Skip to main content

A recent article in a Christian journal, Ichthus, published by Harvard students has repeated an anti-Semitic slur that was responsible for the death of thousands of Jews throughout the ages. The hateful words appearing in Ichthus (I hesitate to give them visibility here) were, "We, the Jews, collectively rejected God and hung Him up on a cross to die, and thus we deserved the punishment that were heaped on our head over the last 2000 years."  This diatribe was written by an anonymous person who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity. After an uproar, the Ichthus article was removed with a lukewarm and puzzling apology that it was not the policy of Ichthus or the writer "to present a piece that is anti-Semitic in nature or interpretation". But Ichthus then concludes with, "the necessity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone". So much for repentance.

The import of these words was recited throughout Christian Europe on medieval Easter Sundays. It  was the reason why Easters were a sacred commemoration for Christians but a day of fear and trepidation for Jews. After hearing about the Jewish culpability in the death of Christ on Easter Sundays, village toughs would spill out of their churches to attack, beat and loot their Jewish neighbors. These pogroms were an Easter Sunday village sport.

At least in theory since those days of open and rampant anti-Semitism, the world has moved on in social justice. Christian leaders, including Popes John XXIII and Benedict XVI have openly stated that Jews are not responsible for the death of Christ. If nothing else, a historical study of how the Romans ruled and controlled captive peoples pointed to the real perpetrators, but this message obviously did not reach Ichthus.

Yet this age-old, black stain on human morality continues. It seems the need for anti-Semitism to provide Jewish scapegoats to assuage feelings of rage and inadequacy goes on despite the world's supposed progress in civility and governance. What has changed is the Jewish reaction to anti-Semitism. Learning from the stark, bloody lesson of the Holocaust, Jews have dropped their passivity to the scourge of anti-Semitism. Now Jews know that anti-Semitism must be confronted, exposed and squashed; silence leads to degradation and annihilation.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My understanding, at least (12+ / 0-)

    is that Ichthus is NOT a journal sponsored by the college itself, at least.

    But considering the high number of sheltered, privileged people (especially legacies) that go there, this sort of thing is hardly surprising, if maddeningly offensive.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:15:32 AM PST

  •  A perfect example of Nopology. Kinda like lawyers (6+ / 0-)

    pull in trial to get a idea planted in jurors heads before the judge tells them to forget it. Yeah, ignore that big pink elephant sitting on the green Martian. And the lawyer apologizes before turning away with a small satisfied smile.

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:20:31 AM PST

  •  Stupid slur - it actually contradicts christianity (13+ / 0-)

    Uh, I thought the central point of Christian salvation doctrine was that Christ died on the cross for ALL our sins.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

    If you believe that the Jews put Jesus to death and should be punished for it, then you are rejecting your own state as a sinner in need of salvation, and thus reject Jesus himself.

    In the reading of the passion gospel on Palm Sunday during Catholic Mass, it is customary that the priest reads Jesus' words, one lector narrates, one reads the words of Peter, Herod, Pilate, etc. AND the congregation says the words of the crowd, including "Crucify Him".

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:21:41 AM PST

    •  Too bad that churches, priests/pastors/etc (0+ / 0-)

      through most of the history of the religion disagree with you there.

      •  No. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        absdoggy, Lujane, RoIn, Wee Mama

        The modal understanding is just what absdoggy states.

        You say "...churches, priests/pastors/etc ... disagree with you there" without qualifying with "many", "most", "some", "all" ...

        Clearly, the antisemitic interpretation did (and does) exist. It is just as clear that the orthodox interpretation has predominated throughout church history, as documented by liturgical texts, hymns, devotional writings, etc.

        "Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?
            Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee!
            'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee;
            I crucified thee. "

        289. Ah, Holy Jesus
        Text: Johann Heermann, 1585-1647; trans. by Robert S. Bridges, 1844-1930
        Music: Johann Cruger, 1598-1662
        Tune: HERZLIEBSTER JESU, Meter: 11 11 11.5

        Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

        by memiller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:20:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not looking at the theory or 'modal (0+ / 0-)

          understanding' or whatever -- just (roughly 2 millennia of) history.

          From the outside, all your internal debates aren't interesting. Their effects, now, that's something different.

          •  Well, the effects (0+ / 0-)

            of the standard, typical (which is all I meant by modal) understanding of Jesus' death on the cross were that those Christians who held it did NOT blame it on the Jews; and hence did not take any part in any antisemitic actions based on a view they did not hold.

            And that is a good thing, right?

            In saying this I don't mean to be flippant. And I am far from denying the reality or prevalence of antisemitism, pogroms, etc. throughout Christendom. What I am saying is that these things did not have their primary source in an understanding of the death of Jesus being blamed on the Jews.

            The sources of Christian antisemitism are complex, but my reading of history -- my opinion, only -- is that it was basically just a matter of Jews' otherness, their forming this indigestible lump within the otherwise uniform structure of Christendom, which by merely existing stood as a threat to the asserted universality of Christian society.

