religiously Jewish, either through practice or recognition of admittance into the Jewish ethos.

Yes, it's from a book of Bush quotes I returned to the library last week, so kindly wait until tomorrow, when I can go to the library and provide the source for you.

Well surely it would be on the internet somewhere. Yet, when I type it into google as you listed, I get zero matches at all. So, I question if its even real. And I didn't vote for Bush, not a Bush supporter. Just not a you supporter at this point, either.

Are you seriously saying that if a part of history makes a group look bad, you cannot use it to make them look bad? Think about that for a moment

You keep claiming its history, but you've yet to demonstrate that it is.

Ian Wilson, 'Before the Flood'. Andrew Heywood, 'The Origins of Religion'

Thats called name-dropping. Can you actually show me where Wilson supports anything you claimed?

The Catholic Church is a 'heretical sect' now? That's news to me. The wars with the Canaanites were motivated by a 'divine order' to end the practice of Ba'alism.

No one said the RCC was a heretical sect. Perhaps you should go back and reread what I wrote. The majority of religions wiped out by Christianity were heretical sects. Nor were the wars with the Canaanites motivated by a practice to end Baal worship. Nor do we even have any historical evidence to support that they occured. But, the Tanach states that it was due to land, not religion.

Either racially Jewish, by birth, or religiously Jewish, either through practice or recognition of admittance into the Jewish ethos.
How is Jew a race?

Is this a serious debate? I seriously thought it was a copy-cat thread..I actually didn't see the thread when I posted this, but my threads are always a mixture of seriousness and humour. Like when I talk about my suicide plans

How is Jew a race?
The same way there's an Arabic race, and the religion of Islam

I actually didn't see the thread when I posted this, but my threads are always a mixture of seriousness and humour. Like when I talk about my suicide plans
Ah, +1 then.

The same way there's an Arabic race, and the religion of Islam

There isn't an Arabic race. Arab is an ethnicity.

The same way there's an Arabic race, and the religion of Islam
But isn't that just because... nevermind.

Well, to start, the idea that there is "no god" is no more a fact than there "is a god." Neither can be proven, and as smart-assy as I am going to sound by saying it, when you blindly assert one position or another you already lose.
So do invisible fairies exist. Lizard looking aliens that walk the earth that we can not see becuase they are in an alternate phase of reality do they exist too. Because if you say no you blindly assert one position or another and you already lose. This is not a good argument anything can be true according to you.

Second, they didn't displace the native population. Displacement didn't occur until the '48 war, when Arab nations attacked Israel and displaced Palestinian Arabs themselves. It was these Arab nations - Egypt, Syria, and Jordan - that annexed the land set aside for a Palestinian state. Rather, when Jews settled from the late 19th century up until 48, less than 2,000 Arab families were displaced. And these were all fellaheen, Arabs that owned no land and worked on the land of other Arab landowners who sold it to Jews. Displacement pre-48 is a myth. Displacement to form the State of Israel is a myth. Displacement as a result of a war that Arabs started, and due in part to Arabs annexing the land set aside for a Palestinian state, is quite real.

So now that you know the history, and the facts, you'll have to come with another argument other than "Jews displaced them."

What history are you talking about this website (http://www.palestinehistory.com/history.htm)will certainly give me a differant version of history than your right wing or ADL version of history.

So do invisible fairies exist. Lizard looking aliens that walk the earth that we can not see becuase they are in an alternate phase of reality do they exist too. Because if you say no you blindly assert one position or another and you already lose. This is not a good argument anything can be true according to you.

This is a fallacious analogy. Here is why. You've taken qualities that are distinctly natural, and then modified them to give them a supernatural quality. On the other hand, gods in general tend to be purely supernatural with no natural qualities. I'd love to be a smartass again and say "since its a logical fallacy, you lose agian." But seriously, just think before you post.

What history are you talking about this website (http://www.palestinehistory.com/history.htm)will certainly give me a differant version of history than your right wing or ADL version of history.

What was different? All you did was post a link to a website. It doesn't dispute what I laid out, the statistics I gave, etc. In fact, it doesn't even mention them.

This is a fallacious analogy. Here is why. You've taken qualities that are distinctly natural, and then modified them to give them a supernatural quality. On the other hand, gods in general tend to be purely supernatural with no natural qualities. I'd love to be a smartass again and say "since its a logical fallacy, you lose agian." But seriously, just think before you post."... In His image..."

If there's one thing any semi-sentient, half-way honest individual can agree on, it's that all the major religions anthropomorphize the hell out of the deity they worship - as in; imbue it with human qualities.

It wasn't a fallacious analogy.

"... In His image..."

If there's one thing any semi-sentient, half-way honest individual can agree on, it's that all the major religions anthropomorphize the hell out of the deity they worship - as in; imbue it with human qualities.

It wasn't a fallacious analogy.

It actually was. The two things simply aren't similiar enough to infer something about the former from the latter. Invisible faeries do not exhibit the qualities of deities in various religions. Now, if you revise the analogy so that they do, you'll end up with a tautology. It will just be meaningless.

My original point is that Judaism does not have a track record anywhere near those two. And while people may speculate and say "Well the Jews would have done it if they had the chance", its really just absurd hypothetical and meaningless dialogue used to shift the blame off the real guilty parties and put it onto Jews.


A fair point, but back to my first post in this thread, I reserve the right to critisice any nation without being accused of hatered of its inhabitants. Pepole can't chose their heritage, but nations can decide their path.

I don't like the policy of the US, but I don't hate US Americans.

I don't like the policy of Iran, but I dont hate Iraneans.

I don't like Israel's policy, but I don't hate jews.

Well surely it would be on the internet somewhere. Yet, when I type it into google as you listed, I get zero matches at all. So, I question if its even real. And I didn't vote for Bush, not a Bush supporter. Just not a you supporter at this point, either. I prefer not to quote off Google, I might be able to find it online, if you need it now. But I can get the exact quote, plus a couple other ones on a similar vein from the book.

You keep claiming its history, but you've yet to demonstrate that it is.I would be careful about calling The Bible history, however, in Numbers 21, the tale ends with the entire Negev population being killed.


Thats called name-dropping. Can you actually show me where Wilson supports anything you claimed?The entire book is on the subject of the possible historical support of the Biblical flood and the correlation between of flood myths. That's one huge quote.

No one said the RCC was a heretical sect. Perhaps you should go back and reread what I wrote. The majority of religions wiped out by Christianity were heretical sects. That does not negate Christianity fought wars to wipe out other religions

Nor were the wars with the Canaanites motivated by a practice to end Baal worship. Again, if there were a proper academic argument I would have the necessary time to read through the Judeo-Christian Bible for these sources, you can either wait for me to finish that, or concede the point. There is simply no way I can read the relevant books in the space a of a few minutes.

Nor do we even have any historical evidence to support that they occured. But, the Tanach states that it was due to land, not religion. Again, I am going to need to find texts from other nations of the time to support the occurrence of these events and see what, if any, claims they have to motivation and contrast and compare these to the views in the Juedo-Christian Bible. This will take much longer, as The University of Queensland Library is shut and I'm really not certain that any other major library has the necessary resources.

There isn't an Arabic race. Arab is an ethnicity.
It's really beside the point, I'm just trying to point out the difference between a culture, society, nation and race, and a religion.

I prefer not to quote off Google, I might be able to find it online, if you need it now. But I can get the exact quote, plus a couple other ones on a similar vein from the book.

Well, if Bush said it, you could find it online quite easily. If it occurs nowhere except in your book, and it seems that it doesn't, you might want to question if it was fabricated.

I would be careful about calling The Bible history, however, in Numbers 21, the tale ends with the entire Negev population being killed.

Thats what I've been saying. A lot of these ancient massacres have no historical backing. Yet, people take them at face value while disregarding other claims that have no empirical basis.

Again, if there were a proper academic argument I would have the necessary time to read through the Judeo-Christian Bible for these sources, you can either wait for me to finish that, or concede the point. There is simply no way I can read the relevant books in the space a of a few minutes.

Again, I am going to need to find texts from other nations of the time to support the occurrence of these events and see what, if any, claims they have to motivation and contrast and compare these to the views in the Juedo-Christian Bible. This will take much longer, as The University of Queensland Library is shut and I'm really not certain that any other major library has the necessary resources.

pfft, you're joking. I know you're not serious now. :rolleyes:

A fair point, but back to my first post in this thread, I reserve the right to critisice any nation without being accused of hatered of its inhabitants. Pepole can't chose their heritage, but nations can decide their path.

I don't like the policy of the US, but I don't hate US Americans.

I don't like the policy of Iran, but I dont hate Iraneans.

I don't like Israel's policy, but I don't hate jews.

Right, thats acceptable. The harshest critics of Israel are Israelis. That is probably true for every state. I'm not sure about Iran, since dissidents are executed and imprisoned.

This is a fallacious analogy. Here is why. You've taken qualities that are distinctly natural, and then modified them to give them a supernatural quality. On the other hand, gods in general tend to be purely supernatural with no natural qualities. I'd love to be a smartass again and say "since its a logical fallacy, you lose agian." But seriously, just think before you post. Invisible Fairies are natural could you tell me where I could find some. So according to you if it is partly bullshit like an alien Lizard in another phase of reality it is a logical phallacy because their is such a thing as lizards in natural reality. But if I take something like an invisible man who is all knowing and all powerful. That is not bullshit because their are no such thing as an invisible man, an all knowing man and a man who is all powerful in the natural universe. Am I understanding you correctly?

Well, if Bush said it, you could find it online quite easily. If it occurs nowhere except in your book, and it seems that it doesn't, you might want to question if it was fabricated. It is quoted in it's original context, so it would be possible to check with the original source, another reason I would prefer this manner of obtaining the information


Thats what I've been saying. A lot of these ancient massacres have no historical backing. Yet, people take them at face value while disregarding other claims that have no empirical basis.There is no empirical basis for determining history...

pfft, you're joking. I know you're not serious now. :rolleyes: I am joking because I am attempting to acquire the sources you want to see? Please, let;s try to keep this to some resemblance of logic.

A fair point, but back to my first post in this thread, I reserve the right to critisice any nation without being accused of hatered of its inhabitants. People can't chose their heritage, but nations can decide their path.

I don't like the policy of the US, but I don't hate US Americans.

I don't like the policy of Iran, but I dont hate Iraneans.

I don't like Israel's policy, but I don't hate jews.

