i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos homilies have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism.[43] James Parkes called the writing on Jews “the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian”,[44] while British historian Paul Johnson claimed that Chrysostom’s homilies “became the pattern for anti-Jewish tirades, making the fullest possible use (and misuse) of key passages in the gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Thus a specifically Christian anti-Semitism, presenting the Jews as murderers of Christ, was grafted on to the seething mass of pagan smears and rumours, and Jewish communities were now at risk in every Christian city.”[45] During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. His works were frequently quoted and reprinted as a witness for the prosecution.[43]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Sermons_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians

[T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.”

* Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession …

* Saint John Chrysostom (349–ca. 407), Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

what a guy – but hey, the church named him a saint knowing exactly what he said and wrote – so then what should I think about the church? Hmmmm …

Of course these are only tid bits of Chrysostom’s tirades against the Jews (there’s chapters of this stuff). Now … find me a single racist word ever written by Nietzsche (man the hypocrisy here is disturbing – and I’m being as kind as possible).

 

[josie_L]

Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos homilies have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism.[43] James Parkes called the writing on Jews “the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian”,[44] while British historian Paul Johnson claimed that Chrysostom’s homilies “became the pattern for anti-Jewish tirades, making the fullest possible use (and misuse) of key passages in the gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Thus a specifically Christian anti-Semitism, presenting the Jews as murderers of Christ, was grafted on to the seething mass of pagan smears and rumours, and Jewish communities were now at risk in every Christian city.”[45] During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. His works were frequently quoted and reprinted as a witness for the prosecution.[43]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Sermons_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians

[T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.”

* Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession …

* Saint John Chrysostom (349–ca. 407), Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

what a guy – but hey, the church named him a saint knowing exactly what he said and wrote – so then what should I think about the church? Hmmmm …

Of course these are only tid bits of Chrysostom’s tirades against the Jews (there’s chapters of this stuff). Now … find me a single racist word ever written by Nietzsche (man the hypocrisy here is disturbing – and I’m being as kind as possible).

Ok, Francis, now that you’ve gotten that off your chest, what connection is there historically to Fascism in Germany with what St. John Chrysostom said and did?

P.S. And I never said that Nietzsche was racist. What he said had an indirect consequence (it was not intentional on his part, but it was used by Hitler nevertheless). I remember doing a history exam on this very topic, Francis, so don’t call me a hypocrite.

 

[josie_L]

Boy you guys just can’t help yourselves can you? So then we get to blame the centuries of Jew hating by the RCC (and rabid Jew haters like St. Chrysostom) for Hitler as well? Ahhh … but let me guess – that good old Catholic double standard?

Heck let’s play the guilt by association game – Hitler was Catholic therefore the RCC is partially responsible for the holocaust. After all it was thoroughly Catholic Austria that spawned the likes of Adolf Hitler. Prior to the holocaust the CC went on a centuries long rampage against Jews. Beginning with Justin Martyr (who began the concept of Supercessionism and Translated responsibility), in 306 the Synod of Elvira banned marriages, intercourse, and community contacts between Christians and Jews, in 315 Constantine’s edict terminated most rights previously held by Jews, a Jew who married a Christian was put to death, conversion to Judaism was a criminal offense, St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who god cursed forever, Emperor Theodosius permitted the destruction of synagogues, in 380 the bishop of Milan “initiated” the destruction of a synagogue, in 1205 Pope Innocent III wrote that the Jews are consigned to perpetual servitude, the Synod of Narbonne 1227 required Jews to wear an oval badge (sound familiar), the Spanish Inquisition, Jews forced into ghettos in Venice 1516, in 1555 a Papal bull required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges and be confined to ghettos (hmmm maybe the church really is responsible for spawning Hitler), massacres of Jews in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, and other cities in Ukraine (about 100,000 killed), Pope Pius IX restored all restrictions against Jews in the Vatican state in 1846-78 (not until the Nazi’s in the 1930’s were any other “new” Jewish ghetto’s created), etc. etc etc.