            To the extent that any "Christ-killing" blame developed, it was a secondary justification, I think, for this primary hatred based on the mere fact that any dared to reject the 'obvious' superiority of Christian society; and one at odds with the primary theological understanding of the Passion.

            Not that the details of the motivation matter that much to the victims. But I believe this view is in fact more accurate as a matter of history.

            Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

            by memiller on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 02:46:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if you think about it (3+ / 0-)

      All of Christian theology is predicated on the idea of original sin. The concept of original sin means that you are held responsible for something that you didn't do personally. That's fundamentally immoral, in my opinion.

      It's the same principle that this writer at the Harvard Journal applied to Jewish people.

    •  That's actually a little bit creepy to my ears (0+ / 0-)

      although I suspect that, when actually done in the course of the Mass, it's probably not as creepy.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:47:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't say creepy, but disturbing, yes (0+ / 0-)

        At least to me, it has always been hard to say these words. But they were said, and the context is that Jesus gave his life for us. Hindsight makes the words difficult, but in the time and place, it is what happened.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:26:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  just a suggestion (14+ / 0-)


    it is a very common grammatical error to use the word "squash" (to squeeze, press, or crush) when the proper word is "quash" - to suppress forcibly.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:22:59 AM PST

  •  historical inaccuracy (16+ / 0-)


    it wasn't 'the Jews' who executed Jesus - it was the Roman government.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:24:56 AM PST

  •  InB4 'well Israel...' (0+ / 0-)

    Because as obstinate as the majority government in Israel is acting and has acted, that should have nothing to do with the treatment of individual Jews across the world.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:27:52 AM PST

  •  Nothing like one person deciding they speak for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid, davidincleveland, Mortifyd

    an entire race or ethinicity or religion, especially when they've just rejected that group themselves, and are simply dissing the group they left.

  •  Had Jesus actually existed, he would be REALLY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrfrog

    pissed about this.

    Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

    by hazzcon on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:38:11 AM PST

    •  It's tough on polite Athiests when (6+ / 0-)

      they have dicks running around message boards, taking potshot in religious threads anytime they can.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:03:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Polite Atheism will get atheists what (0+ / 0-)

        polite homosexuality got homosexuals: more oppression. Atheists are one of the most ruthlessly oppressed groups in this country. I don't think its any more unreasonable for me to be a "dick" by suggesting that Jesus may not have existed than it is for Christians to ask me to believe in a fairy tale to prevent me from burning in hellfire so I may dwell eternally in an imaginary paradise worshiping their hero. Thanks, but no thanks.

        Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

        by hazzcon on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 05:05:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, how are atheists.. (0+ / 0-)

          "one of the most ruthlessly oppressed groups in this country" (I'm presuming you mean the United States and not Saudi Arabia)?

          •  from teh google (0+ / 0-)

            The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:

                Arkansas:

                    "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[84]

                Maryland:

                    "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[85]

                Mississippi:

                    "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[86]

                North Carolina:

                    "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[87]

                South Carolina:

                    "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[88]

                Tennessee:

                    "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[89]

                Texas:

                    "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[90]

            An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

                Pennsylvania:

                    "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[91]

            Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

            by hazzcon on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:13:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Took me about 4 seconds to find this. (0+ / 0-)

              I could easily get you many, many more examples of the horrific treatment that atheists have received in this country for decades but I have a feeling that you are perfectly capable of finding that information yourself.

              Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

              by hazzcon on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:15:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I guess "ruthless oppression" (0+ / 0-)

              is in the eye of the beholder.

              •  It's definitely an overstatement (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Oh Mary Oh

                to say we're oppressed in the sense that minorities, immigrants, etc. are oppressed.

                But it's also true that atheists are one of the few groups for which open prejudice is still culturally accepted. As late as 1987 the sitting Vice President says we shouldn't be considered citizens -- and he went on to be elected President the next year.

                More recently there's this:

                http://atheism.about.com/...

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 03:00:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are there other groups in America today that are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bobtmn

                barred by their states' constitutions from holding public office for their religious beliefs? There are not. Examples of real physical violence perpetrated by believers against atheists are rather abundantly available with a quick Google search. So, yeah, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

                Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

                by hazzcon on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 05:42:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Hah, so true (eom) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hazzcon

      Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior. -Julian Assange-

      by ChadmanFL on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:00:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Jesus was a myth" has about the same weight with (0+ / 0-)

      historians that "Creation science" has with biologists.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:51:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The entirety of the Biblical story is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nospinicus

    more complicated and more conspiracy oriented than commonly looked at in some regards. The average Jewish people didn't not crucify Jesus, that is true and it never should have been taught.

    The Pharisees were the ones who had Him arrested and turned over to Pilate who turned Him over to Herod who turned Him BACK over to Pilate who finally turned to the crowd. It was a pretty convoluted series of "trials" from all parties involved that led to it and the resurrection, but that's another discussion.

