T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, no doubt. I was only commenting on anti-jewish sentiment prior to the time of Christ, or perhaps prior to the Jewish revolts of the late first century AD
- Status
R
Rabbi
Guest
Firstly, who doesn’t suffer? It happens when you’re born into this world, but rather than attempt to leave this place, fight for the good of it: human diversity, world peace, feeding the hunger. All of this is an outgrowth of Torah, its source is Judaism. So by accepting suffering, we can hope to better the world by not giving in. After all, when has giving up ever help anyone?
It is true that every group is going to have some wealthy (usually the elite 1%), and some very, very poor (the rest, or 99%). The Jewish people are no exception to that rule. The problem is when non-Jews see all these wealthy Jews, being we make like 0.3% of the world’s population, and mischaracterize us all as being wealthy. This leads to anti-Semitism. The reason why they’d might be less Jews upset with rich Goyim is simply because… there’s just more Goyim in the world, so it looks less like a monopoly. Of course, I know I’m technically pulling a fast one, and of course they’d might be some Jews who might be upset, but again, they make a small, small minority, so it’s really nothing to worry about, and the much larger community will always call them out for who they are.
The reason why people might be upset with the Torah is because they feel G-d played favoritism. This is of course untrue. The Torah itself tells us that G-d did not chose our nation because we were rich or were superior, by all means, that’s not the case. He chose us because He loved our father, Avraham Avinu. In fact, rabbinic tradition says that G-d first approached the Gentile nations. But why chose anyone? What’s the point? In 2020, the American people will again elect a leader (via the electoral college, of course). That leader will represent the American people on the world stage. He or she will also serve as an example to the average American, and this is the function the Jewish people serve on a world stage. We’re an example for the nations. To show them how to properly worship G-d.
Regarding your final analysis, I think we all fall prey to the bandwagon effect. We all confirm to fit in, to feel apart of the group, because anything in the minority is viewed as bad. But sometimes being the minority is not the problem, rather, it is the majority. If the majority does something wrong, something evil, you want to be out of that group. Anti-Semitism has its roots in psychology. Those in the in-group are fair, honest individuals, if Joe did something wrong, he’d have to be the problem, because the group inofitself can’t falter. However, those in the out-group are generalized as wrong, because it is easier to make stereotypes then it is to “think” outside the box and ask questions. To give you an idea of this, it takes 10 images to debunk just one stereotype. I know, the task seems almost impossible, but then we turn round back to my point in suffering: we suffer, and through that suffering, we educate the world around us in the hopes of making a brighter future for our children.
P.S., you’ve asked such insightful questions, believe me, you’re not stupid.
It is true that every group is going to have some wealthy (usually the elite 1%), and some very, very poor (the rest, or 99%). The Jewish people are no exception to that rule. The problem is when non-Jews see all these wealthy Jews, being we make like 0.3% of the world’s population, and mischaracterize us all as being wealthy. This leads to anti-Semitism. The reason why they’d might be less Jews upset with rich Goyim is simply because… there’s just more Goyim in the world, so it looks less like a monopoly. Of course, I know I’m technically pulling a fast one, and of course they’d might be some Jews who might be upset, but again, they make a small, small minority, so it’s really nothing to worry about, and the much larger community will always call them out for who they are.
The reason why people might be upset with the Torah is because they feel G-d played favoritism. This is of course untrue. The Torah itself tells us that G-d did not chose our nation because we were rich or were superior, by all means, that’s not the case. He chose us because He loved our father, Avraham Avinu. In fact, rabbinic tradition says that G-d first approached the Gentile nations. But why chose anyone? What’s the point? In 2020, the American people will again elect a leader (via the electoral college, of course). That leader will represent the American people on the world stage. He or she will also serve as an example to the average American, and this is the function the Jewish people serve on a world stage. We’re an example for the nations. To show them how to properly worship G-d.