Oh but bad bad Nietzsche … who only wrote a few books

Did I say Nietzche was anti-semitic or for that matter solely responsible for fascism in German? What’s the point of this post? You don’t think I know that the Church has been anti-semitic in the past. What I do know however is that when Hitler was coming into power the CC (under Pope Pius X and the XI) spoke ill of Hitler and his fascist party. They were not friends of Hitler/Nazism - not before, not during, nor after the war. I will provide you sources (later during the day).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Ok, Francis, now that you’ve gotten that off your chest, what connection is there historically to Fascism in Germany with what St. John Chrysostom said and did?

P.S. And I never said that Nietzsche was racist. What he said had an indirect consequence (it was not intentional on his part, but it was used by Hitler nevertheless). I remember doing a history exam on this very topic, Francis, so don’t call me a hypocrite.

did you miss this part?

During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his (John Chrysostoms’) work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Did I say Nietzche was anti-semitic or for that matter solely responsible for fascism in German?

Nietzsche wasn’t responsible in any way for fascism in Germany (stop sliding in little jabs like “or for that matter SOLELY responsible for fascism” inferring he had some part in it – he didn’t, he was the polar opposite of Hitler). The best term I can think of to describe Nietzsche’s political outlook is libertarian – the exact opposite of fascist. Indeed Catholicism is far closer to fascism than Nietzsche ever was.

The difference between men like Nietzsche and so called saints like John Chrysostom is Nietzsche spoke out against racism, he parted ways with friends because of their racism, and he never offended a single group on earth with his pen or tongue. Chrysostom on the other had spewed fire and hate with his pen and tongue – and this is the type of man your church elevated to a saint.

As far as the superman concept – what’s wrong with inspiring men to live up to their potential and not allow fallacious presuppositions to obstruct your progress? So Hitler read Nietzsche, he obviously liked John Chrysostom as well, and I’m sure he like many other good philosophers, scientists, historical leaders, etc. So what … it means nothing.

It’s the game you guys just won’t stop playing. Rather than address the ideas and issues, you look for ways to launch personal attacks against the character of men you have no familiarity with (and apparently you’ve become so used to it – you probably don’t even realize when you do it). I’ve been often accused of arrogance here – but indeed it’s the complete opposite. Rather than simply conceding you’ve never read Nietzsche in a serious way, you toss out these little back door jabs. Rather than conceding the CC has acted wrongfully in the past (and must share some of the blame for antisemitism in Europe) you target a man who couldn’t be further from a bigot or fascist. And yet you can’t even see how arrogant that sounds?

Sure the Vatican hid some Jews during WWII … but they also publicly capitulated to Hitler (and put self-preservation above speaking out against the Third Reich). Yet no one here will speak or for that matter think with intellectual honesty – geesh!

 

[josie_L]

Nietzsche wasn’t responsible in any way for fascism in Germany (stop sliding in little jabs like “or for that matter SOLELY responsible for fascism” inferring he had some part in it – he didn’t, he was the polar opposite of Hitler). The best term I can think of to describe Nietzsche’s political outlook is libertarian – the exact opposite of fascist. Indeed Catholicism is far closer to fascism than Nietzsche ever was.

The difference between men like Nietzsche and so called saints like John Chrysostom is Nietzsche spoke out against racism, he parted ways with friends because of their racism, and he never offended a single group on earth with his pen or tongue. Chrysostom on the other had spewed fire and hate with his pen and tongue – and this is the type of man your church elevated to a saint.

So yes in my eyes Nietzsche is a good guy, while Chrysostom (and those like him) are NOT.

Fine, Francis I’ll just have to do the research and show you what I mean. And don’t say that he never offended a single group, he insulted Christians (in fact he had no respect for Christianity whatsoever) many a time with his statements.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Fine, Francis I’ll just have to do the research and show you what I mean. And don’t say that he never offended a single group, he insulted Christians (in fact he had no respect for Christianity whatsoever) many a time with his statements.