    What is currently true is that within Judaism they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah and there are differing schools of thought on conversion matters. (which, again, I really don't want to debate only to say that they exist)

    From a purely philosophical context the people responsible for the crucifixion were all of us. As He came for all of us that kinda makes us the reason for it and makes us, in a round about way, responsible for it. (Not really looking to get into a huge argument here just saying a philosophical point I've thought about for a long time)

    “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

    by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:50:02 AM PST

    •  I'm not responsible for killing Jesus. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      susans, BPARTR, davidincleveland

      Only in the minds of believers in the monotheist doctrine of original sin (coupled with the messianism of the Gospels) do I partake in such communal, pre-born guilt. "From a purely philosophical context"??? "No, from a purely sectarian context does your statement have any meaning.

      Hell, I don't even know what really went down in Jerusalem 2K years ago.  I only give a shit about what's happening now and how that affects the future.  In that sense, I see religion in general and monotheism in particular as the greatest threat to humanity at this point.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

      by nailbender on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:02:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're free to feel that way (0+ / 0-)

        and I support your freedom to choose whatever you want to believe in.

        I've no interest in forcing anyone to believe what I believe and neither do most believers. Only the ones with money and television stations seem to think that way, and I've had my issues with them for a while now.

        Personally my faith guides my steps and how I treat others. I try to be kind, I try to be compassionate and I try to treat other people how I want to be treated; but I also stand up for what I think is right whether that makes me unpopular or not. I say what I mean and I mean what I say; and sometimes that gets me in trouble. I tend not to sugarcoat things when I feel that truth is more important than niceties; and I can be downright blunt and sarcastic when I think I need to be.

        But as I said, you're free to believe as you want, and more power to you. I believe my faith and my religion have aided me and allowed me to survive things that might have otherwise killed me.

        “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

        by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:47:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, we are (0+ / 0-)
          You're free to feel that way
          We did not kill your Jesus- and neither did any living person on the planet today.

          You are free to feel that any living person on the planet today is responsible for the killing of your Jesus- but even you cannot believe that anyone living on the planet today actually killed him.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:54:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's where I don't like english at times (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell

            Other languages can be a bit more precise without having to get hyper-technical. lol

            By responsible I mean in the sense that we're the reason for His death and resurrection. No one alive today actively took His life, and that's not the impression I was trying to give.

            Too many definitions of the word responsible in this case, as it can lead to interpreting things I didn't intend.

            “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

            by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:25:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  as I said, (0+ / 0-)

              you are entitled to believe what you wish

              we're the reason for His death and resurrection
              but while YOU may believe that I am the reason, I do not, and I don't really appreciate you including me in your beliefs.  (Much as Jews do not like being baptized or having their ancestors or family members baptized by Mormons.)

              In both cases, It is presumptuous and disregards the feelings of others.

              As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

              by BPARTR on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:38:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's a rather stark difference there (0+ / 0-)

                Part of spreading the Gospel, which is Great Commission of the Church, is talking about the reasons for the death, burial and resurrection; and that means you have get into context of what things mean. In telling someone about our beliefs and sharing the faith with them we have to explain it in a way that a person can relate to. There's an oft forgotten interpretation of John 3:16 that people used to talk about that I rarely hear mentioned any more. I was once told, many years ago, that the best explanation for everything was to take that verse and replace the words the World with your name. Even if you were the only person that ever came to Him He still would have come. So when I say we're the reason, I don't mean that in the negative context, it's in the context of His love. (again none of this should come as a shock to anyone. I've repeatedly mentioned my faith and how much it matters to me)

                When the Mormons posthumously baptize someone, that someone and their family has no choice in the matter. They just do it and the heck with what anyone thinks or feels about it. Their actions are reprehensible for a number of reasons, but one of the most important is the negation of choice. You cannot force someone to be your faith, no matter what you try or what ritual you perform.  They have to actively choose, and once they're dead it's a little too late to make a choice.

                “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

                by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:21:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  then we apparently agree, (0+ / 0-)

                  and you will say

                  I'm the reason for His death and resurrection
                  rather than "we're the reason."

                  As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

                  by BPARTR on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:52:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh boy..... (0+ / 0-)

                    This is where we're gonna part ways. I'm going to have to say something and it's going to be really unpopular. But I'm going to try and say this as elegantly as possible.

                    No.

                    I'm not going to alter the message for someone else's comfort. To do so would be a betrayal of the truth of what I believe in and I just can't do that. You're asking me to alter the meaning of scripture at this point and I cannot do that and still say I'm a Christian. It's an abject betrayal of everything I believe in to say that, because in my heart I don't believe it to be true.

                    I don't ask people to say things that they don't believe are true. It wouldn't be right. The message is the message and they have to deliver it honestly, and believe me I've seen plenty of things that have offended me to my core but I don't demand that someone take them off the air or stop printing them; or even stop speaking publicly about them.

                    If there is a concern about what certain sects are saying I try to point out who those people are and say where they are wrong, because that's part of my job as a believer. I have to stand up and say something when there are false teachings going around, I just want people to be made aware of what's going on.