I agree fully with this post. I am often afraid to say that I don't like Israel's policy in public because I don't want the label "Jew hater." I don't hate Jews! I just don't like Israel's policy. Who knows, there may even be a few Jews outside of Israel that may not be too high on it either.

One day I asked my mother (I think I was 15 and didn't know much about the conflict besides both sides were killing one another), "Why do we support Israel?" She said, "We just do and we just should." I asked, "Why?" She said, "We just should and that's it." I don't think she could explain why we had to stand behind every single thing Israel does. All she knows is that the preacherman on TV tells her she needs to defend the government of Israel because the Bible says so and it will help bring about the end times.

The only... ONLY thing that bothers me about the religion... ANY religion... is the concept of "the chosen people." I believe in equality and if there is a God, he/she/it will see everyone for who they are on the inside. It bothers me, but it won't make me hate anyone for thinking they are "chosen" or whatever they want to believe. To each their own, but it doesn't mean I have to like that aspect of the religion. I do like other aspects of the religion, so it all works out.

Invisible Fairies are natural could you tell me where I could find some. So according to you if it is partly bullshit like an alien Lizard in another phase of reality it is a logical phallacy because their is such a thing as lizards in natural reality. But if I take something like an invisible man who is all knowing and all powerful. That is not bullshit because their are no such thing as an invisible man, an all knowing man and a man who is all powerful in the natural universe. Am I understanding you correctly?

Not quite. Faeries may have originally been part of some religion's mythos. We can't prove or disprove that they exist any more than we can a deity. However, no one asserts or leaves open the possibility that they do exist. The very definition of a faerie in common usage includes the belief that it is a mythical being. Thus, you are comparing something that is defined as non-existent, with something defined as possibly existent. If you propose that faeries could exist, they could be used in an analogy with a god. But if you present them as an absurdity, because they are inherently non-existent as defined in common usage, then you can't compare the two. The same could be said as an alien lizard.

What it comes down to is that you're proposing known absurdaties (as we define them) with concepts of possibility. If you'd like to present those former to as concepts of possibility, like Scientology's Xenu for example, we can't prove or disprove them any more than we can any other deity. To assert something about them one way or another thus wont get you far.

Aside from the definitions being different, they don't compare because the things you proposed are based on natural concepts. Lizards, women, wings, etc. When you break them down into their parts, they are constructs of nature. Whereas deities are not "invisible men", at least not in Judaism. They are abstract concepts.

Has someone in your past who was jewish hurt you or that you have some sort of trauma associated with someone of the jewish faith? It has been my experiance through life that anger, prejudice and hatred only breed more of the same. And isn't the world already too full of them? :)

you flat out hate all minorties.

I know because i read on the hall of exnations.

you flat out hate all minorties.

I know because i read on the hall of exnations.
I wrote that... :p

It is quoted in it's original context, so it would be possible to check with the original source, another reason I would prefer this manner of obtaining the information

You're just making excuses for why you can't show me a fabricated George Bush quote from any reputable source. The man is the President of the United States. All of his addresses and conferences are transcribed on the US gov website. If the quote existed, it would be on the net. But it isn't.

There is no empirical basis for determining history...

Oh, right. We'd better throw anthropology and archaeology out the window then.

I am joking because I am attempting to acquire the sources you want to see? Please, let;s try to keep this to some resemblance of logic.

You're trolling at this point, I would say, becuse you keep fabricating quotes and sources, and then when requested to elaborate, you make elaborate excuses for why you can't.

Has someone in your past who was jewish hurt you or that you have some sort of trauma associated with someone of the jewish faith? It has been my experiance through life that anger, prejudice and hatred only breed more of the same. And isn't the world already too full of them? :)
I don't think so.

I don't like the policy of Iran, but I dont hate Iraneans.
Ach!

It's Persians, not Iranians!

Just listen to the word... Persian... sounds lovely, and kind of noble, no?

Iranian... sounds like someone's tried and failed to make a Western version after the Persia was renamed.



Anyway, prejudice against the Jews is one of the most irrational prejudices you can get. You should be exceptionally ashamed, Rotovia-

Not to flame the thread-starter... But he needs to sort out his self-image tbh...

"(i) am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind"
Not liking Jewish people (dispite having Jewish friends) makes you close-minded, racist, xenophobic AND prejudice.

And choosing people, which you dont like, to be your friends, just makes you a little weird

Being British, and raised in a British culture... I dislike the french (Never met a single one who could change my views, or one who didnt drive me mad)... I cant stand steriotypical americans (and most americans ive met fit this steriotype... so my view stands) and I dislike Muslims (same notes as above)

But... because this is the general view of the British culture (Except our yank-loving PM), its ok. and I'd be classed as open minded (I have nothing against gays, people of non-islamic religions, etc)
But if I were asked if I were racist and xenophobic, I'd say yes. (The whole British culture is racist and xenophobic, so its an easy thing for me to admit)
And by basing my views of an ethnicity, from my views of a few people, I'd guess that makes me predjudice.

I'm just pretty much arguing with myself here. Terms like 'Racism', 'predjudice', 'xenophobic' are all relative terms.
Look at the USA for example... probably *THE* most racist, predjudice and definatly the most xenophobic culture... BUT... because its seen as being 'patriotic'... its ok

So what I'm saying is... you dont view yourself as any of these things... yet you hold views which say otherwise...
Maybe you should take a look at yourself and see who and what you really are.

You're just making excuses for why you can't show me a fabricated George Bush quote from any reputable source. The man is the President of the United States. All of his addresses and conferences are transcribed on the US gov website. If the quote existed, it would be on the net. But it isn't.This isn't the exact quote I was thinking of, but it's an example of the language: http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

Oh, right. We'd better throw anthropology and archaeology out the window then.Only by your logic

You're trolling at this point, I would say, becuse you keep fabricating quotes and sources, and then when requested to elaborate, you make elaborate excuses for why you can't. Nice try, but no

Why any arguement that does not agree on Israel politics is being accused of being anti-semitic? Isn't there a middle ground to talk about Jews objectively? Not without flat out hating them or flat out hugging them?

Both muslim and christians think,talk, write etc about their histories and when they are objective they include the blood and aggression too. Even when there is an arguement between two if arguers are sincere middle ground can be found.

But talking about Judaism is a TABOO, you are either with them or against them_? what kind of nosense is this? It should not be treated any diferent than christians or muslims. If they can be argued about so should Judaism be, if not then none of them should ever be argued.

I see jews no different than other shitheads filling this planet they are good or as bad as any other. I believe that they need to become a secular society, that political agenda+religion crap is what always caused looong bloody wars in history like crusades or cihat(jihads). They need to learn from others mistakes, not imitate them dammit!' Today day are strong and believe that they can win and use merciless politics, but if they fail they will feel the repercussions they created. Just like Palestanians did, back in the day they kicked the jews out. And Israel is proving them right in what they did by doing the same thing.

Now claiming that they need peaceful politics instead of bloodshed that will turn on them, does that make me anti semitic? If I claimed that same thing for islam you would agree with me and that shows... well its obvious.

Anyway, prejudice against the Jews is one of the most irrational prejudices you can get. You should be exceptionally ashamed, Rotovia-

btw, one of the things that drove hitler to hate the Jews.
Also why the local-councils plans to start a jewish-community within my town... Has caused protests from locals

Money...

Jews only buy from other Jews. This creates a mini-economy.
But non-jews also buy from Jews...
So theres a one-way movement of money into the Jewish community.

Money can buy power and influence, as well as the other luxuries having it brings. Money has always been a reason for hating someone (They have it, you dont)

Thats one reason to be predjudice against Jews

Not quite. Faeries may have originally been part of some religion's mythos. We can't prove or disprove that they exist any more than we can a deity. However, no one asserts or leaves open the possibility that they do exist. The very definition of a faerie in common usage includes the belief that it is a mythical being. Thus, you are comparing something that is defined as non-existent, with something defined as possibly existent. If you propose that faeries could exist, they could be used in an analogy with a god. But if you present them as an absurdity, because they are inherently non-existent as defined in common usage, then you can't compare the two. The same could be said as an alien lizard. Who defines possibly existent and who defines an absurdity when talking about invisible beings.

What it comes down to is that you're proposing known absurdaties (as we define them) with concepts of possibility. If you'd like to present those former to as concepts of possibility, like Scientology's Xenu for example, we can't prove or disprove them any more than we can any other deity. To assert something about them one way or another thus wont get you far.So if one person presents an unrealistic concept about the natural world like an invisible omnipotent Keebler Elve it is an absurdatie but if a group presents an unrealistic concept of the natural world
like Xenu than it is a concept of possibility. Am I getting it yet?

Aside from the definitions being different, they don't compare because the things you proposed are based on natural concepts. Lizards, women, wings, etc. When you break them down into their parts, they are constructs of nature. Whereas deities are not "invisible men", at least not in Judaism. They are abstract concepts.Angels have wings and look like humans so are they are unrealistic conceptst? But if the Abstact concept of god says they exist in his book, does that not contradict what you are saying?

btw, one of the things that drove hitler to hate the Jews.
Also why the local-councils plans to start a jewish-community within my town... Has caused protests from locals

Money...

Jews only buy from other Jews. This creates a mini-economy.
But non-jews also buy from Jews...
So theres a one-way movement of money into the Jewish community.

Money can buy power and influence, as well as the other luxuries having it brings. Money has always been a reason for hating someone (They have it, you dont)

Thats one reason to be predjudice against Jews
No, the main reason people are prejudiced against jews is to do with money, but rather different about why.

Back in yonde olde times the Jews were the moneylenders, because it was banned for Christians to lend money out to people.

This caused them to be very rich, and a lot of the big merchants were Jews.

This prejudice has established itself for some reason, and since then stuff like "they have big noses" or "they look a bit funny" have been bolted on to try and make them look bad.

Who defines possibly existent and who defines an absurdity when talking about invisible beings.

Popular definition, really. If someone were to say "I believe in faeries" it would be just as valid as "I believe in god."

So if one person presents an unrealistic concept about the natural world like an invisible omnipotent Keebler Elve it is an absurdatie but if a group presents an unrealistic concept of the natural world
like Xenu than it is a concept of possibility. Am I getting it yet?

An omnipotent Keebler Elf would be, because it is based off of a fictional character that contains the popular definition of an absurdity. It isn't unrealistic due to the natural world, but unrealistic due to the common definition.

Angels have wings and look like humans so are they are unrealistic conceptst? But if the Abstact concept of god says they exist in his book, does that not contradict what you are saying?