Volumes of Nietzsche’s work focused on the fallacy of religion; so you can’t frame it as bigotry (since to frame it like that would logically mean anytime anyone disagrees with anyone else they risk being labeled a bigot). Nietzsche never advocated harming a single hair on the head of anyone. Contrast that with Chrysostom who advocated killing Jews.

 

[josie_L]

Nietzsche wasn’t responsible in any way for fascism in Germany (stop sliding in little jabs like “or for that matter SOLELY responsible for fascism” inferring he had some part in it – he didn’t, he was the polar opposite of Hitler). The best term I can think of to describe Nietzsche’s political outlook is libertarian – the exact opposite of fascist. Indeed Catholicism is far closer to fascism than Nietzsche ever was.

The difference between men like Nietzsche and so called saints like John Chrysostom is Nietzsche spoke out against racism, he parted ways with friends because of their racism, and he never offended a single group on earth with his pen or tongue. Chrysostom on the other had spewed fire and hate with his pen and tongue – and this is the type of man your church elevated to a saint.

As far as the superman concept – what’s wrong with inspiring men to live up to their potential and not allow fallacious presuppositions to obstruct your progress? So Hitler read Nietzsche, he obviously liked John Chrysostom as well, and I’m sure he like many other good philosophers, scientists, historical leaders, etc. So what … it means nothing.

It’s the game you guys just won’t stop playing. Rather than address the ideas and issues, you look for ways to launch personal attacks against the character of men you have no familiarity with (and apparently you’ve become so used to it – you probably don’t even realize when you do it). I’ve been often accused of arrogance here – but indeed it’s the complete opposite. Rather than simply conceding you’ve never read Nietzsche in a serious way, you toss out these little back door jabs. Rather than conceding the CC has acted wrongfully in the past (and must share some of the blame for antisemitism in Europe) you target a man who couldn’t be further from a bigot or fascist. And yet you can’t even see how arrogant that sounds?

Sure the Vatican hid some Jews during WWII … but they also publicly capitulated to Hitler (and put self-preservation above speaking out against the Third Reich). Yet no one here will speak or for that matter think with intellectual honesty – geesh!

Are you refering to the Concordat? How is that capitulation? Do you have any idea how many Catholic priests and religious died in the camps to fight the evils of Nazism? More than several thousand. Why do you think so many Jewish figures at the end of the war stated what they did about the Catholic Church? And it wasn’t just the Vatican that saved Jews but all of the CC that did its utmost to help (generally). And it wasn’t just some Jews but 860 000 that were saved, that is a lot of Jews, Francis. Where was the rest of the world when they rejected to take in Jews, eh?

P.S. I am not targeting him, but regurgitating what I remember learning in my history class concerning WWII (at university).

 

[josie_L]

Volumes of Nietzsche’s work focused on the fallacy of religion; so you can’t frame it as bigotry (since to frame it like that would logically mean anytime anyone disagrees with anyone else they risk being labeled a bigot). Nietzsche never advocated harming a single hair on the head of anyone. Contrast that with Chrysostom who advocated killing Jews.

He was downright arrogant and contemptuous towards Christianity, I would call that bigotry.

 

[josie_L]

did you miss this part?

During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his (John Chrysostoms’) work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians.

Yes, I did miss that part, sorry! I will look into this matter.

 

[josie_L]

:imsorry:

Nietzsche wasn’t responsible in any way for fascism in Germany (stop sliding in little jabs like “or for that matter SOLELY responsible for fascism” inferring he had some part in it – he didn’t, he was the polar opposite of Hitler). The best term I can think of to describe Nietzsche’s political outlook is libertarian – the exact opposite of fascist.