                    If this angers you, then I guess it angers you; but I can no more betray my core then I can betray my integrity. Both are too important too me, and are some of the few things that are truly mine, and the few things in this world that are not transitory.

                    “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

                    by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:29:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Huh? You don't ask people to say things (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BPARTR

                      that they don't believe are true, but you feel compelled to point out false teachings and people being wrong and making people aware of their wrongness but somehow none of this is evidence of asking people to say things that they don't believe are true because it's all cool as long as they agree with you?
                      Or something?

                      •  There is a difference (0+ / 0-)

                        between me showing someone where there are problematic points in a teaching, and me writing a televangelist to tell him to alter what he's teaching.

                        One is a counter point, and letting that person decide what to believe on their own. I never tell someone that THEY have to believe it's false. I tell them why I believe it's false and show my evidence to support. Just like anyone else would making a claim.

                        The other is sheer arrogance on my part. While I may think I'm right on something it's not my place to take that route other than to say that I disagree with him and to tell him why I disagree. Telling him, or her, that they HAVE to change to suit me is just arrogant.

                        “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

                        by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:03:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Bayushisan, I commend you (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      hester, PinHole, TiaRachel

                      for being honest about what you believe in and what you are passionate about.  

                      I am speaking to you now as a Jew:

                      As a Christian, the narrative of Jesus clearly has a deep and compelling meaning for you.  Its message of forgiveness, redemption, and transcendence of suffering hopefully gives meaning to your life and helps you be a better person.

                      Far be it from me to attack or diminish the source of this inspiration.  And yet, when you (or any believing Christian) conflate "The Jews" of the gospel --your sacred scriptures-- in any way with the modern day or historical Jewish people, you are making a statement that is not only hurtful to me right now as a Jew, but one that has justified centuries of murder and oppression of Jews by Christians throughout history.

                      I do not accept that such a belief about "the Jews" is irrevocably tied up with the true essence of your faith.  I say this because I know many devout Christians who are fine examplars of the life and message of Jesus who have wrestled with this question successfully.  They have concluded antisemitism is a poisonous branch of the church and is not needed in their faith.

                      •  That really is not my intent (0+ / 0-)

                        and if it was taken that way I apologize.

                        I've always condemned how your people were historically treated, especially by those who were supposedly proclaiming the very faith I profess. Hatred like that and what I believe in are mutually exclusive and I honestly don't conflate the people of then with the people of now in the terms of "you actively did X" because, as I said earlier, there's no one alive today who is actively guilty of killing anyone from two thousand years ago.

                        I admit that I get aggravated sometimes when I don't mean to, because I only have my one frame of reference for talking about these things. I can only tell you what I've read and my thoughts on it, and that I condemn the history of genocide attempts against your people. It was wrong, and it never should have happened. Antisemitism is a very poisonous thing and I don't want people to think that my mind goes there.

                        I want to be honest about what I believe because I believe in Truth above all, but I also want to express that I am not about placing blame on anyone and I'm sorry if it was taken that way.

                        Just so you and I are at an understanding, and so anyone else understands. When I say that the Bible says X I'm not blaming anyone today for it. Individuals of that time in that place did terrible things and only they are accountable for what happened, not the entire people. That's what I was trying to say, and said very, very poorly.  Only I am accountable for what I say and do, and I take responsibility for my comment going pear shaped.

                        Again maggid, I'm sorry if I seemed hurtful as that was not my intent. I like writing and I try my best to be clear, but I make many mistakes. I understood what I said, but it's obvious at this point that it was woefully inadequate.

                        “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

                        by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:18:06 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, I don't believe that you do (0+ / 0-)
                          because I believe in Truth above all
                          You believe in Faith above all.  

                          You believe in YOUR reading of Scripture above all.

                          You believe that the BIBLE says X (and hence it must be true) so what the BIBLE says (in your understanding of your translation) is inerrent?   Or do you bleieve in the 3 types of scripture I described above.  Becasue if the Bible is inerrent throught, then you have some serious inconsistencies in Biblical history, and in your behavior today.

                          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

                          by BPARTR on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:39:35 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  There is absolutely no difference (0+ / 0-)

                      between your including me in your message, and the Mormons including Jews in their church by incantation (baptism, when there is no one there to baptize).
                      Like you, they say

                      I'm not going to alter the message for someone else's comfort.
                      Like you, they believe that it is their duty to their god to carry out the baptism. In your case, youconsider the duty to prosetylize, in their case they consider it their duty to Baptize.

                      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

                      by BPARTR on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:07:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  What differing schools of thought (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester

      on conversion? Do you mean the process of becoming a Jew? Jews think it is wrong to convert away from Judaism.

      And who is this all of us? Leave me out of it.

      •  When I say all of us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        in the general context I tend to mean all humanity. When it says "God so loved the world" it means all people.

        I really wasn't meaning to start anything with what I was saying there. It's just how I understood things from a Biblical context and reading of the material. Multiple parties involved but no one people are responsible nor should the Jews in particular be blamed as Jesus was a Jew according to the Bible. It would be kind of stupid to worship Him and hate His people at the same time. Though there are idiots that try and go that route.