Again, no, because of popular definition. The fact that people believe in angels as such, and thus define them as possible entities (just like someone could with faeries, but usually don't) would have to change the way we view them. Things have to be viewed within the context of their definitions. Thus, similar ideas must be viewed differently when presented differently.

This caused them to be very rich, and a lot of the big merchants were Jews.


"Money has always been a reason for hating someone (They have it, you dont)"

Our points are the same ;)

Unless being rich, and having more money than everyone else are two differnt concepts :P

Popular definition, really. If someone were to say "I believe in faeries" it would be just as valid as "I believe in god."
Thankyou for explaining yourself. So if popular definition said that the world was flat like it did 500 years ago would that make it true because that is what everyone believed. So majority decides truth and Galileo and other great thinkers that went against the majority opinion were actually wrong . So you think there is no truth only the opinion of the majority is what matters.

There, I said it.

Shame. We're some of the best people on Earth.

Incidently, being Jewish and Judaism are not one and the same.

Shame. We're some of the best people on Earth.

Incidently, being Jewish and Judaism are not one and the same.
Ach!

Sweeping statements over racial superiority crisis!

I agree with the one that started the thread. I've had friends myself, some of which where jews. One of them didn't care for his background, neither was his family practicing, but he was always disturbed by people calling him jew because he sees no difference between people. Another guy who was a jew was also very human, he was crazy as hell. Being jewish had nothing to do with that, and except for his name you wouldn't say he was jewish. But these where liberal jews. People who integrated into local society and accepted one another's beliefs and ideals.

I am still quite disturbed by orthodox jews. It's the same thing with any other fundamentalist group, as they all have freakish beliefs that they defend zealously. Muslims have women in bhurkas, Reformed refuse their own blood transfusions, Jehova witnesses are salesmen, Catholics disallow birth control, Jews accuse other that disagree of being Nazis and anti-semites, while Scientologists are simply evil people. Quite generally, I think all conservatives are frightening. So I'm an equal opportunity guy. I never have a problem with moderate people. Further to the right they are all the same. They like accusing others faiths or cultures of being intollerant or bloodthirsty while those terms apply to themselves just as much. Ironically liberal jews don't like Israel, and integrated arabs think the Sunnite/Shiite conflict is just more of the Protestant/Catholic and Catholic/Orthodox conflicts, and Islam needs to grow up.

If only everyone could come out and admit their anti-Semitism like you, instead of hiding it behind a thin guise of anti-Israel or anti-Zionism.

I am anti israel but I dont give a shit about Jews one way or another. THe only reason I have a problem with Israel is because of its aggression towards palestine and its downright cheek settling land it knows it has no right to. The fact that Israel is populated by Jews is neither here nor there.

Well, Rotova it sounds like you want to challenge your dislike of Jews (or at least pin down what it is about exactly) rather than accept it...given your other sociopolitical leanings....I hope I'm not misreading you there....

Here are what I think are the most common misconceptions or at best very partial truths about Jewish society and Judaism

(1) That they worship either a G*d that is (pick one/some)
(a) bureaucratic (form over substance), distant and impersonal
(b) arbitrary, unfair and irrational
(c) violent, unjust and immoral

(2) They're arrogant, xenophobic and snotty

(3) They predominantly unconditionally support everything that the modern state of Israel does at any time (and that the State of Isreal itself is bad)

(4) Their refusal to convert to Christianity implies corruption or a disregard for the truth because the New Testament says Jesus proves he's the Messiah....so for them to not accept this is wrong headed/stupid

(5) Their customs are weird or cryptic or nonsensical

(6) all religions are bad, but they're a little worse because of X (some historical event) which takes doing since regular religion is awful

(7) They're manipulative and sneaky

(8) They're bad to their kids (by being tyranical and coercive as well as manipulative)

(9) They're in the vanguard of liberalism and liberalism is teh ebil


I think that pretty much covers everything.

So...debunking/clarifying....

Point 1: Their vision of G*d
How G*d isn't bureaucratic and _is_ concerned with substance of human actions

The bureaucratic thing gets started because they have so many rules. People tend to go "well, just being good is the important thing, if you're good , rules are unnecessary and if you're bad, they won't make you good." The Christians have hardly any hard and fast rules anymore and the agnostics and "spiritual folk" think the presence of rules is a sign of absence of true piety.

There seems to be an impression that Jewish rules are arbitrary and divorced from morality. That they're all hangovers from ancient times and they just haven't got with the program and discarded them. It doesn't help that so many Christian rules were palpably self serving to the Church...

Most people don't like to dwell on the fact that it is one thing to say you _intend_ to do good and another _to stop yourself from being bad_ when you are tempted by circumstances. Christianity (by one means or another) responds to this by saying "well just be _really sorry_ you did something bad and it's all good in the end". Agnostic/spiritual types often tend to simply not reflect on their behaviour at all, or rationalize it. "It's different when I do it" or "that wasn't a _big_ violation".

I would tend to think that there are certainly few or no images in popular culture of people reflecting on how they've acted. In fact, major themes of popular wisdom in the fiction in the mass media are "trust your instincts" "the ends justifies the means" and "two wrongs _do_ make a right". They're not constant but they _are_ mostly unopposed.

This is only natural. The majority of humans are not tempermentally inclined to be self-analytical, and many do not have the abstract thinking skills for this to be a quick and relatively routine task. It's not a case of "how wicked people set out to be". Rather there is a general blind spot to the fact that "Good, decent folk" can be constantly doing little bits of nastiness to their fellow humans which affects others significantly. The attitude seems to be that if it's not like rape, robbery or murder then it's just Small Stuff.

Thus, there is a failure to connect that the terrible stressfulness of work (for example) results from the people with authority being callous and indifferent to the people under them and scared and tense regarding the people over them. Everyone constantly indulges their impulses and frequently enough those impulses result in someone getting hurt...not a huge amount, but the concept here is emotional Chinese water torture.

Likewise, relationships seem to suffer from an endemic lack of empathy and self control. It's often a manipulative and abusive soap opera. Each person quietly manipulates or coerces the other and gets everything they can out of them. At least, until the novelty wears off or someone with more to offer wanders along....Another common mode is a quiet facade of harmony where small festering grievances build up and go unaddressed. Because talking candidly without being abusive about things that hurt you is hard. Changing your behaviour is even harder.

Many people are thick skinned and survive just fine in this environement. But there is again a complacent blind spot that "this is just the way things have to be". And a failure to see than endemic indifference to small (or medium sized) misdeed is at the root of a lot of the nastiness of the way things are.

I am firmly convinced most people want to be good. And they will be more than happy to do something to help others as long as (a) the cost to them relative to their resources is small and (b) it is obvious it will make someone else happy.

But I see the nastiness of industrial ogilarichical society as being a consequence that everyone is relatively rich and relatively autonomous and careless about their routine behaviour. Before, you were either kept busy or kept too poor to have much freedom to do wrong....you might note that the history of human nobles and rulers is mostly soap opera nastiness...and now everyone is a Duke or Princess...and suddenly all the norms that kept society orderly and quiet (if rather miserable) are obslete...and nothing has filled the void.

What I'm setting up for here is to vindicate that (a) the idea of lots of rules to try and govern ethical behaviour is a good one (conditionally) and (b) the rules of Judaism make a lot more sense than is understood commonly.

This is not by any means to say that having these rules has made the Jews just the Gosh Darn Best People On Earth. It would be nice if _some_ group of humans was like that, but....nope.

However, the point I'm trying to make is this: Judaism has lots of rules not because it is unconcerned with 'real morality' or 'true piety' but because it is _deeply_ concerned with these concepts. Enough so that the rules have been designed to have a mythological/poetic aspect to both help people remember them and to encourage people to mind them.

Now, any rules system though will fall down in the face of either rampant hypocrisy or rules lawyering. And this is where Judaism has already got its own safeguards well in place. First, the whole Rabbinical tradition has been to make sure that the Law of G*d is kept current with contemporary times. Moreover, it is a never ending quest to refine and make more equitable and just the operation and content of this Law.

Most people are totally unaware that all those "Stupid execution tricks" sins in Leviticus (That was a comprehensive list of attempts to come up with fates worth than death to make people behave. The fact that it failed should be a lesson about the value of deterence...) and other Old Testament books have not been enforced for _millenia_ for the most part and many centuries at the very least. And they are likewise unaware that if there are old customs still around, it's because they've survived endless introspection and questioning on the merit of them. Rigorous questioning of both their goals and their mechanisms in getting there.

As to rampant hypocrisy...well, stopping hypocrisy is job #1 of the Rabbinate. Jesus had a fixation on it (there is no identifiable sin he is down on harder than hypocrisy) but that was only a reflection of the (historically verifiable!) fixation that Jewish society around his times had. There's a reason that Rabbis hold their position by demonstrating they are smart. Because they are the ones who have the abstract reasoning skills and the analytical gift to say with some confidence when someone is being an ass. And then the community has varying degrees of sanctions and persuasions to try and teach that person better. This actually worked fairly well because for centuries European Jews were living in Ghettoes and the mostly impoverished environment of scarcity offered the therapeutic adversity to make this system work.

Now that times are better, it's become much harder to get the same overall effectiveness....but it does still help keep those two evils of hypocrisy and deviousness in check.

The point is that following the rules isn't like a checklist, do all this and you've got your brownie points quota with G*d towards eternal life. It's a starting point. First, the rules serve as "a string tied around your finger" about common failings or to remind you to think about the model of human behaviour for a circumstance (and it's general functioning, often).

Second, caring enough to know and make a reasonable stab at following them focuses you in general on being a good person. As the one Rabbi said (something like) "The essence of Judaism is to be good to everyone; everything else is details". But there are details...yet if you do not have this essential firmly in your heart, the details will not make you a good person. The details are to help you achieve your goal of being good. Obedience to the Law is the _starting point_ of moral behaviour, not the conclusion of it.

The point is there are many myths and parables (the parable predates Jesus as a teaching device, btw) that show that G*d wants you to try your best. That G*d is sympathetic if you fail, but that you are expected to simply keep trying as hard as you can because _you're doing this to make the world you live in a better place to be_! The Law is G*d's _gift_ to humanity to educate and refine their commitment to (and appreciation of) what is good.

So to summarize, regular people typically fail to appreciate that they are well meaning but ethically careless. They fail to understand that there is a causal relation between this carelessness and the world being a crappy place a lot of the time. There is a stigmatization of elaborate rule systems owing to the modern history of secular and Christian philosophy with such...