Regarding your final analysis, I think we all fall prey to the bandwagon effect. We all confirm to fit in, to feel apart of the group, because anything in the minority is viewed as bad. But sometimes being the minority is not the problem, rather, it is the majority. If the majority does something wrong, something evil, you want to be out of that group. Anti-Semitism has its roots in psychology. Those in the in-group are fair, honest individuals, if Joe did something wrong, he’d have to be the problem, because the group inofitself can’t falter. However, those in the out-group are generalized as wrong, because it is easier to make stereotypes then it is to “think” outside the box and ask questions. To give you an idea of this, it takes 10 images to debunk just one stereotype. I know, the task seems almost impossible, but then we turn round back to my point in suffering: we suffer, and through that suffering, we educate the world around us in the hopes of making a brighter future for our children.
P.S., you’ve asked such insightful questions, believe me, you’re not stupid.
R
Rabbi
Guest
True, but what about Philo and Rambam? They freely submerged themselves into Hellenistic thought, per se (though to a degree), and yes, many Pharisees would have rejected it outright at that time. I would just add that the Pharisaic movement is much older than you’d first think; its roots go back all the way to Sinai.
The term “Palestine” is a misnomer, no one called it that, least of all, Jesus! The region was known as Judea, always was, always will be. The name Palestine also has no relation whatsoever to the people living there today. And by “people,” I don’t mean my fellow Jews. I hope for peace in the land, do not take my views the wrong way,
The term “Palestine” is a misnomer, no one called it that, least of all, Jesus! The region was known as Judea, always was, always will be. The name Palestine also has no relation whatsoever to the people living there today. And by “people,” I don’t mean my fellow Jews. I hope for peace in the land, do not take my views the wrong way,
Last edited:
I
Ivana
Guest
To understand the answer to that, you’d have to take a deep dive into history and into the matter of the modern Jewish religion, which is not the religion of the Old Testament by any means. This page explains all that sort of thing. There’s a lot of things to delve into, be warned (and NO, that page is not antisemitic or racist in any way, thank God).
O
OneSheep
Guest
That makes sense, yes. Might as well accept suffering. Acceptance is a contemplative approach to life! Thanks for bringing that up here.
Let me know what you think of this observation: All of our ancestors (yours and mine) were basically agrarian. However, when the Jewish diaspora tried to aquire land in other nations, they were shut out. As a result, Jewish people had to become more clever about earning money and developed skills and professions that put them in more prominent roles in society. This, in itself, made your ancestors more visible, right? So the visibility, along with plain-old-ordinary tribalism (which we all are subject to) contributed to “the problem”.
In my observation, there are other psycho/sociological factors that also contribute. Some of these factors are very present in the US today, aggravating bigotry toward several groups. Do you agree?
I appreciate what you say about “some Jews might be upset”. That is an acknowledgement that we have the same set of human drives and capacities jerking us around (and leading to suffering!).
Yes, we humans get envious, and when resources are scarce, we get even more envious. We are all subject to this, do you agree? And then, hopefully “the larger community” will call us out. The “calling out” doesn’t always happen though.
Well, I can’t say that I’ve known anyone who thought this, but I have no reason to doubt it.
Rabbi, you have a really beautiful approach to faith, and I appreciate your confidence in your proper worship. As you probably know, we Catholics also have some confidence in our proper worship. We find some comfort in the familiar…
continued…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, antisemitism and all bigotry has its roots in psychology, I agree completely. I think that much of the negative affect that people have toward “the outgroup” has to do with projecting our shadows, which I think you also expressed in so many words. Maybe it isn’t so much that it is easier to think in terms of stereotypes as it is a matter we repress the aspects of our nature that we resent, and then we project those repressed drives, capacities, etc onto the “outgroup”. Rabbi, I brought this up earlier in the thread, and people had negative reactions. Nobody ever answered the questions! Why? I think it is not because it was “easier” not to answer them, but that answering the questions involved taking a hard look at ourselves and admitting that we are all capable of resentment and hate. People don’t want to “go there”.