        By differing schools of thought I do mean that the Jewish people believe it is wrong to convert out, and there are Christian sects who think it's wrong to preach the Gospel to them. There are those who believe in doing so and that we should be reaching out more than we are. There are some who think we shouldn't do anything at all as everyone is pre-ordained to it and anything else is trying to tamper with God's Will.  There are a ton of differing beliefs on the matter, and they can cause huge arguments between people. Which is why I try to avoid getting into arguments about them. It just doesn't serve a constructive purpose most of the time.

        “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

        by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:31:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for certainty (0+ / 0-)
          When it says "X" it means Y.
          given the miriad of interpretations of all Biblical writing, it's is nice to see that someone is certain of what any part of it means.

          That is, of course, the beauty of scripture.  All scripture can be divided into three groups:
          1) the divine, unerring, eternal word of GOD
          2) allegory- nice stories, but not actual events
          3) stuff that was true once but no longer applies. (For instance, feel free to eat pork and shellfish, but giving your virgin daughters to strangers for sex is probably a no no now.)

          The beauty is that each practioner gets to choose which scripture (and which translation)  falls into each of the above.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:00:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there's a 4th category (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maggid

            4) things that may have been done in Biblical times but are not recommended that you teach your children to do.

            So the virgin daughters thing (and the destruction of Amalek) might be in that category.  The story of Lot was not to emphasize how right it was of Lot to offer his daughters (in fact, later he slept with his daughters, giving rise to 2 nations that the Israelites hated), but of how wrong it was of the Sodomites, like modern Republicans to hate strangers (and according to Ezekiel, also to neglect their poor and needy despite having comfortable means).

            So no, offering daughters for sex wasn't ever a teaching -- independent of whether the events of the Lot story really happened or not.

            •  I'll accept your 4th category (0+ / 0-)

              which I guess means scripture which relates historical events, but from which we should draw no life lessons, or limited life lessons or specific life lessons relating to only part of the story being told. It also points out the truth of the first 3- since your explanation of the story of Lot's daughters (It is really about Sodomites not being nice to strangers, so Lot giving his daughters to the crowd if not right was better than not liking strangers) is an example of parsing the scripture, and then questioning whether or not it ever happened so a combination of 2 and 3 (and your new category 4).  

              In any event, we agree that the beauty of Scripture is that it provides incontrovertable support for whatever we ourselves believe anyway! (Hence it has been used to support slavery and to oppose slavery and so on.)

              As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

              by BPARTR on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:01:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sort of... (0+ / 0-)

                "Lot giving his daughters to the crowd if not right was better than not liking strangers."

                That's not the text.  You could read it as "Lot offering (not "giving") his daughters to the crowd if not right was better than Lot giving his guests to the crowd".  You always have to "parse the scripture", and in fact you have to parse any text, otherwise you can't understand it.  And you can't deny that the text doesn't hold Lot up as a role model, given that his incestuous-drunken relationships gave rise to the Moabites ("Moab" means "from Dad") and the Ammonites, two of the tribes that were described as wicked enemies.

                I partly agree that the Bible can be re-interpreted to support multiple positions.  I think you have to really **stretch** it to support some.  I don't see how it can be interpreted to support modern Republican positions, given how frequently caring for the poor and helping the sick and needy, and not hurting the stranger because you were a stranger in Egypt is repeated over and over and over in the text.  

                Even regarding "slavery": the slavery of the American variety is explicitly outlawed -- you have to really stretch things to interpret the Torah law saying you must free a runaway slave to mean there should be a fugitive slave law requiring anyone who finds the slave to return him.

    •  From other historical documents of 1st centry CE (8+ / 0-)

      Judea, it is not likely that the Pharisees would have had a rabble-rousing reformist preacher arrested, and impossible that they would have tried him.  The Roman authorities, on the other hand, were terrified of insurrection, and were crucifying people left and right who they thought might provoke an uprising.

      My money is on the Romans being responsible.  Later, when Christianity become the official religion of Rome, they rewrote the story to make the Jewish populace look like a lynch mob and Pontius Pilate look like a social worker.

      •  Except the timeline doesn't work for that idea (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        viral, Wee Mama

        Constantine was the first Christian Roman emperor in the early fourth century (say 312 or so) but Christianity did not become the official religion of the Empire until 380 under Theodosius I. The Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the canonical gospels and is dated to about 70.

    •  Those "pharisees" are not pharisees actually (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggid, Nowhere Man, hester, TiaRachel

      modern portable Judaism is the culmination of pharisee thought - that we live with the law, not under it.  We ARE the pharisees.

      The sadusees were the legalistic dicks who sat in the dark eating cold food on Shabbos. Those were the ones who would have had a hard on for a radical preacher.

      It just so happens that it was important to this new belief system to make the Jews that won the argument among ourselves look like murderers.  