But the Jewish way is designed (with painstaking attention to detail) to answer the charges that have been made against detailed rules systems. Moroever, the rules are all endlessly tested to be relevant, fair and just. The mechanism exists to actually change the practice of the law as experience educates society on what is or is not just and equitable. In fact, the rules are meant as reminders and incentives to do good, not as being just good in and of themselves to follow.

Nothing in the myths or stories of Judaism supports the view of empty, nominal rules...but non Jews are oblivious to these influences :) And through all of this it is clear that G*d is sympathetic and "on humanity's side", respecting them rather than berating people for their shortcomings. However, G*d _is_ more distant than in Christianity and Islam...you are not constantly getting favors and help directly from celestial agency....

G*d gave us the Law and _that_ is his living and real presence in our lives. Otherwise, his interventions are either (depending on who you talk to)
(a) irregular and unpredictable and subtle (because to do otherwise is to make people worship him to get Neat Favors and Stuff or to get Really Bad Things to Befall Their Enemies both of which are noxious sentinemnts)

or

(b) absent and G*d's influence is limited to the operation of the Law or subtle, ephemeral and pervasive.



Now regarding charges (b) and (c) about the nature of G*d....that G*d in Judaism is either arbitrary, unfair and irrational or violent, unjust and immoral.....

The biggest problem here is that G*d's Law, which is the unending labor of Jewish culture, Rabbinate and laypeople alike....is a living entity....but most people are absolutely ignorant of it.

For example, there was once a law that the right of divorce only belonged to a man alone. If his wife wanted quit of him, tough, but he had the unilateral right to put her aside at any time.

After some period of time, ancient Rabbis who wrote about this (and we have their records) pondered and thought "this isn't quite fair. What if the man _abandons_ her. If he just leaves without formally divorcing her, she's screwed. We have to change this".

So in a limited case, a Rabbi could decree that a divorce _should have been pronounced_. Even though the letter of the Law in the Old Testament said _nothing_ about this.

After some more time, people noticed that sometimes the man might bribe the Rabbi on the way out of town. And so a new process was allowed where the _majority of the community_ served a petition the Rabbi had to grant regarding a de facto divorce.

Now, I'm not precise on the steps after this. But basically, over time and reflection...the law changed so that in the end women could pronounce divorce too. Period. This is TOTALLY contradictory to the Old Testament on the face of it.

But that's because Christians refuse to read what is called the Oral Torah. This actually the _written record_ of scholarly interpretation of the Old Testament. Even as the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) was hot out out of the scribes' hands, it _also_ included _at the same time_ some initial thoughts on how the law should work in practice (as opposed to how it was laid out in the Old Testament). In fact, the Old Testament leaves a few explicit "this space left vague" to denote that G*d was expecting you to ask the Rabbi about this. And a key part of this original Oral Torah was the injunction to _never stop looking for the spirit of the Law_ nor to cease trying to make the Law better.

You might think this sort of system was corrupt because the Law would be hostage to a clique of insiders. But actually, since the criteria for being a Rabbi were quite broad, there were _always_ dissenters. And from the unsilenceable debate sparked by them came the ongoing evolution of the Oral Torah. (it's called Oral because the argument and teachings were typically conveyed and refined by talking first, and once they were well established, then they would get written down.)

Tropical Sand's website has a list of all the places where the existence of the Oral Torah as a divine ordinance is supported. Boggling as it seems to some, G*d specifically decrees (according to the Jews) that you couldn't use the Old Testament alone as the guide to how to live. You had to have the Oral Torah along with it to know precisely what you should be doing.

And the beauty of it is that consensus evolved. Perhaps a wrong headed teaching would gain steam for a while...but then after living with it, the Jews had a mechanism for backing down from a bad idea and yet still keep within their framework. Perhaps a progressive interpretation would be retracted for a while....but in the end because no two communities did things identically, scholars could compare reports circluated among the Rabbinate as a whole and evaluate which interpretations seemed the best ones to live by.

Being _exactly_ 100% right wasn't as important as _making the best choice you could with the available facts_. And the lynchpin of this system is all the rules and orders. No one learns and then publically follows all of those rules (generally) without being wholeheartedly committed to doing what is right...rather than trying to weasel out of their civil obligations to their fellow citizens to be decent to them in all things. (After all, as I said, people are already mostly good _in principle_ ...but they can benefit by some nudging and reminding and focusing which is what Judaism is all about providing)

So the way people get this idea that the Jewish G*d is nasty...is because the Old Testament was all about berating and chastizing and smiting and plaguing...and you know...it didn't work. The Jews kept straying from their commitments of their civil (public ritual) religion. Most people at this point shake their head and take this as proof that the Jewish G*d is nuts.

In order to survive as a faith, the Jews had to change their vision of G*d (and lots of other stuff). But the Old Testament was written by prophets and the criteria for prophet-hood are quite tight. No one after a certain point ever met the bar again. So there were no "revisionist books" because by their theology such books can only be added by a prophet. And this is why the New Testament isn't recognized by Jews...because Jesus is a false prophet by their certification system. The main falsehood is his explicit promise the world would end before the death of the people hearing his prophecy.

The Jews do not _do_ "metaphorical interpretations" of prophecy past a certain point. This is why no one's met specifications on being a prophet in such a long time :)

Which is why by the time of AD300-400 Judaism had _buried_ the hereditary Priesthood and replaced all the emphasis on civil ritual. Instead, they presented a new vision of G*d to try and "get more flies with honey". G*d was expecting them to not just keep the public ritualistic ceremonies...now there were all sorts of quick, informal private things. Ranging from a formal sentence to utter blessing your children when you came back from synagogue (to remind you they are special and you have a duty to care for them humanely) to the _private_ aspect of the Day of Atonement where you _seek out those you wronged_ and _ask them how to make things right again_.

This approach worked wonders. The Jews went through the Diaspora (the destruction of the Temple and their ritual religion of the past) stronger than ever and more true to the ethics of earlier times to boot. The _oral Torah_ and the Rabbinical myths and parables are where all this good stuff is located, and of course, almost no non Jews even know this stuff exists much less the specifics.

For example, all the most outsiders know about Hannukah is that it's something about them celebrating some lamps in the temple not going out despite being out of oil, and they give gifts. Seems kind of strange....except what's not known is that this is a celebration of the survival of Judaism at the end of the Maccabee's Revolt. Assyria at one point conquered the Jews...and tried to enforce the worship of the worship of the Assyrian Emperor (all kings and emperors in the mediterranean rim and Middle east in these times had cults of official living godhood)...

The Jews said no, and the sons of a priestly caste member named Matthias (he wasn't a practicing priest) led the fight again the Assyrians. Maccabee means "the Hammer" and was the nickname of Judah, the eldest son. It was also the arconym for their battle cry.

The war takes 25 years and kills four of Matthias' five sons In the end they rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem. And that's what Hanukah (and Chanukah) are about....commemorating this great victory. The alleged miracle of the lamps is important not for its "special effects" but as the metaphor for the blood like oil that kept the flame of the Jewish resistance alive against all odds and adversity. (Historical consensus is they should have been mincemeat against the Assyrian forces)

So it is a commemoration of sacrifice and the wonders worked by the Jews through their faith in resisting unG*dly events. But this aspect is invisible to outsiders.

Put another way, the Maccabee Revolt saw Judaism nearly crushed. At that point the Oral Torah was still mostly nascent and the religon was mostly about keeping the Old Testaments formal pronouncements. If the Assyrians had crushed them, that probably would have been it for the religion, just another weird cult lost to history.

But by the time of the second civil war the Jews launched against Rome (and the outcome of the genocide of most Jews in Palestine and the destruction of the temple for good etc)....Judaism had made many converts in far flung lands (particuarly what had once been Babylonia) and they were all living by these new principles (or hammering out the bugs)...and they went on to flourish and keep their faith until modern times.

So basically in answer to all these charges, the answer works out to this: The Jews used to think G*d was a high handed, abusive nutter. They changed their minds as well as changing their Law to reflect their growing understanding that G*d couldn't be that nasty and inconsistent. But these changes aren't recorded in the Old Testament...they're in the Oral Torah and the contemporary customs of the community...so as far as most non Jews know, these changes never happened and the Jews are still worshipping a high handed, abusive nutter. Which in fact they are not.

And I nee to sleep, so I'll see if you think this is relevant or not, Rotovia :)

Believe me though, I have equally logical and well thought out answers to the other points. :)

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. Nor in the past when Jews were a majority in a population that lived by Jewish Law did they act like Islam throughout history.

I see very little difference between the thoughts and actions of fundementalist muslims and fundementalist christians.

I think the #1 issue that has led to mistrust of jews and anti-semitism is this insistance that their children not intermarry with gentiles.

This desire to stay seperate as a people has in effect led to their being ostracized. You can see this in any ethic group that works to remain seperate as this is generally rejected by a general public who thinks that their sons and daughters are being snubbed for wont of a superior class of people. While I don't believe that jews experience themselves as "superior people", their desire to remain seperate as a people and a blood-line, is often interpreted this way but those who fail to understand.

The irony is, of course, that for years white folks steered their kids away from inter-racial marraiges and saw that as perfectly acceptable while dispising the jews for essentially the same notion.

Until we are all one big happy cafe eu'let colored, religion neutral family, the folks on this planet are going to find one reason or another to hate each other. It's apparently the human condition.

Excerpt from "The Sneetches" by Dr. Suess

"Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."

Full poem:
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=29607

Its stupid that they want their home land back after being displaced for 2000 years?

Do you have any idea how many times the map has changed in the last 2000 years??? Does it surprize you at all that essentially none of us would be willing to fight for the land of our ancestors of 2000 years ago? Why on earth would you think that this was how and why the state of Israel ended up where it did, then, in the 40's? That's like saying that white folks should be given back England. Its a ridiculously small piece of land to hand over to the multitude of people who must have ancestors that lived there.

That little scrap of land was given up by the British to the UN for the creation of the state of Israel because THEY HAD NO USE FOR IT.

It was a worthless scrap of land. It was the bone the world tossed to the jews, who took it and turned it into the most fearless, determined nation on the planet, and frankly I think the rest of the world shoud butt the fuck out and let the locals settle their own scores and not listen to the objections of the participants.

I dislike the jews i wasn't brought up in a hateful family.
Perhaps it is their denial of pork?
It ain't because of christian propoganda
But they poison our milk
Steal our passports
But most of all it is their money greed especially in the middle ages.
Plus the whinny voices and the special treatment.