As far as ingroup/outgroup thinking, I think the whole world would benefit in seeing this segment of “60 minutes” which aired a few years ago:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=FRvVFW85IcU&usg=AOvVaw1NkMURn9TZNxMbTSRLfaoL
Enjoy. Also note Leslie Stahl using language refering to her own shadow…
Perhaps “stupid” is too hard a word. As a child, I used to raise sheep. If you take a sheep by the face and just look into their eyes, what do you see? Absolute stupidity. Innocence, love, but very little intelligence. I came to a point in my life where my whole world turned upside down in such a mind-opening way that I was flattened in humility. I was left with a new image of God and man in which I remembered looking into the eyes of those sheep, that my looking into their eyes is a metaphor for the Divine looking into my own.
Whoever was inspired to compare people to sheep in holy scripture was a very wise person.
I am so glad you are here, Rabbi. If you are too busy to stay with this thread, I ask for permission to message you if something comes up that could use a person from your position. If you would rather not be messaged, that is okay.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I did a little checking around on that page, and I did not see anything blatantly antisemitic, but I did click on the video about Rep. Paul Findley, and that particular link appears to have been hacked, with a very antisemitic-sounding video inserted.
I tried to send the site a note about the hack, but it appears that the image verification for registering has also been hacked.
The main reservation I have about that page is that it in part has the appearance of battle rather than understanding, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Of course Jewish people have some moments in their history (and even today) that are awful, all groups that have been around for centuries have the same. If we are truly seeking the kingdom, we must forgive and move forward, not point at people’s pasts and hold onto blame or find new reasons to blame.
The real video is here:
I’m not endorsing it or criticizing it, I only watched a few minutes. Findley’s talk begins about 8 minutes in.
I tried to send the site a note about the hack, but it appears that the image verification for registering has also been hacked.
The main reservation I have about that page is that it in part has the appearance of battle rather than understanding, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Of course Jewish people have some moments in their history (and even today) that are awful, all groups that have been around for centuries have the same. If we are truly seeking the kingdom, we must forgive and move forward, not point at people’s pasts and hold onto blame or find new reasons to blame.
The real video is here:
I’m not endorsing it or criticizing it, I only watched a few minutes. Findley’s talk begins about 8 minutes in.
Ivana, are you reflecting your opinion, or the opinion of that page? If you were a Jewish person reading that comment, how would you feel?
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
What do you suppose was being thought and felt by those observant Jews? Feel free to draw from modern conservatism, just guess and note that it is guessing. I am sure that others would be willing to add there own perspective if you leave anything out. Try to come up with two alternatives on their thoughts and emotions, because there were surely a variety of reactions. Keep in mind that we are not looking at a specifically Jewish mindset, but at the way our human minds operate.
Trying to hone in here. The historical info is interesting, and it is true that prejudices can be instilled from one generation the the next, but thank God the modern media and society has a way of “calling out” those ingrained prejudices. Many of the prejudices simply disappear because situations change and people generally seek reconciliation. I am optimistic, especially considering millenials and the younger generation, that they do not have ears for “taught” bigotry.
N
niceatheist
Guest
We know there was a civil war between the two groups, so clearly there was considerable ill will on both sides.
The reason for bringing up the Seleucids is to demonstrate the likely point of origin of anti-Semitism as we know it. Greeks in the region were the first group to have formed a distinctive and peculiar dislike of Jews. My contention is that Greek converts, emboldened by some apparent language in the Gospels criticizing Jews for Jesus’ execution, basically transplanted anti-Jewish sentiment into early Christian communities, and along with other tensions between early Christians and Jews, spread that sentiment from one end of Christendom to the other. I’d say all these conflicts are rooted in the belief that the Jews were being stubborn in not converting and were unnecessarily conservative (you can’t see clear evidence of that in Paul’s views on the circumcision issue).
The reason for bringing up the Seleucids is to demonstrate the likely point of origin of anti-Semitism as we know it. Greeks in the region were the first group to have formed a distinctive and peculiar dislike of Jews. My contention is that Greek converts, emboldened by some apparent language in the Gospels criticizing Jews for Jesus’ execution, basically transplanted anti-Jewish sentiment into early Christian communities, and along with other tensions between early Christians and Jews, spread that sentiment from one end of Christendom to the other. I’d say all these conflicts are rooted in the belief that the Jews were being stubborn in not converting and were unnecessarily conservative (you can’t see clear evidence of that in Paul’s views on the circumcision issue).