      Your theology and mythology doesn't actually have dick to do with us.  We aren't responsible for your holy crucifixion.  We don't have the concept of original sin, so we don't need or want it.  Our sins are our own to handle and not your business or problem.

      There is no de-Jewing. Thanks, but no thanks.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        I did say the Jewish people as a whole were not responsible. Said it a couple of time even.

        I was using the language that was used in the text I'm familiar with. Two leadership groups were mentioned and I'm not aware if there was just one or both.

        The Saducees were one and the Pharisees were the other at that time, at least I think so. That's all that I know, based on what I've read and what I've been taught. My intent isn't to offend just to say that the teaching that "the Jews did it" isn't a common teaching and it's actually a heretical one based on anyone actually picking up the text and reading it.

        I really am trying here. I know my beliefs aren't popular here but they are what they are and I'm not ashamed of them. These aren't meant to drive a wedge or to make anyone angry, they're just my thoughts on things. I'm trying to be as respectful as I can given the sensitive nature of the subject, and given how my own temper has been known to flare from time to time.

        “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

        by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:57:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, isn't that generous of you. Only part of us? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel

          It's one of those things where there is historical scholarship and records that you could consult (as opposed to theological scholarship, which only looks at your text) - but as it contradicts your beliefs, it gets ignored.  Not helping.

          It does offend, whether you mean it to or not.  It has shaped Jewry in the west - because while it may not be "common" teaching now - it sure as hell didn't stop people from pogroms.  It cost peoples lives.  Don't dismiss those as unimportant.

          This diary isn't about your beliefs - it's about Jew hatred.  That your beliefs can be so easily twisted into justifications for that - not helping.  It's not respectful to tell people who they are, or how their history went based on YOUR beliefs.  Or to dismiss the deaths that your beliefs caused among the Jewish people throughout history as not real or unimportant because you have a really good message and mostly have it sorted now.
          Except where it's not.

          Your frame of reference is not the one that is important when discussing the continuing and long history of violence against Jews. Ours is.

          •  I didn't dismiss them (0+ / 0-)

            I pretty much condemned them outright. I said they were wrong, I've always said they were wrong, and I always will say that they were wrong. Every attempt at genocide against your people was abhorrent and I find it inconceivably despicable that people used that message to bring it about. I'm genuinely not sure what to say beyond that.

            “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

            by bayushisan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:47:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem here is frames of reference. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mortifyd

              To you, that condemnation (etc) is sufficient. But to others, it seems that you're condemning the result but not addressing the cause.  

              And of course, you've got a specific view of christianity based on your version of the religion, while to outsiders, there's no reason to distinguish between the varieties. You claim that the religion is this, others claim that -- so who should we disbelieve? Using the 'good neighbor' test* is historically proven to be dangerous.  

              *(some types of christianity are better neighbors to various non-christians than others. I'm actually pretty comfortable with anglican/episcopalian churches, on the whole.)

  •  Antisemitism is buried deep in the tissues of (8+ / 0-)

    Western culture.  For those wanting more background, I suggest two books, which I have used in teaching classes on the history of antisemitism:

    Faith and Fratricide, by Rosemary Reuther, and

    The Longest Hatred, by Robert Wistrich

  •  The anti-semites just have a tough time that their (6+ / 0-)

    own doctrine states that God's only son was Jewish. This brand of hatred was also aimed at the so called pagans who had the audacity to have Gods who had already done most of the miraculous acts described in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

    by OHdog on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:19:11 AM PST

  •  This debate would have more meaning to me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, OrganizedCrime

    if I could see some direct evidence that the legendary character known as Jesus Christ ever actually lived: in its absence, how he or she may have died is completely uninteresting. Sure, lots of people believe that someone similar in various ways to the Biblical personage was born, lived, and died, in spite of the sparseness, indirectness, and ambiguity of all the available evidence. But those same people will tell you that what is important is to take things on faith alone, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof, so what they believe doesn't add anything useful to the question.

    On the other hand, I pretty much take the plural ending on “elohim” as incontrovertible evidence of a polytheistic origin of all Abrahamic religions, including those which use its [singular] cognate “allah”. (In spite of handwaving about other possible meanings of the plural suffix, which I find remarkably unconvincing.)

    I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity unbeliever.

    •  Polytheistic origins... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggid, TiaRachel

      I think that's generally taken as fact by Jewish historical scholars, and not considered heresy to admit.  Also that very early Jews may have practiced human sacrifice.  But it evolved differently, and you could ask whether what we are calling here very early Judaism is the same thing as Judaism and we get into definitions.  By biblical tradition, we say that the Jews began with Abraham and the Covenant, but that doesn't mean that religious practice didn't change over time.  That would be ridiculous.

  •  i am always amazed that the romans (8+ / 0-)

    get so easily let off the hook for the crucifixion.

    •  Given that it was a favored form of torture and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, maggid, PinHole

      execution within the empire, so am I.

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:48:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You open the door to considered reasoning. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, maggid, PinHole

        Crucifixion was the standard form of Roman execution. Nothing like a rebel hanging from a cross to deter future insurrection.