Ok, Francis, I don’t know much about Nietzsche’s work (except what I remember from history class and what I remember wasn’t good). However, that being said, my motives are not to discredit him. I asked for you to help me understand him, or more to the point, his philosophy (and I did, it’s in the first post of this page). In the end, Francis, I really don’t care if he did or didn’t influence fascism in Germany. But I do wish to know the truth of the matter, so in that respect I will dig deeper. I need to do a lot more research to get a clearer opinion, but I see what you’re getting at. I have just recently read a review of a book about Nietzsche and fascism, and it put Nietzsche in a positive light. Please read:

compulsivereader.com/html/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=924

:hug1:

 

[josie_L]

Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos homilies have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism.[43] James Parkes called the writing on Jews “the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian”,[44] while British historian Paul Johnson claimed that Chrysostom’s homilies “became the pattern for anti-Jewish tirades, making the fullest possible use (and misuse) of key passages in the gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Thus a specifically Christian anti-Semitism, presenting the Jews as murderers of Christ, was grafted on to the seething mass of pagan smears and rumours, and Jewish communities were now at risk in every Christian city.”[45] During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. His works were frequently quoted and reprinted as a witness for the prosecution.[43]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Sermons_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians

[T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.”

* Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession …

* Saint John Chrysostom (349–ca. 407), Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

what a guy – but hey, the church named him a saint knowing exactly what he said and wrote – so then what should I think about the church? Hmmmm …

Of course these are only tid bits of Chrysostom’s tirades against the Jews (there’s chapters of this stuff). Now … find me a single racist word ever written by Nietzsche (man the hypocrisy here is disturbing – and I’m being as kind as possible).

After World War II, the Christian churches denounced Nazi use of Chrysostom’s works, explaining his words with reference to the historical context. According to Laqueur, it was argued that in the 4th century, the general discourse was brutal and aggressive and that at the time when the Christian church was fighting for survival and recognition, mercy and forgiveness were not in demand.[43] According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[46] Because it is also argued that Chrysostom’s writings were in fact an invective against Judaizing Christians, Chrysostom was addressing a theological matter within the Christian Church rather than confronting the Judaism of his time.[47]

This was taken from the same website you derived your information. By the way, have you read anything apart from what you quoted from St. John Chrysostom?

P.S. I’m sorry if it’s troublesome for you to have to deal with such “hypocrites”. And if this is you being kind. . .

 

[humble_in_doubt]

After World War II, the Christian churches denounced Nazi use of Chrysostom’s works, explaining his words with reference to the historical context. According to Laqueur, it was argued that in the 4th century, the general discourse was brutal and aggressive and that at the time when the Christian church was fighting for survival and recognition, mercy and forgiveness were not in demand.[43] According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[46] Because it is also argued that Chrysostom’s writings were in fact an invective against Judaizing Christians, Chrysostom was addressing a theological matter within the Christian Church rather than confronting the Judaism of his time.[47]

This was taken from the same website you derived your information. By the way, have you read anything apart from what you quoted from St. John Chrysostom?

I just quoted from Wiki (the explanation they rely on is the churches, since they generally give equal time to all interested sides on any controversial topic). As far as the explanation goes, pretty unfortunate IMO. Rather than simply saying the comments were unfortunate and do not reflect the views of the contemporary church – the church in its desperation to retain the illusion of infallibility won’t simply say what everyone else (besides the most ardent church supporters) know.

The man said the Jews are “fit for killing.” It boggles my mind that anyone in this day and age could defend those comments? There’s no amount of contextualizing that can change the meaning of what Chrysostom said. He knowingly incited people to murderous violence against Jews; and the Nazi’s used his words with much delight.

What sort of person could act as this man’s apologist? Seriously Josie – you have to know deep down that there is no credible argument to support this man (I suspect at this point you’re just acting as a pundit).

 

[Toribus]

Just thought I’d mention that nothing here has anything to do with the poor guy on the first page who came here asking for a particular set of advice.

Do the people who have reservations about the Catholic Church really think that coming here and picking a fight will discourage this lad from joining us?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Just thought I’d mention that nothing here has anything to do with the poor guy on the first page who came here asking for a particular set of advice.

Do the people who have reservations about the Catholic Church really think that coming here and picking a fight will discourage this lad from joining us?

he’s been gone long ago (we probably should start a new thread though – so a mod can close this one).