Last edited:
B
Beryllos
Guest
Who wrote that series of essays?
I have read a bit of them, and I’m having a hard time accepting your (and the author’s) claim that it is not antisemitic. A lot of speculation, hints, innuendo, putting words in other people’s mouths, personal reflections that seem paranoid, and fallacious arguments. Not a lot of sources and references.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
I have read a bit of them, and I’m having a hard time accepting your (and the author’s) claim that it is not antisemitic. A lot of speculation, hints, innuendo, putting words in other people’s mouths, personal reflections that seem paranoid, and fallacious arguments. Not a lot of sources and references.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
Last edited:
R
Rabbi
Guest
I agree with everything you’ve stated. The sheep analogy is a good one, mirroring how helpless we really are and in need of G-d’s grace. I’ve noticed the analogy used even in Hindu Scripture, so it is well known. By the way, feel free to message me anytime.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning!
Was there an ingroup/outgroup dynamic shift that transformed communities?
Yes, I believe that.
Do you expect that when some Jews became more “hellenized”, they sort of accepted Greeks as part of their ingroup, and to some degree distanced themselves from the Observant, or do you think that there was a “distancing” happening from both sides?
Was there an ingroup/outgroup dynamic shift that transformed communities?
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, there is the helpless aspect too, and I didn’t mention the aspect that sheep are so lovable!
Getting back to the topic, though, I have long wondered about something, and maybe you could help me. It is my understanding that in Judaism, the theology is much less dualistic than either Chrisitanity or Islam. For example, it is my understanding that “satan” in Judaism is much more of a “trickster”, better described as an “agent of God’s” so to speak. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that understanding.
So in our U.S. “Christian nation” (I have some hesitation in calling it that, but it is the majority) as well as other “Christian nations”, (i.e. Germany), there is possible a sense that some part of creation (i.e., the “evil, bad, worthless people”) represent or embody a negative force or power. This is also a matter of psychological projection, people project their shadow onto the “outgroup”… especially when members of the outgroup are not exhibiting perfect behavior (bad behavior, which all of us are capable of).
Therefore, I am wondering if you think that perhaps if there was one aspect of theology that we Christians could really learn from Judaism, and would make a significant impact on antisemitism and all racism, it would be that we Christians would learn to recognize that when negative affects are attached to other people’s existence, to their value, such is in itself an illusion, as I quoted Fr. Anthony de Mello stated in this post.
If this were the case, whenever people spoke badly about anyone’s dignity, (i.e. “they are evil”) we could see the opinion as not only an illusion, but words that run contrary to our theology/anthropology.
What do you think?
Last edited:
D
DeoVindice1863
Guest
People call things or people anti Semitic so they can avoid having a discussion or to frighten people so they won’t ask questions or talk about certain things. Racist, sexist, islamophobe, homophobe and many other words are used the same way.
D
DeoVindice1863
Guest
If somebody wants white people to exist and be the majority in their own countries, they get called racist. If someone loves their culture and want it to exist, they’re called xenophobic. If someone asks questions about Jews and Jewish History, they get called an anti-Semite. I also believe that the truth doesn’t need protection, so when I see people ask questions or post facts about Jews through History and then their poss get deleted and hey get suspended, it gives the impression that since there is no argument against them, they have to be censored. I mean, if so called “anti-Semitism” is not based on facts, then it should be easy to debate someone and show how wrong they are, right? And then everyone will benefit by seeing how fallacious the “anti-Semitic” position is, but instead whenever someone says something considered “anti-Semitic”, it gets censored and people just label the as “anti-Semites”. I wonder if Catholics feel the same way when they get censored and bullied for supporting he Church’s teachings and get called “homophobic” or “offensive”.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I can see that.
Glad to know I’m not the only one.
Glad to know I’m not the only one.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, they “get called a racist”, because that fits a pretty common definition of racism. Racism can be defined simply of preferring a particular race to be in control. For example, would you say that the people in control of South Africa during apartheid were racist? (at least, those that were making those laws?)
