[Rama Set]

Rama, you have a point. But only an ethnic group can use an ethnic slur to refer to someone outside the group. Ergo, Jews are an ethnic group. To be sure, the term is not a slur. Jesus even used the term in the Gospels. It is an identity designation, nothing more.

I can't imagine how referring to someone essentially as "not of the chosen people" is seen in any other light than derogatory.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, point 1: if you're a Christian (not saying you are), Jesus of Nazareth used the term, as did Paul of Tarsus. Paul was the 1 responsible for getting the Church to accept Gentiles w/o obligating them to the Law. He evidently had no ill will toward them. The term wasn't used abusively by either man. Re: being Chosen, it depends on how you look @ chosenness. It can be understood in very exclusive terms. But, it can also be understood as chosen for service, to bring ethical monotheism to a wounded world. Further, a non-Jew can be accepted into the fold of Judaism. Most of us are Jews by descent & ethnicity, but there are Jews by Choice. So, if you look @ it that way, there is nothing wrong w/ being a Gentile. I know what God has revealed to the Jews through his Prophets, & what I must do to be a good Jew, & a good man before God. What God has or has not revealed to non-Jews is above my pay grade. But you don't have to be a Jew to get to Paradise.

[beardo]

inb4 he calls you a racist for using the term "black", instead of "African American".
Apparently he's got the idea that all black people are African American, whether they're American or not.

So...you want to call African Americans by a name that has hanted and hurt African Americans for years. You are a rascist and a bigot. And a moron. Musnt forget that

Fine, I won't use the word black. So what term should I use when referring to a non-American person of African descent? A person who has never in his whole life lived in America is NOT an African American.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Oscar, the Jews were the original inhabitants, & were given the Land by God. The fact that Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, & Crusaders all tried to force us out is beside the point. Starting in the 1880's, we Jews grew a pair & began reclaiming what is rightfully ours by God's command. The Romans, Byzantines, & the Crusaders are all gone from the land. The Arabs will be next, & we will take what is ours by right.

[spank86]

Oscar, the Jews were the original inhabitants, & were given the Land by God. The fact that Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, & Crusaders all tried to force us out is beside the point. Starting in the 1880's, we Jews grew a pair & began reclaiming what is rightfully ours by God's command. The Romans, Byzantines, & the Crusaders are all gone from the land. The Arabs will be next, & we will take what is ours by right.

Tell that to the Canaanites.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, they were eliminated by God's command, so that point is irrelevant.

[spank86]

Well, they were eliminated by God's command, so that point is irrelevant.

Which is pretty much the Muslim/Arabs argument for getting rid of the Jews (and many christian kings).

They killed Jesus.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The difference being that God doesn't change his mind. The Torah is an eternal document. God says in it that its commands are permanent. It makes no sense for him to suddenly say 'Oh, Jesus (or Mohammed) have come. Sorry, I didn't really mean forever.' & given that Jesus died on a Roman cross makes it clear who killed him.

[spank86]

The difference being that God doesn't change his mind.

he does when people change.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, I disagree. I've had this debate w/ a Muslim I know. God made it clear that the Jews were the Chosen of God. Even when we failed him, he never abandoned us, & never will. The Hebrew Bible is clear on that. I recommend reading the 8th chapter of Zechariah, & pay close attention to the 23rd verse.

[spank86]

Well, I disagree. I've had this debate w/ a Muslim I know. God made it clear that the Jews were the Chosen of God. Even when we failed him, he never abandoned us, & never will. The Hebrew Bible is clear on that. I recommend reading the 8th chapter of Zechariah, & pay close attention to the 23rd verse.

The old testament is quite clear that a number of times god's assistance is dependent on the Jews continuing to follow his commands and that he will express his displeasure if they don't.

I'd say it's been pretty well expressed in the last two thousand years.

Times change and god sent his only son to give you the heads up, you guys (or at least the pharisees) then had the Romans crucify him. that's bound to cheese someone off.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, I could get into this, but I choose not to. I quite regularly deal w/ the subject. The fact is, if the Jews wanted him dead, they would have stoned him to death (the Roman authorities very rarely refused to give consent to the Jews enforcing their own Law). The fact that they didn't puts that whole portion of the Gospel story into doubt. & as re: the sacrifice on the cross makes no sense. The God of Israel specifically forbade human sacrifice. Then he changes his mind & kills his own son. That is illogical in the extreme to even contemplate. Then again, Christians worship a Jewish Rabbi & call him God (weird, but ok), & yet many don't like Jews. Even weirder, but ok.

[spank86]

Clearly the pharisees didn't want it on their own hands, they were actively trying to put themselves in the situation where they could point at the Romans as the culprits.

As for sacrifice, death on the cross is no more or less a sacrifice than stoning is, the sacrifice is not in the action but in the intent.

Given that you believe in an almighty god I don't see many other ways to explain the Jews extreme bad fortune in all the years since.

BTW If you're going to believe in any religion it's probably best not to start labeling anything weird, it's no odder than a talking bush.

[Rama Set]

Well, I could get into this, but I choose not to. I quite regularly deal w/ the subject. The fact is, if the Jews wanted him dead, they would have stoned him to death (the Roman authorities very rarely refused to give consent to the Jews enforcing their own Law). The fact that they didn't puts that whole portion of the Gospel story into doubt. & as re: the sacrifice on the cross makes no sense. The God of Israel specifically forbade human sacrifice. Then he changes his mind & kills his own son. That is illogical in the extreme to even contemplate. Then again, Christians worship a Jewish Rabbi & call him God (weird, but ok), & yet many don't like Jews. Even weirder, but ok.

By your own view, if God seems human sacrifice ethical then it is. Just like when he decided genocide was just fine. People who do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition see no conflict either since both holy books are steeped in the hypocrisy and violence you would expect if it were a collection of documents written by humans. There is no meta-physical problem with God endorsing human sacrifice in the case of Jesus.

[beardo]

I've always wondered what happened to "Thou shall not kill".

[spank86]

I've always wondered what happened to "Thou shall not kill".

I believe the usual explanation is that the correct translation would be "thou shalt not murder".

A fine distinction but a distinction none the less.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, God doesn't change his mind. He declared human sacrifice forbidden. Thus it is. He doesn't change his mind. & as I recall, the Pharisees didn't have much to do w/ it. It was more the High Priest. I'm sure that the Pharisees had a bit of involvement (the Gospel accounts, @ any rate). But I don't trust those accounts. The virgin birth business, the census that no one can verify happening, the non-existance of the murder of the infants of Bethlehem, the fact that Jesus was supposedly convicted by about 15 people in the middle of the night & then given to the Romans (the Sanhedrin never met @ night, or w/ less than 71 members, & they didn't depend on the Romans to execute) all make the Gospel accounts unreliable.

[Rama Set]

God commanded the murder of all the Amalachites in direct contravention to the ten commandments.  When I asked you about that you said, "Well God commanded it so it is ethical."  Why can't the same horrendous logic we applied to the sacrifice of Jesus?

[DuckDodgers]

Are you claiming to know the mind of God when you say he doesn't change his mind?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The death of the Amalekites was not murder, but execution for their crimes against God & the People. Murder is forbidden. Enforcement of God's law by his command is not. I don't claim to know more than what the Bible tells us about God's mind. But God created logic. Violating said logic would render him inconsistent. This is impossible. If God said a thing is forever, & then changes that later, he is fickle @ best, & a liar @ worst. Either is incompatible w/ being God. For now, I end. Be back tonight later.