Define "Jew"..


Judaism is a way of life consisting of these
three separate sacred components: E.S.P. —ethics, spirituality, and
peoplehood.
--Gil Mann from his book

"H O W T O GET MORE OUT OF BEING JEWISH E V E N I F :
A. You are not sure you believe in God,
B. You think going to synagogue is a waste of time,
C. You think keeping kosher is stupid,
D. You hated Hebrew school, or
E. All of the above!"

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.
Elaborate. What's the problem with it?

There isn't an Arabic race. Arab is an ethnicity.

Oh really. Let's see here....

From Webster's Dictionary On-line:

race
21 entries found for race. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
race[1,noun]race[2,verb]race[3,noun]barrel racingclaiming racedrag raceflat racehorse racemaster racerace riot

Main Entry: 3 race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Main Entry: eth·nic·i·ty
Pronunciation: eth-'ni-s&-tE
Function: noun
: ethnic quality or affiliation

ethnic
3 entries found for ethnic.
To select an entry, click on it.
ethnic[1,adjective]ethnic[2,noun]ethnic cleansing

Main Entry: 1eth·nic
Pronunciation: 'eth-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom -- more at SIB
1 : HEATHEN
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of an ethnic group c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Seems like there is no difference between the terms "race" and "ethnicity". This is essentially the same definition.

Money...

Jews only buy from other Jews. This creates a mini-economy.
But non-jews also buy from Jews...
So theres a one-way movement of money into the Jewish community.

Money can buy power and influence, as well as the other luxuries having it brings. Money has always been a reason for hating someone (They have it, you dont)

Thats one reason to be predjudice against Jews

WTH...???

Are you saying that jews only shop at Jew owned stores? That's ridiculous. Now while they may have a chum at synogogue who sells cars and another who sells houses who they prefer to use over strangers, how does this makes them different from any body who prefers to buy from folks they know?

Here is a bit of jewish wisdom concerning money, and you would do well to employ it in your dealings: "How much do you make an hour? Whatever that amount is, any amount greater than that is worth haggling over for an hour or more." To put this into use, say you go to buy a car. The salesman says, the sticker is $27,000. You make $15.00 an hour. If you think you can talk him down to $24,000 in 200 hours or less then do it because its a better use of your time than working to pay off that extra $3000. This is what is commonly known as "jewing them down", but its an effective business tool that few people dare to use.

I see very little difference between the thoughts and actions of fundementalist muslims and fundementalist christians.

The difference is, when their fundies call for a jihad over a stupid cartoon, it happens. When our fundies call for assasination of foriegn leaders, we say "WTF?".

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.

I'm not saying my position is right, or anything to that effect, but, I've found when two or three of my friends -all people who, like me, are generally quite liberal in our views- let our guards down and I raise the issue, people begin by reluctantly agreeing and end up expressing views that would make Hitler blush.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.

No one is an intellectual. We all die idiots to one degree or another.

In fact the more you know, the more you know that you dont know. So dont flatter yourself.

I dislike the jews i wasn't brought up in a hateful family.
Perhaps it is their denial of pork?
It ain't because of christian propoganda
But they poison our milk
Steal our passports
But most of all it is their money greed especially in the middle ages.
Plus the whinny voices and the special treatment.

Jew poisoning milk? Thats a new one....

I deal like Jews like I deal with everyone else: On a case by case basis.

The jew who talks about his religion when asked or when it comes up in conversation, who gives you advice and is proud to show you his new car, not because it's a BMW but because it's a shiny new toy: I like him.

The jew who calls me anti-semite because I criticize him on something he did like calling someone else a lazy slob, who can't understand that criticism of Israel is not a critique of his faith and who gives preferential treatment to other jews (like charging me 20$ more for the same item): I hate.

I will interact with many people in my life. Why waste my time with those I want to yell at if it's at all possible?

Wow, I didn't know straight-up anti-semitism was still around!

Hey, guy, I'm a Jew! Hate me for what I am!

...come on, it'll be fun.

Why do you dislkie Judaism in the first place?

I don't really know any Jewish people... I wish I did though, just to see what all the fuss is about :p

Well, you sorta know me...I'm Jewish.

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.

I'm not saying my position is right, or anything to that effect, but, I've found when two or three of my friends -all people who, like me, are generally quite liberal in our views- let our guards down and I raise the issue, people begin by reluctantly agreeing and end up expressing views that would make Hitler blush.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.

Meh...so you dont like alot of people who happen to be Jewish...thats fine, I, personally, know alot of people who happen to be normal who dont like you.

I'm not gonna lose sleep over some stupid kid in his moms basement who gets offended when someone calls him a ******, but then turns over and makes an anti semetic rant...in fact, I'll sleep lightly because of it....Just another tool showing his true colors.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view

pfffft...yeah, right...more like a TOOL.

I made a picture showing everybody how Jewish I am. Let me know if I left anything out.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/IlieNS/photos%20of%20me/jew.jpg

Oh! I forgot to point out how hypocritical it is to have a German dog.

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.


.....Why?

*sigh*

Its threads like this is the reason I dont look in here often, I can bet, you would not step up to a jews face and say this..


Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hisssssssssssssssssssssssss.


One more thing, tired of the attack on religon, it has done FAR more good as a stabalizing force in human culture than negative, said my piece.


I AM OUT LIKE A ONE LEG MAN AT A ASS KICKING CONTEST!

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.

I'm not saying my position is right, or anything to that effect, but, I've found when two or three of my friends -all people who, like me, are generally quite liberal in our views- let our guards down and I raise the issue, people begin by reluctantly agreeing and end up expressing views that would make Hitler blush.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.

If everything you have stated above is true you are either a person who is very confused about what you truly are, or you are a hypocritical biggot. You can not be "extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind" and have a strong dislike for an entire race of people. :rolleyes:

If everything you have stated above is true you are either a person who is very confused about what you truly are, or you are a hypocritical biggot. You can not be "extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind" and have a strong dislike for an entire race of people. :rolleyes:

Not. A. Race. ;)

I like cows, they're yummy.

Not. A. Race. ;)

Yes, thank you, I try to explain that a lot actually, it's a major misconception.

Not. A. Race. ;)

The dictionary disagrees with you. See #2. ;)

race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

I made a picture showing everybody how Jewish I am. Let me know if I left anything out.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/IlieNS/photos%20of%20me/jew.jpg

Oh! I forgot to point out how hypocritical it is to have a German dog.

It will eventually reassert its deep hatred of all things Hebrew and bite that hand that feeds. Or possibly the hand that killed Baby Jesus. One or the other.

It will eventually reassert its deep hatred of all things Hebrew and bite that hand that feeds. Or possibly the hand that killed Baby Jesus. One or the other.

Not as long as I keep sating him with biscuits.

The dictionary disagrees with you. See #2. ;)

race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Alright...if Jews really are a race, then I suppose me (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12361or.jpg)and these guys (http://palestinefacts.org/images/ethiopian_jews.jpg)are of the same race????:confused: :rolleyes:

Yes, thank you, I try to explain that a lot actually, it's a major misconception.

Yes, so do I...its sorta a long standing thing to call Jews a race...but by the pictures above, its quite clear we are not.

It will eventually reassert its deep hatred of all things Hebrew and bite that hand that feeds. Or possibly the hand that killed Baby Jesus. One or the other.
According to islam jesus was not killed by Jews. He wasn't killed at all. Judas was made to look like him and was crucified mistanely for Jesus. God raised Jesus to heavens. If you look at other holy books you will see that prophets are never left by God to die at hands of agressors. But I wont get further away from thread.
And that's a cute little puppy.

Alright...if Jews really are a race, then I suppose me (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12361or.jpg)and these guys (http://palestinefacts.org/images/ethiopian_jews.jpg)are of the same race????:confused: :rolleyes:



Yes, so do I...its sorta a long standing thing to call Jews a race...but by the pictures above, its quite clear we are not.

Back up, look at the dictionary definition of race, then tell me the Jews are not a race.

According to islam jesus was not killed by Jews. He wasn't killed at all. Judas was made to look like him and was crucified mistanely for Jesus. God raised Jesus to heavens. If you look at other holy books you will see that prophets are never left by God to die at hands of agressors. But I wont get further away from thread.
And that's a cute little puppy.

Thanks! So what IS toay's lucky number? (I know, Judas, I know.)

Back up, look at the dictionary definition of race, then tell me the Jews are not a race.

Sorry, Jews are not a race, they're a bunch of people practicing a religion. Are Christians a race?

Yes, so do I...its sorta a long standing thing to call Jews a race...but by the pictures above, its quite clear we are not.

If you look at this definition and the definition of race, you will see that the Jews are both a race and a religion. :eek:

Jew Audio pronunciation of "jew" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j)
n.

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Back up, look at the dictionary definition of race, then tell me the Jews are not a race.

I did...and we are not a race. There are black Jews, Arab Jews, White Jews..hell even asian Jews.

We are not a race.

Not as long as I keep sating him with biscuits.

O thats how it starts - appeasement. Next thing you know hes annexed the biscuit packet and launched a blitzkrieg.

So if Jews, as in Judaism is the religion, then what do you call the Semitic peoples of the Jewish faith? Hebrew? Yiddish? :confused:

Jews can be a race because, well Jews only tend to marry and have children with other Jews... Not all Jews do this of course but the same applies to every other race on our planet.

I did...and we are not a race. There are black Jews, Arab Jews, White Jews..hell even asian Jews.

We are not a race.

Well, OK. I guess you know more than the dictionary and the schollars who wrote and edited it. :rolleyes:

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

I've found many Jewish people, as individuals, to be great people, but that doesn't seem to shake a certain ill-feeling towards the concept of Jewishness.

I'm not saying my position is right, or anything to that effect, but, I've found when two or three of my friends -all people who, like me, are generally quite liberal in our views- let our guards down and I raise the issue, people begin by reluctantly agreeing and end up expressing views that would make Hitler blush.

Given, that I am a left-wing, artist, intellectual, with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind, I would have thought this was just a synaptic misfire, if not for the fact there are many people who seem to share this view.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.