On the other hand, my wife was reading a book by a black person who said that if you are white in America, you are a racist unless you actively fight racism. Sheesh. She never admitted that a black person could be racist. Double Sheesh.
What is your own definition of racism?
You bring up an important issue: Which of us is entitled to judge (condemn) another person as racist?
I think that if someone used that label in that instance, that would be a very rare usage. I haven’t heard “xenophobic” used that way, but I don’t doubt your words. What is important in this is not just the vocabulary but the way that it is used. Was the tone condemning? I can also imagine someone saying “Joe is xenophobic just like we are all a little xenophobic”. Especially if the definition of such “xenophobia” is “loving your culture and wanting it to exist”, that sounds like a pretty easy concept to take ownership of!
It depends how the “asking” is done, and what is being asked. If the “asking” is done in a condemning, accusational tone, yes, it can be understandably labeled “antisemitic” because some judging (negative feelings) are involved. My wonderful wife might ask me something like “Why didn’t you wash that dirty plate?” There are some differences in tone in the delivery, right? It might be a simple question, or it might be an accusation.
I asked some questions earlier in this thread, and people projected that my tone was antisemitic, judging and condemning, and I didn’t even mention Jews!
O
OneSheep
Guest
You might look a few posts back when someone posted a link to a “fisheaters” website, which has been hacked, but what is there in the titles and content include content that brings up some awful things that Jews have done in history. One has to ask, “why bring up these things?” does bringing these things up move forward a Kingdom where Reconciliation and Forgiveness are upheld and valued? If they are brought up to promote reconciliation and forgiveness, then that is good, but it would be a tough argument to make. If instead they are brought up to attack, then the Gospel does not support that approach.
We have to remember to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, right?
So, what is your definition of “antisemitic”?
blackforest
Well-known member
I’m weighing in late and apologize for not having read all of the posts in this thread. But it’s a lot more complicated than what you’re saying. Texas speech pathologist fired by school district for refusing to sign pro-Israel oath
This is kind of like saying that pro-lifers “don’t care about born people.” Nobody can scatter themselves that much. Very few politicians support any kind of BDS for Israel, China, or Saudi Arabia, so these movements are grassroots at their core.
That said, whether or not you agree with the BDS movement, they have every Constitutional right to exist and exercise their beliefs, something that anti-BDS laws take away.
This is entirely misrepresentative of the very quotes you posted.
The discussion of Israel in this country as reached fever-pitch hysteria and an alarming level of anti-intellectualism.
It is fallacious to equate criticism of a nation’s policies and practices with racism or other prejudice toward its dominant ethnicity. I’m critical of Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations but not Islamophobic, of China’s but not Sinophobic, and of the DRC’s but not anti-African. And even in the face of my dear conservative, Jewish, pro-Israel father, I’ve long criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. (He and I have had only respectful discussions about this).
Denouncing critics of human rights violations as “racist” or otherwise prejudiced is not an argument but a substitute for an argument. It is a deflection, an attempt to silence critics rather than engage in the more difficult task of defending atrocities committed against innocent people.
She’s a frosh representative who was bullied into it.
This isn’t about “the Jews,” by the way. It’s about elitists in power, both here and in Israel, who have made unwise and even egregious decisions. A good number of Jewish people - these folks, as just one example - are critical of the Israeli government; fortunately, they aren’t being denounced as “anti-Semitic” for it.
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Oh, are you referring to the posts made by the guy who disingenuously was trying to make the Jewish people synonymous with Communism and genocide? Who went on a discussion about anti-Semitism to talk about Communism and only Communism with a list of Communists who all also happened to be Jewish and then lashed out at the same logic being applied to his own people? Was that not a rebuttal of his claims? He was shown the fallacious nature of his positions, but that doesn’t make his posts appropriate. I wouldn’t find them anymore appropriate than someone coming on this forum to talk about famous Catholics with Hitler and Ante Pavelić as the only two on the list.
There’s no clause in the TOS of this site that allow people to post whatever they want, no matter how slanderous it is, because it’s “interesting discussion”.
- Status