 

[josie_L]

I just quoted from Wiki (the explanation they rely on is the churches, since they generally give equal time to all interested sides on any controversial topic). As far as the explanation goes, pretty unfortunate IMO. Rather than simply saying the comments were unfortunate and do not reflect the views of the contemporary church – the church in its desperation to retain the illusion of infallibility won’t simply say what everyone else (besides the most ardent church supporters) know.

The man said the Jews are “fit for killing.” It boggles my mind that anyone in this day and age could defend those comments? There’s no amount of contextualizing that can change the meaning of what Chrysostom said. He knowingly incited people to murderous violence against Jews; and the Nazi’s used his words with much delight.

What sort of person could act as this man’s apologist? Seriously Josie – you have to know deep down that there is no credible argument to support this man (I suspect at this point you’re just acting as a pundit).

Do you think Martin Luther was a good man?

 

[josie_L]

he’s been gone long ago (we probably should start a new thread though – so a mod can close this one).

And what would we call this new thread? Oh, how bout the “How to Annoy Atheists” thread?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Do you think Martin Luther was a good man?

sorry I haven’t been around for the last week … suddenly I got real busy. Anyways, yes I absolutely think Luther was a good man, even a great man (to spite his shortcomings). However, if you’re trying to draw a comparison then you’re missing my point … I don’t view Chrysostom as a “bad man” either – rather I was just pointing to the general hypocritical tenor I’ve been hearing here (for instance pointing to Luther’s unfortunate statements concerning Jews while standing in as an apologist for men who by any standard were far worse than Luther in their rhetorical treatment of Jews).

Frankly there’s no excuse for treating any group as any of these men did, let alone Jews (who have rarely in “actual” history ever bothered anyone). Sadly this is the natural fruit of religious zealotry left unchecked. These days the western world has restrained religion (logic and reason prevails) – so it isn’t as bad as it used to be.

 

[josie_L]

sorry I haven’t been around for the last week … suddenly I got real busy. Anyways, yes I absolutely think Luther was a good man, even a great man (to spite his shortcomings). However, if you’re trying to draw a comparison then you’re missing my point … I don’t view Chrysostom as a “bad man” either – rather I was just pointing to the general hypocritical tenor I’ve been hearing here (for instance pointing to Luther’s unfortunate statements concerning Jews while standing in as an apologist for men who by any standard were far worse than Luther in their rhetorical treatment of Jews).

Frankly there’s no excuse for treating any group as any of these men did, let alone Jews (who have rarely in “actual” history ever bothered anyone). Sadly this is the natural fruit of religious zealotry left unchecked. These days the western world has restrained religion (logic and reason prevails) – so it isn’t as bad as it used to be.

But you were having a discussion with me not these other people. And another thing we were talking about Nietzsche (and you brought up St. Chrysostom). And I don’t like Martin Luther for a lot of reasons and so do for that matter other Catholics.

P.S. I mentioned in another post that St. Chrysostom was not attacking Jews with his homilies but Judaizing Christians. From what I understand there was a mistranslation, I will post it here for you to read.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But you were having a discussion with me not these other people. And another thing we were talking about Nietzsche (and you brought up St. Chrysostom). And I don’t like Martin Luther for a lot of reasons and so do for that matter other Catholics.

P.S. I mentioned in another post that St. Chrysostom was not attacking Jews with his homilies but Judaizing Christians. From what I understand there was a mistranslation, I will post it here for you to read.

no there was no mistranslation … Chrysostom was attacking BOTH Jews and Judaizing Christians; and he said some pretty horrible things against the Jews in his homilies (unbiased scholars are pretty unanimous – Chrysostom was the most antisemitic prominent Christian figure in history).

Anyway I have no interest in convincing you to like Luther (obviously I don’t expect a committed Catholic to like Luther) … I’m just glad we have no church controlling us and our government these days (and I credit his rebellion, at least in part, for that).