        However, according to the historical record, crucifixion was never used by Jews of that or any other time. Crucifixion  no; stoning yes. Jesus was crucified, draw your own conclusion.

        •  My recommendation is that we (as a nation) (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maggid, PinHole

          teach better history courses to our public school children and especially to our college students.

          This story--the situation that it shows is absolutely unacceptable for many reasons:

          1. AntiSemitism.
          2. Historical Inaccuracy in an alumni or student at an ivy league institution is disturbing. Did they learn this in class? if so what class, What professor?
          3. Religious-history inaccuracy. If someone wants to claim a religion, and then embark on discussions of a serious nature, they better damn well know their history or get off the porch.

          I would expect this sort of psuedo history from certain religious "colleges" that have being vying for legitimacy these days. I would be saddened but no surprised to see this promoted by certain religious extremists, or even accidentally picked up by a young kid, writing a serious paper for the first time.

          But from a Harvard Grad?

          What's the prestige for again? Because if this is a common occurrence then it sort of throws the whole legitimacy of that institution into the wind.

          Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

          by GreenMother on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:08:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  One way of explaining that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggid

      is that the early writing of the gospels were not narrated to a larger Roman or world audience but instead narrated by Jews to other Jews, like Teabagger newsletters blaming RINOs for Obamacare passage.  "Those damned pharisees two blocks down the street are the villains here!"

  •  How the mighty have fallen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid

    Sorry to read this sad state of affairs.

    This non-Jewish household knows better. And I and my family will speak up whenever we hear or see the sort of bs you depict in your diary.

    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

    by GreenMother on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45:59 AM PST

  •  I've heard this expressed before (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PinHole

    by Jewish converts.  A good friend of mine was a convert to Latter Day Saints, and he surprised me one day when he (with terrible regret) informed me that all Jews were damned and going to Hell because they killed Jesus, that it's all there in John, and that he didn't make it that way, that's just the way it is, so, sorry old friend.

    •  Converts are often the most fervent, unfortunately (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PinHole, Dumbo, TiaRachel

      and I say that as a very, very slow future convert to Reform Judaism (keep getting delayed by work schedules and a move to a place without a sizable Jewish community - yikes! - but I just moved yet again, so maybe here).  On the Jewish "side" of things, particularly in Conservative Judaism (which has nothing to do with political conservatism), where observance is encouraged but can be infrequent depending on one's particular community, a convert is anecdotally likely to be the most observant in any group.  I think that's largely because the convert is actively seeking something, whereas the lifetime community member is going to be anywhere on the scale between "weekly attendee" and "went to Seder with grandma three years ago."

      The trouble, of course, is that Judaism doesn't seek converts (but accepts them, with obscure exceptions), whereas Christianity features the seeking of converts as a core function.  The Jewish convert is thus not going to try to convert his or her co-workers as they are going to encourage heightened or modified observance amongst those who are already Jewish, whereas the convert to Christianity may - not always, but may - be more inclined to try to bring others into the fold.  I had a very awkward situation in the small town where I went to high school when a close friend became a conservative Christian (this time including the political kind of conservatism) and basically ruined our friendship by insisting that I was a bad person for failing to try to convert my nominally Muslim girlfriend to Christianity (who, like me, was something like 15y/o ;p); even more odd since my family was a Christmas-and-Easter sort of family and I had already drifted away from even that minimal level of Christianity.

      New Yorkers see some of this in action - it's not uncommon to see folks from Chabad, one of the most observant organizations within American Judaism, in busy subway stations around the High Holidays, reaching out to nominal Jews to encourage them to partake in greater observance.  But, however annoying some of those Chabadniks can be, they're not seeking out non-Jews.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:27:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've read the thread, and although most here know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, maggid, mkor7, PinHole

    this, whenever this crap comes up I think it's worthwhile to repeat the obvious that Jesus was Jewish as were almost all of his early followers.  Therefore, whatever the truth of the Biblical narratives about his death, it can't possibly make logical sense to say generally that "the Jews" did anything.

    Side point:  I see from my local paper that this week Thanksgiving Day corresponds with the first day of Hannukah for the first time in history, and that won't happen again for something like 78,000 years.  And from a different source today I see that turkey consumption in Israel is about double turkey consumption in the United States.

  •  As Lenny Bruce put it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid, Dbug
    You and I know what a Jew is – One Who Killed Our Lord. I don’t know if we got much press on that in Illinois – we did this about two thousand years ago. . . . And although there should be a statute of limitations for that crime, it seems that those who neither have the actions nor the gait of Christians, pagans or not will bust us out, unrelenting dues, for another deuce.

    Alright, I’ll clear the air once and for all, and confess. Yes, we did it. I did it, my family. I found a note in my basement. It said: “We killed him . . . signed, Morty.” And a lot of people say to me, “Why did you kill Christ?” “I dunno . . . We killed him because he didn’t want to become a doctor, that’s why we killed him.

    Although there are still some who believe the Sanhedrin was really trying to show the guy on the cross to his left they were serious about that adultery issue.