Not only do I think it's wrong to say you don't like the Jews, but it doesn't make much sense either. After all, Jews come in many shapes and colors. There are secular Jews, Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Reconstructionists and everything on between. Judaism is not only a religion, but to a certain extent, also a race and a culture. If you have Jewish friends, then I assume you have no problems with Judaism as a race, and if you do, then not only are you a racist but also a hypocrite. If you have a problem with Judaism as a culture, than you must be a very frusterated person, b/c there are many aspects of Jewish culture integrated into our society. Now, if you have a problem with Judaism as a religion, than all I can say is "Have you really learned enough about Judaism to make such a judgement?". I think Judaism is a beatiful religion that is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

On the other hand, I kinda understand what you are saying. For the longest time, I had a problem with Black poeple, which is kinda funny and sad at the same time since I myself am half Black. But then I realized that I didn't really have a problem with Black people in general, but rather with a portion on Black people, the "ghetto" subculture. Now, "ghetto" or "gangsta" or whatever they call themselves, people also come in many different shapes and colors, from Black, to White, to Hispanic, etc. I also realized that one of the major reasons that I dislike the "ghetto" subculture, is b/c I feel it projects a negative image of Black people in general, myself included. Anyway, what I am saying is that I think you should figure out which aspect of Judaism bother you, and you will probably find that that particular trait is shared by many different people of many different backgrounds. The you can hate the whole world at the same time! Yippee!!! :sniper:

Jews can be a race because, well Jews only tend to marry and have children with other Jews... Not all Jews do this of course but the same applies to every other race on our planet.

Thats not true. How do you even beleive this. Jews cannot be a race if there are black Jews and White Jews. Its just not possible. Look at my picture, and compare it to those of black Jews...we are not of the same race.

Well, OK. I guess you know more than the dictionary and the schollars who wrote and edited it. :rolleyes:

I'm glad you agree.:)

Well, OK. I guess you know more than the dictionary and the schollars who wrote and edited it. :rolleyes:

But you can see right there that it talks about a shared heritage...genetics...a common location...similar characteristics...you can't say that about Jews, seriously. Judaism is just a religion, just like Christianity. There are pockets of Jews in certain areas (such as Ashkenazi Jews, which I am probably spelling wrong) that could be considered a race, but being Jewish does not mean you are a part of a Jewish race.

But you can see right there that it talks about a shared heritage...genetics...a common location...similar characteristics...you can't say that about Jews, seriously. Judaism is just a religion, just like Christianity. There are pockets of Jews in certain areas (such as Ashkenazi Jews, which I am probably spelling wrong) that could be considered a race, but being Jewish does not mean you are a part of a Jewish race.

But even being Ashkenazi...Sephardic or whatever doesnt mean that your race is Ashkenazi or Sephardic...at the very most it could be considered an ethnic group but even that is a little hazy.

Being Jewish is a very blurred concept....but one thing is for sure...we are not a race.

BTW...I like your list in the "which poster are you" thread...glad you put me on it. :)

Thats not true. How do you even beleive this. Jews cannot be a race if there are black Jews and White Jews. Its just not possible. Look at my picture, and compare it to those of black Jews...we are not of the same race.

Yes but the same applies to lots of races, you can have black and white germans, white africans etc...

Also, people of a Jewish faith arn't always of a Jewish heritage, they are two seperate things.

But even being Ashkenazi...Sephardic or whatever doesnt mean that your race is Ashkenazi or Sephardic...at the very most it could be considered an ethnic group but even that is a little hazy.

Being Jewish is a very blurred concept....but one thing is for sure...we are not a race.

BTW...I like your list in the "which poster are you" thread...glad you put me on it. :)

Sure sweet pea, although not everybody on the list will make it into the quiz as my co-creator and I have decided to make it one person per result. :( But rest assured that you are very popular and well-known, and are often mentioned on random threads in absentia.

Yes but the same applies to lots of races, you can have black and white germans, white africans etc...

Also, people of a Jewish faith arn't always of a Jewish heritage, they are two seperate things.

I'm not sure which side you're arguing for, but I guess to me it sounds like the whole idea of "race" in general seems a little shady. I guess we have to pigeonhole people SOMEhow, or we'd forever be bogged down in PC-speak. Let me just tell you that Jewish people, including me, do not like to be referred to as a race. How about that?

Being Jewish is a very blurred concept....but one thing is for sure...we are not a race.

Keep saying that and eventualy you will convince yourself. :p

Yes but the same applies to lots of races, you can have black and white germans, white africans etc...

Also, people of a Jewish faith arn't always of a Jewish heritage, they are two seperate things.

Germans arnt a race...German is a nationality/ethnic group. An Afrikan who moves to Germany can be German by nationality but not an ethnic German.

You cant have White ethnic Afrikans....those people who are white have either moved there or are Afrikaaners..who are orginally Dutch and such.

Anyone who follows Judaism is fully a Jew..regardless of their race/ethnicity.

Sure sweet pea, although not everybody on the list will make it into the quiz as my co-creator and I have decided to make it one person per result. :( But rest assured that you are very popular and well-known, and are often mentioned on random threads in absentia.

Alright well, may the best choice win!:p

Keep saying that and eventualy you will convince yourself. :p

I dont understand how you think its possible that a black african and a white German who both practice Judaism are of the same race????:confused:

Well, I think saying that Judaism is race is maybe not entirely true but definately partly true. Sure, there are Black, White, Asian, etc. Jews, but there was still an original Jewsih people in Israel and I bet they all looked pretty much the same sine they came from the same area. Same with Islam. Sure, not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arabs, but most are and people often associate the two.

"This war is a crusade to wipe out evil...God is on our side" -George W Bush

On a number of occasions, in the Old Testament, the Jewish People attempted to wipe out Ba'alists

Because these events are confirmed in other history texts, and some historians believe there may have been a great flood on which the story of Noah's Ark was based, as prior to the Judeo-Christian tale of Noah's Ark, the Egyptians and many other civilizations (whom the Jews would later encounter) had similar stories

Christianity has on a number occasions attempted to use war to wipe out an opposing religion, see The Crusades, and arguably see The War on Terror, the Jewish People, when they have been concentrated and powerful have attempted to wipe opposing religions, see their constant wars with Ba'alist nations.


Rotovia..The crusades were NOT an attempt to wipe out a people or a religion..the Crusades were in fact a political and economic War that just USED relogion to gather forces and provide moral and zealots for the cause .
At the time You had two Types of Christianity..and depending on what crudsade you are talking about ..each with different degree's of power.
The cherry was trade from India and asia and spices that were under the controll of Islamic forces . Instead of oil it was spices ,amber etc.

As for Bush...and his poor choice of words...Yes Rotovia a large majority of Americans DO see fanatical Jihadist aas terrorist and do consider those that would fly air liners full of people into buildings as EVIL...and most could not care less what current flavor of religion they claim to hold...they are evil so kill them before they can kill us works just fine for most .


As for the Jews...they through history have been about the most wiped out group of people on the face of the planet that still exist . American Indians ..from the North to the south along with Africans from..pick a spot..
the Indians died for much the reasons the jews were killed or scattered or enslaved...they lost and someone stronger wanted their stuff and won .

Most conflict at its roots has greed or power or conquest...or all of the above..with religion used as a tool or a means to an end .

As far as the war on terror being arguably an attempt to wipe out a religion..thats not arguable its laughable. Especially when you consider American capability to wage total war and American values.
If the US was determined to wipe something out it would not be arguable it would simply be wiped out period . And as far as wiping out a religion ..thats evenmore laughable considering the amount of Islamic types we have living in the US .

As far as Jews and Baalist...who cares ? The French tried to wipe out the Germans who tried to wipe out everyone..the British tried to wipe out the Boers the Zulu's and the French and the Germans ..the US has tried to wipe out the Communist States ..and has largely succeeded..the Japanese tried to wipe out CHINA for cripes sake...were they nuts or what ? The Russians when they were not wiping out Russians tried to wipe out and did a few times the Ukarane and Poland and all the Stans...and non if it was for RELIGION ..unless you consider cooking jews kosher and therefore religiouse.

History shows the Jews as being a minority that has survived despite the odds from being eradicated from the Earth. And not as an aggressor .
Zionism is what happens when an entire group of people are hunted and killed for no other reason than their religion . Those that want to survive find a way .

.

Well, I think saying that Judaism is race is maybe not entirely true but definately partly true. Sure, there are Black, White, Asian, etc. Jews, but there was still an original Jewsih people in Israel and I bet they all looked pretty much the same sine they came from the same area. Same with Islam. Sure, not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arabs, but most are and people often associate the two.

Yes..but those people that you are talking about...the Hebrews...arnt the relateves of all Jews...though every Jew likes to think they are. Its jsut not possible. People tend to forget, that before the temple was destroyed...Judaism was a religion that conquered and converted people....and some people convereted on their own...like those Caucasion poeple..the Khazars...take that and mix it with the mixing of peoples in Europe and America today...along with a few conversions (It only takes a few cuz there arnt that many Jews) and you dont have a homogenous group of people at all. AT ALL.

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends.
(snip)
"Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a KKK member or some kind of white supremacist, and I do have black friends"

oh please. :rolleyes:

I dont understand how you think its possible that a black african and a white German who both practice Judaism are of the same race????:confused:

Just one more time. Jews are by definitions both a race and a religion. You can have Jewish Christians, and African Jews. I am sorry if you can not understand that. Shaloam.

Yes..but those people that you are talking about...the Hebrews...are the relateves of all Jews...though every Jew likes to think they are. Its jsut not possible. People tend to forget, that before the temple was destroyed...Judaism was a religion that conquered and converted people....and some people convereted on their own...like those Caucasion poeple..the Khazars...take that and mix it with the mixing of peoples in Europe and America today...along with a few conversions (It only takes a few cuz there arnt that many Jews) and you dont have a homogenous group of people at all. AT ALL.

Let it be recorded that on this day, for the first and possibly last time, I agree with you.

"Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a KKK member or some kind of white supremacist, and I do have black friends"

oh please. :rolleyes:

Haha, exactly. Hes a tool, leave him be.:D

Just one more time. Jews are by definitions both a race and a religion. You can have Jewish Christians, and African Jews. I am sorry if you can not understand that. Shaloam.

No you cant be a Jewish Christian..I've asked the Rabbi. The main purpose, of being Jewish...being part of the Chosen..is acceptance in the one true God and his religion....converted to another religion or debunking God violates this covenant and you are no longer Jewish if you convert to Islam...dont beleive in God...ect.

Let it be recorded that on this day, for the first and possibly last time, I agree with you.

Ewww...*feels dirty from his agreement with Nodina...*

*Goes to shower*

Christianity has never launched a crusade to wipe out another religion? Jews have never tried to wipe out another religion or race?