    Happy Easter to you all!

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:45:07 PM PST

  •  except (0+ / 0-)

    stupids words don't kill people, people do.  

    There are unlimited examples of stupid individuals saying stupid things, without society paying attention to them.  

  •  Early Christians adopted "ichthys" -- the fish -- (0+ / 0-)

    as a symbol of Jesus because the astrological Piscean (Fishy) Age was beginning and they were implying that Jesus was going to be the Lord of the Piscean Age, replacing Lord Mithra who had been billed as the Lord of the Age of Ares, the Ram (Mithra mythologically slew Taurus, the Bull).

    Ok, it's all Bull and/or Fishy-- but the early Christians believed in astrology and that was part of the meaning of the symbol.

    Any Christians fond of "Ichthys' today had better beware: the Piscean Age is ending and the Aquarian (The Water Carrier) Age is beginning (well, in a few centuries or so, depending on what star charts you use).

    So there is a risk that some new system of beliefs will come along and point out that Christianity doesn't hold any water.

    •  Not accurate (0+ / 0-)

      In the Greek alphabet, Ichthus or Ichthys is Iota,  Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma becomes an anagram for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior." And since the word "Ichthus" means "fish," the fish became a secret symbol for Christians do identify one another under Roman persecution.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:10:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes -- that too. (0+ / 0-)

        But the fish symbol and all the fish symbolism around Jesus (fisher of men, loaves & fishes, etc) are references to the then new Picean Age. Mithraism had made much of the fact that Mithra slew the Bull of Heaven, Taurus, thereby ending the previous, Taurean Age.

        Jesus, it was implied, would overthrow the age of Mithra as Mithra had overthrown the previous age.

  •  Irony of Christianist support for Israel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid

    - a nation founded as a Jewish state, opposed to the idea that Christ is the Messiah. Yes, there is the theory it is part of the "end of the world" machinations, but why the support for Israel's actions, and what kind of "approval" is that? Just more irrationality.

  •  It's Jew-hatred all right, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid, TiaRachel

    it's also canonical Christian scripture.  Matthew 27:25.  

    Yet another good reason not to take Christianity seriously.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:04:02 PM PST

  •  What I've never fully gotten is, "So what?" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid, Dbug, TiaRachel

    So, let's pretend briefly that the "Jews" (who were not quite like today's Jews anyhow, due to the existence of the Second Temple, which would be destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), were indeed "responsible" for the death of Jesus.

    So what?  So bloody what?  I'm part Irish - is François Hollande expecting a personal written apology from me for the occupation of Brittany 2,000 years ago?  Should the Taoiseach atone for the sins of those ancient Celts?  (Or is it the early Gauls - the future French - who need to apologize for evicting the Irish?  Learn more on Eyewitness News, details at 11!)

    But seriously, why on Earth is this such a preoccupation for Christianity?  And I may be guilty of misunderstanding Christian doctrine, but didn't Jesus need to die in order to absolve the world of it sins?  So, wouldn't that then make those ancient peoples, be they Roman or Jewish or Martian insect people, people who were carrying out the will of God?  Since Jesus's sacrifice was apparently necessary for the redemption of sin?  So you'd think that the Christians would give them a medal - "Thanks for carrying out that eminently gruesome task - you spared us from eternal damnation!"

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:45:44 PM PST

    •  I was gonna say this, but you beat me to it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel

      Let's say you accept the truth of Christianity and its theology and historical explanations. God got Mary pregnant, she had a son named Jesus who was a man, but also the son of God. He preached, did some miracles, had some followers. Then he was crucified, dead, and buried, then on the third day rose from the dead. And because of his death we are all redeemed. Maybe you have to do some good works (Catholics) or maybe you're justified by faith alone (Lutherans and other protestants), but you'll get into heaven by believing in Jesus. Let's say you believe all that.

      So (according to this story, if it's true) then isn't it a REALLY GOOD thing that Jesus was crucified? Wasn't that the whole plan -- to redeem mankind? Instead of bringing a goat to the temple to be sacrificed to God every time you have sex with a slave girl, you can just believe in Jesus (who takes the place of that goat). Whoever killed Jesus did the world a favor.

      The death of Jesus moved this plan along. And Judas helped advance the plan, too.

      I suppose this whole idea is heretical for some reason.

      --

      Another way to approach the question is to say, "He was only dead for three days, darn it. So what's the big deal?" You have to use words like "darn" with people who worry about these things.

      --

      You mentioned being Irish. My ancestors were Norwegian. I'm sure that somewhere back there, I have some Vikings in my ancestry. So if we're going to assign guilt to an entire people, I should be blamed for whatever raping and pillaging happened 1000+ years ago.

      "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

      by Dbug on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:44:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Holy crap! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggid

    That kind of thing has been denounced by almost all Christian groups since the end of WWII! I'm surprised that the Harvard Christian community would allow Icthus to do this without "policing their own" by protest. As a Christian, I'm in shock and deeply offended.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:59:36 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site