Do Christians and Jews abduct and behead people? Do Christians and Jews strap bombs on themselves and run into a group of children? Do Chrisitians and Jews hijack planes and crash them into things?

What a completely and utterly STUPID thing to say. Please, don't have children.

I don't mind Jews; I don't like their religion, though. Or any other religion, for that matter.

Of course, that isn't what I said. I said that Judaism has not acted in its history like Islam does, and that Christianity currently doesn't.

Christianity, by nature, has the intent to wipe out all other religions. The Christian Utopia would be for everyone to become a Christian, and thus be saved. Of course, not all Christians believe this, but that is the general intent with religions that desire to convert. Judaism doesn't attempt to convert others, and doesn't have a history of attempting to wipe out other religions.

There are spurious accounts of genocide in the Bible - but why do the anti-Semites and the anti-religionists pick these out as accepted fact and then deny stories like Noah's Ark? Neither has any more substantial archaeological evidence than the other. We don't really start getting solid histories until the monarchy period. It just goes to show the double standard with which people will evaluate the Bible, for whatever reason.

But, back to the original point and response, because Judaism has not demonstrated anything within its history to Christian and Muslim crusades, or current trends in Jihad, and since Christianity (a similiar religion with a similiar size to Islam) doesn't exhibit those trends, there is no reason to assume that Judaism would given the same numbers.

In 1947, just before the creation of the nation of Israel, Jewish terrorist (that's right, terrorist) groups, without the support or sanction of the Haganah or Yishuv, blew up British and Moslem buildings, with people in them. In acts of reprisal and revenge the tortured and hung British soldiers. The acted without restraint towards the British and Moslems. (not that the British, who were behaving like mini-Nazis, did not merit actions against them, but this should have been handled by the UN, not the individual terrorist actions of radically violent splinter groups). If there had been more of them, I doubt any Englishman (whether for or against them) or Moslem would have survived in what is now Israel. This is not to say that Jews are worse than Moslems or Christians. It is a statement on human nature, humans are as vicious as rats when they perceive themselves to be cornered. One group is not better than another in terms of humanity. Some groups are better than others in terms of the morality supported by their culture, though perhaps not in their practice of that morality.

People don't like jews?:eek:
:rolleyes:

I wouldn't say I hate the Jews, but I really don't see any reason why they should be off limits to criticism, given that criticism of anyone else is allowed. I for one can't agree to the whole "chosen people" thing or the calls for what amounts to racial purity that implies. When white people call themselves the chosen people and oppose intermarriage, they are called racist and rightly so. I only extend this valid criticism to the Jews as well as to white supremacists.

Additionally, as I understand it, there are a lot of brutal events in the Tanakh that are celebrated as righteous, such as various genocides and holy wars. Indeed, they remind me of the current behavior of Israel, taking land under religious justications. Incidently, I'm not even sure I see the difference between a Jewish state and an "aryan" state.

I wouldn't say I hate the Jews, but I really don't see any reason why they should be off limits to criticism, given that criticism of anyone else is allowed. I for one can't agree to the whole "chosen people" thing or the calls for what amounts to racial purity that implies. When white people call themselves the chosen people and oppose intermarriage, they are called racist and rightly so. I only extend this valid criticism to the Jews as well as to white supremacists.

Additionally, as I understand it, there are a lot of brutal events in the Tanakh that are celebrated as righteous, such as various genocides and holy wars. Indeed, they remind me of the current behavior of Israel, taking land under religious justications. Incidently, I'm not even sure I see the difference between a Jewish state and an "aryan" state.

I'm not even sure I see the difference between you and a tool. The aryan state was about cleansing the earth of all that were deemed unfit to live in it. The Jewish state is about having a place where Jews can go should they be expelled from wherever they are currently living, as has happend about, oh, say...1902812093812 times throughout history.

Again, maybe. I'm 1/8th Jewish, tracing back through my mother and grandmother


I'd like to point out here that if your mother is Jewish and you were born from her then you are in fact Jewish yourself

I don't like any religions, really, and Judaism isn't an exception. I like Jews and I know a lot of Jewish people. I grew up with a lot of them. I don't think there should be a Jewish state, just as I don't believe there should be Christian states, but there's no reason why Jews shouldn't live in Israel and why the the Arabs should stop them.

I'm not even sure I see the difference between you and a tool. The aryan state was about cleansing the earth of all that were deemed unfit to live in it. The Jewish state is about having a place where Jews can go should they be expelled from wherever they are currently living, as has happend about, oh, say...1902812093812 times throughout history.

Not necessarily. Plenty of neo-nazis I've debated are interested merely in a white nation without intending widespread genocide. They also agree with the Jews that interracial marriage is abhorrent and have a tendency to celebrate a past of conquest, by the way.

Not necessarily. Plenty of neo-nazis I've debated are interested merely in a white nation without intending widespread genocide. They also agree with the Jews that interracial marriage is abhorrent and have a tendency to celebrate a past of conquest, by the way.

Uh...most Jews seem to like interracial marriage...as shown by the many left wing Jews in the media who push it in their agenda.

Now, if you mean marrying outside the Jewish religion...many Jews dont like it because Jews are so few in numbers they dont want us to die out.

Personally, I like nordic women...and as there arnt too many Jews in Scandanavia...I probably WILL be marrying outside my religion.

maybe ur gay?

Don't worry. Most Leftists secretly (or not-so-secretly) hate the Jews...Otherwise, they would'nt hold the views they do.

There, I said it. Deal with it. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi or some kind of white supremacist (that would frankly be more ironic then anything else), and I do have Jewish friends. But there is something about the very notion of Judaism that makes me... uneasy.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But a "Jew" is not the same thing as "Judiasm." Maybe you should spend more time researching this, before you state something so casually. Are you seeking (forum) attention?

Why not be honest with your Jewish friends and have a discussion with them?

Alright...if Jews really are a race, then I suppose me (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12361or.jpg)and these guys (http://palestinefacts.org/images/ethiopian_jews.jpg)are of the same race????:confused: :rolleyes:



Yes, so do I...its sorta a long standing thing to call Jews a race...but by the pictures above, its quite clear we are not.

Shit, Atlantian! You are sooo cute! How can you stand it? I wanna play with your hair. =)

Shit, Atlantian! You are sooo cute! How can you stand it? I wanna play with your hair. =)

LOL...not quite the point I was trying to make....but...well, you know I can never resist a fan!:p Just kidding, my heads not that big!:D

Thanks....as long as you're a girl, you can play with my hair anytime.

Heres a better pic if you want. HERE (http://img195.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12295jf.jpg)

Do Christians and Jews abduct and behead people? Do Christians and Jews strap bombs on themselves and run into a group of children? Do Chrisitians and Jews hijack planes and crash them into things?

Heh. No. But then I guess that might be because Jews in Israel have an advanced, modern military complete with nuclear weapons technology, and Christians around the world have no need to desperately blow themselves up just in hopes of killing one or two enemies when they can just have the US send bombs and cruise missiles.

People seem to think economics and geography have nothing to do with terrorism, that terrorism is only caused Muslims are inferior and barbaric unlike civilized Westerners. That to me shows an ignorance and little else.

Lastly, Celtlund, just answer me this question. If Jews are a race, how in the fuck is it possible to have a black Jew or a white Jew? Try thinking about what you're saying before you reply.

I wouldn't say I hate the Jews, but I really don't see any reason why they should be off limits to criticism...

You never did respond to my refutation of your criticisms over in Judaism. If you want to claim that your charges are correct you should address the points I made first.

So why don't you like Jews and do you're friends know you don't like them? And how exactly can you tell if someone is a jew I don't know if I have ever met a jewish person or not.

So why don't you like Jews and do you're friends know you don't like them? And how exactly can you tell if someone is a jew I don't know if I have ever met a jewish person or not.

Where do you live?

Meh. Israel blows, and there are a lot of Jews there behind the whole thing and here in America lobbying for that particular terrorist state. Guess that means I don't like quite a few Jews as well.

Where do you live?
Canada. Why?

Canada. Why?

Just wondering where it is you live that you've never seen a Jew.

Athiests have a record of killing and abusing people too (communists and so forth).


Atheism does not equal communism.

The difference would be that 'crusades are in the name of religion, and would not happen without it. Whereas the killings by say, Stalin, had nothing to do with his atheism, rather, his totalitarian dictatorship(because the USSR was hardly communist...

LOL...not quite the point I was trying to make....but...well, you know I can never resist a fan!:p Just kidding, my heads not that big!:D

Thanks....as long as you're a girl, you can play with my hair anytime.

Heres a better pic if you want. HERE (http://img195.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12295jf.jpg)

Yes, I am a girl...a little bit older than you, but that wouldn't bother you would it? =D

Just wondering where it is you live that you've never seen a Jew.

I'm just gonna guess....the moon?:D

Just wondering where it is you live that you've never seen a Jew.
Well, apart from a few telltale signs (not even worn by every jew), it's not like you've got "Jew" stamped on the forehead. So it's quite possible to have seen a jew without having SEEN a jew.

Yes, I am a girl...a little bit older than you, but that wouldn't bother you would it? =D

Well, it depends...are we talking like mid 20's or are we talking like early 70's?

I'm just gonna guess....the moon?:D

Or Saudi Arabia...but I dont think hes there cuz I'm pretty sure internet violates "Al Will Al Allah!"

Well, apart from a few telltale signs (not even worn by every jew), it's not like you've got "Jew" stamped on the forehead. So it's quite possible to have seen a jew without having SEEN a jew.

This is true, but how do you know he meant that and not..."I've never seen a Jew".

You could be right, I'm just saying.

I'm not gonna lose sleep over some stupid kid in his moms basement who gets offended when someone calls him a ******, but then turns over and makes an anti semetic rant...in fact, I'll sleep lightly because of it....Just another tool showing his true colors.


Haha, exactly. Hes a tool, leave him be.:D

I'm not even sure I see the difference between you and a tool.
please refrain form the personal insults...

please refrain form the personal insults...

Uh...what are you, hyper-sensative?

One of them came outright and said that he doesnt like Jews, while the other said he sees no difference in the Nazis Aryan paradise than the Jews Israel....yet your complaining that I said the word tool??:p

Its almost laughable.

Do you even know what 'tool' means?

Uh...what are you, hyper-sensative?

One of them came outright and said that he doesnt like Jews, while the other said he sees no difference in the Nazis Aryan paradise than the Jews Israel....yet your complaining that I said the word tool??:p

Its almost laughable.

Do you even know what 'tool' means?

Same thing as calling some body a 'prick' or 'dick'. Least it is in these parts.

Same thing as calling some body a 'prick' or 'dick'. Least it is in these parts.

Where are 'these' parts?

Where are 'these' parts?

If you don't know where your 'tool' is at this stage, my lad, theres no point me trying to explain it to you...

Uh...what are you, hyper-sensative?

One of them came outright and said that he doesnt like Jews, while the other said he sees no difference in the Nazis Aryan paradise than the Jews Israel....yet your complaining that I said the word tool??:p

Its almost laughable.

Do you even know what 'tool' means?
see, here's the thing:
one says he doesn't like a group of people.

The other use a derogatory term aimed at one specific poster, against forum rules.

By all means, continue with your use of insults. I was being polite and asking you to quit it. I don't have mod powers, so I can't very well stop you from being condescending. What I can do is go in moderation and see if the mods agree with me.

Your call.

see, here's the thing:
one says he doesn't like a group of people.

The other use a derogatory term aimed at one specific poster, against forum rules.

By all means, continue with your use of insults. I was being polite and asking you to quit it. I don't have mod powers, so I can't very well stop you from being condescending. What I can do is go in moderation and see if the mods agree with me.

Your call.

Do you really have that little of a life that your gonna go tell the Mods on me that I called a guy who is blatantly anti-semetic and a guy who equates Israel to the Aryan Paradise and the Jews to the Nazis a tool?

Which isnt really that bad of a word here, its sorta a joke...like your lame. Ever seen family guy?

If you don't know where your 'tool' is at this stage, my lad, theres no point me trying to explain it to you...

lol, thats funny.

We just use it in exchange for lame, gay, or like 'you're a joke'...something like that.

Do you really have that little of a life that your gonna go tell the Mods on me that I called a guy who is blatantly anti-semetic and a guy who equates Israel to the Aryan Paradise and the Jews to the Nazis a tool?

Which isnt really that bad of a word here, its sorta a joke...like your lame. Ever seen family guy?
Yes I will. attack the argument, not the poster.

Mild insults are insults nonetheless. Coming form someone who scream anti-semitism as soon as we disagree with something Israel or a jew does, I have no problem with reporting mild insult.

Yes I will. attack the argument, not the poster.

Mild insults are insults nonetheless. Coming form someone who scream anti-semitism as soon as we disagree with something Israel or a jew does, I have no problem with reporting mild insult.

Uh...I think your confusing me with Tropical Sands...I usually dont scream Anti-semetism...except these two times when its blantatly obvious.

Uh...I think your confusing me with Tropical Sands...I usually dont scream Anti-semetism...except these two times when its blantatly obvious.
TS is worse than you, sure. But you have called me anti-semitist in the past on at least 3 occasions, so it's not like you don't. But that's not the point.

Please, refrain from insults. If other insult you(or anyone else), I shall ask them the same, provided I see them as I'm going offline in 30 minutes.

TS is worse than you, sure. But you have called me anti-semitist in the past on at least 3 occasions, so it's not like you don't. But that's not the point.

Please, refrain from insults. If other insult you(or anyone else), I shall ask them the same, provided I see them as I'm going offline in 30 minutes.

I dont remember calling you anti semetic. Show me.


Also, I suggest you man up a bit...and dont be so sensitive....who cares if someone calls someone a tool, does it actually hurt their feelings?

I dont remember calling you anti semetic. Show me.


Also, I suggest you man up a bit...and dont be so sensitive....who cares if someone calls someone a tool, does it actually hurt their feelings?

No, but it makes the insulter look like a tool. :p

TS is worse than you, sure. But you have called me anti-semitist in the past on at least 3 occasions, so it's not like you don't. But that's not the point.

Please, refrain from insults. If other insult you(or anyone else), I shall ask them the same, provided I see them as I'm going offline in 30 minutes.

I'm a little fuzzy on the insult thing - you mean that if someone says, "you sound like a Republican" or "you sound like a Communist" or "you sound anti-semitic" that is somehow an insult?

If that's true, then I've been insulted by about 1 in 3 posters on this forum, every day.

No, but it makes the insulter look like a tool. :p

:D So be it.

I'm a little fuzzy on the insult thing - you mean that if someone says, "you sound like a Republican" or "you sound like a Communist" or "you sound anti-semitic" that is somehow an insult?

If that's true, then I've been insulted by about 1 in 3 posters on this forum, every day.

Yes, the over-reactive, over-pc left is at it again.

I called a guy who hates Jews a tool...so I get bitched at, pffft.

This thread is repetitious, boring and has a strong deja vu, and deja read flair in it. Everything everybody wrote had been said 5000 years ago. To be fair, I don't like anybody. But I gues that's the case with all the posters here probably. I think quoting Hitler gives the person a very strong moral basis to post critic on all those people Hitler loves so much. I wish I could hide those stupid forum posts somehow, but probably you can't. You come to a place to have some fun, then you get this crap.
Sad!
Don't bother replying, I won't read this thread again!

Yes, the over-reactive, over-pc left is at it again.

I called a guy who hates Jews a tool...so I get bitched at, pffft.


I dont see anything about "hating jews."

Get a grip.

with Jewish friends, am extremely open-minded and I am opposed to racism, xenophobia and prejudice of any kind,

I just love it how you really contradict your self. You expect me to belive you are against prejudice, xenophobia, and a quote unquote tolerant person, when you openly admit you hate Jews? That's B.S. utter B.S. you are anti-semtic trying to cover your own behind. I don't care what others might say, but you truly are a hypocrite. I'm as tolerant as you can get, and if I came out and told I hated X minority group, I would be pretty hypocritcal. You see you can't be against prejudice, when you are prejudice. That is what defines hypocracy.

I just love it how you really contradict your self. You expect me to belive you are against prejudice, xenophobia, and a quote unquote tolerant person, when you openly admit you hate Jews? That's B.S. utter B.S. you are anti-semtic trying to cover your own behind. I don't care what others might say, but you truly are a hypocrite. I'm as tolerant as you can get, and if I came out and told I hated X minority group, I would be pretty hypocritcal. You see you can't be against prejudice, when you are prejudice. That is what defines hypocracy.

Hypocrisy is the human condition. We cannot escape it. We all display it in one context or another. Some know this and some don't.

I just love it how you really contradict your self. You expect me to belive you are against prejudice, xenophobia, and a quote unquote tolerant person, when you openly admit you hate Jews? That's B.S. utter B.S. you are anti-semtic trying to cover your own behind. I don't care what others might say, but you truly are a hypocrite. I'm as tolerant as you can get, and if I came out and told I hated X minority group, I would be pretty hypocritcal. You see you can't be against prejudice, when you are prejudice. That is what defines hypocracy.


Where does he say he hates jews?

Yes, the over-reactive, over-pc left is at it again.

I called a guy who hates Jews a tool...so I get bitched at, pffft.

Did he say he hated Jews?

Did he say he hated Jews?
He didn't. The only over reaction I see, are the ones that claim that he did.

see, here's the thing:
one says he doesn't like a group of people.

The other use a derogatory term aimed at one specific poster, against forum rules.

By all means, continue with your use of insults. I was being polite and asking you to quit it. I don't have mod powers, so I can't very well stop you from being condescending. What I can do is go in moderation and see if the mods agree with me.

Your call.

You are all on notice!

THERE WILL BE NO CALLING A SPADE A SPADE ON THIS FORUM

:p

You are all on notice!

THERE WILL BE NO CALLING A SPADE A SPADE ON THIS FORUM

:p

Clubs, Hearts and Diamonds are ok, then?

Think so? The early history of Islam was far more violent than the early history of Christianity. Islamic Caliphates engaged in civil war for hundreds of years. Muslims used to strap verses of the Koran to their lances and swords before going into battle with one another. While we have had warring in Christian Europe, there was less that could be called internal religious conflict than in Islam.

In any case, it is all speculation. Its meaningless to say "well if this, if that." We know what exists today, and what has existed throughout history. Proposing alternate histories does not make a party guilty; what makes a party guilty is their actions throughout history some and in modern times more. The fact that Muslims states have much poorer human rights records than the Jewish state can't be overlooked by the hypothesis that if Jews were larger they would do it too. Rather, its just a scapegoat to shift blame off of other groups and push it onto the Jews.

Youre forgetting about how religously guided or influenced wars have been in the western world - World War I and the European Wars before that, as well as the US Civil war were essentially wars between so called Christians.

Islam is no match for the blood that has flowed in the western world or because of actions taken by the western world. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian targets, incenerated by a nation supposedly founded on Christian principals.

Christianity doesn't currently act like Islam, and it has the numbers. Nor in the past when Jews were a majority in a population that lived by Jewish Law did they act like Islam throughout history.


Yes they did....Tell that to the thousands they rounded up and shot when Palistine was still a nation, and Moshe Dayan led terrorist groups slaughtering innocent women and children, because they would not leave their homes and surrender them to Jewish people.

I myself am not anti-semetic. Some of my best friends are jewish. But I do recognize that they, like all religions, have committed horrible atrocities in their time. Christians during the crusades, Jews since the beginning of time, and radical Muslims for the past few decades (and since the beginning of time as well). I do not mean to offend anyone, though this certainly will, just do not claim that an entity such as members of the Jewish faith are innocent and Muslims per se aren't. I seem to recall there being numerous civillian casulties and peoples homes being demolished by Jewish soldiers during their frequent incursions into the Gaza strip.


anyway, there is nothing wrong feeling the way you feel. However, usually people who feel the way you do dislike Israel, and not Jewish people in general, and will state so. Perhaps you merely worded your paragraph wrong. I hold nothing against you :)

again, do not mistake me as an anti-semetic. I am a historian, and just chose to enlighten you to the lamentable realities of the world. Moshe Dayan did what he did believing he was right, and protecting his family. There is honor in that, but it is disgraceful that he had to do it in such a horrible manner.

ok...rant over. I do hope you all have no lesser opinion of me.

Has anybody Godwin'ed this thread yet?

After reading the starting premise, something that was plausible, although not articulated in the best possible manner, this thread veered off into primarily a debate on the merits of being a Jew and the Jewish race/ethnicity/religion.

I'm writing this poorly written expression not to insight anti-semitism, or open myself to flame, but to encourage all of us to consider our own internal faults and the need to address them, in order to function as a society.
The last sentence of the OP's could have been an interesting point if people chose to address it. But such was not to be. Therefore, this thread is closed to discussion.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator