1. TJ Chambers said:

There are many things that can be said. Christians do make Jews out to be "targets". Many do not realize that they are doing this and others know they are. I come from a fundamental Christian background and they use Israel, as we call it here, as a dot on a prophecy chart. Waiting for the end times to come and for the Christians to be taken away by Jesus and all the Jews suffer and every nation come agains Israel.

The perception of converting a Jew is that it is the best conversion that can be made. It is like getting the largest fish in the sea, or the heaviest deer in the field, or cracking the toughest safe. It is sad that things are this way but it all comes down to the theology. I personally have been told that "the jews" and Israel are suffering because they rejected Jesus. I personally don't follow this type of thing and have joined a different religious following. They still see those "Jews" that killed Jesus, and those "Jews" who rejected him as the same "Jews" that exist today. When I think back on how I use to view these same things, it just seems weird how the Jews of today are looked at to be the same as the Jews from 2000 years ago.

I know that the focus of the article is about Jews but Christians are also a target by muslims just like Jews are. Muslims slaughter and kill numbers of Christians, Jews, Hindus and many others. One last thing that I want to mention is that Christians view Jews as being under the law and without mercy. I think the reason for that is the heretical teaching that the G-d of the old testament is the G-d of wrath and revenge but the G-d under the new testament is the G-d of love and mercy. I have opened a lot of topics with little room to type so I will leave it here.

2. Ted Belman said:

TJ
I want to comment on this sentence of yours. "I think the reason for that is the heretical teaching that the G-d of the old testament is the G-d of wrath and revenge but the G-d under the new testament is the G-d of love and mercy."

I am not sure why you added the word "heretical" but do acknowledge that the G-d of the Torah (old testament to Christians)is often seen as a God of wrath and revenge. Some might think of that as delivering justice. But long before Christianity split off from Judaism, the Hebrew Prophets emphasized a much more complex G-d and Judaism considers G-d to encompass all attributes. Nevertheless the law (Torah) is extremely important.

Jesus was a Jew and did not preach a doctrine or values alien to Judaism. All his followers were Jewish. After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James led the movement until his murder just before the destruction of the second Temple in about 72 AD. Paul was his underling in the movement from the time of his epiphany until his death. They often disagreed but their disagreement was not about theology. It was about the inviolability of the law. James like Jesus accepted the law. Paul did not.

This movement was declared an "anaethma" in 92 AD and disowed by Judaism. Over the next two hundred years, Christianity developed on a more divergent path and emphasized a certain passivity (turn the other cheek), poverty as enobling (the meek share inherit the earth)and stressed the hereafter whereas Judaism stressed the here and now.

Obviously Christianity didn't follow this path during the following expansion under the Romans, during the Crusades, The Religious Wars and the Inquisition, Nevertheless many have returned to these roots, at least the liberals among them. The conservative Christians seem to be more like the legalistic Jews in their outlook. So I don't think it one can place all Christians in the "mercy" camp. Nor can all Jews be placed in the "justice" camp. We have our leftists also.

The final point. Mercy wasn't born with the Christians. Judaism developed notions of fair play, mercy, kindness, charity and justice to live comfortably together. Jesus just taught Jewish values.

But as I suggested and you affirmed the conflict as described in the Merchant of V is alive and well today.

3. TJ Chambers said:

Why did I put heretical? Because it is. It is not true that the G-d of the old testament is the G-d of wrath and the G-d of the new testament is the G-d of mercy and love. I can't recall the individual's name who started this teaching but he was a heretic and somehow his teaching was still used and incorporated into Christianity. Just like the new testament and the old testament, this division was created in the same manner. It really does not exist but in Christian minds. We all know that not everyone follows the same but I just lumped everyone together theoretically, otherwise we would be here all day telling everyone's view points.

Good history lesson. I only have 1 disagreement. Paul was as much for the law as Jesus was. The difference is that his teachings were for the non Jews and that is the issues he was dealing with. In some areas it seems as though he was saying the law is no good but than he says it is good, perfect and spiritual. In research one finds that there is more than what is taught about his teachings and what can be found on the surface. He went to James, as chief rabbi, and asked if gentiles should keep the law. He said no, but there are things they should do.

That was Paul's mission, teaching the gentiles how to live under messiah and with the community of Israel. As you mentioned, the eventually went way off track but Paul did see that also. He talks about it in Romans 9-13. Other than that, i agree with what you said.

4. Ted Belman said:

Salamon wrote:

In support of your very pertinent comments on justice and mercy, let me add my two cent worth:

Justice and Mercy in Hebrew have exactly the same root: the former is the masculine TSEDEK, the latter the feminine TSEDAKAH. They are both ONE and they reflect the same "commandment". Justice calls for the masculine virtues of firmness and reason, while mercy calls for the feminine attributes of leniency, forgiveness and emotion. Justice without mercy would lead to cruelty and authoritarianism; Mercy without justice would lead to the erosion of the ideas of Law, Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Truth and Opinion, etc., eventually rushing the world into CHAOS. Which is perhaps the situation in which the Left has propelled us under the guise of lofty principles!;-)

The big rift between the Jewish and Christian views on this (and other issues) can be traced back to Paul's teachings, as particularly revealed in the Letter to the Romans:

Rom.-3:28: "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law."

Rom.-4:15: ""Because the Law worked wrath. For where there is no law, there is no transgression."

Rom.-7:7-8: ""I had not known sin but by the Law. For I had not known lust except the Law has said 'Thou shalt not covet'. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, for without the Law, sin was dead."

EXCELLENT

5. Ted Belman said:

TJ

That view may have been started by a heretic but having been embraced by Christianity it is wrong to describe it now as heretical. You, yourself, say it was adopted by Christianity. So we are in agreement. And that agreement extends to the fact that both Chrfistianity and Judaism see G-d as embracing all qualities.

Their is no question that Paul devoted his time to spreading the "gospel" or should I say his gospel, to the gentiles. But a closer inspection of the New Testament will reveal arguments between them over the law.

I once wrote in a paper, "He held that Jews should not fraternize with the foreigners which included breaking bread with them. Paul on the other hand argued that the Law no longer applied and that anything could be eaten with anyone and circumcision was no longer necessary. Paul wanted gentile converts to be converted without the necessity of circumcision and bondage to Mosaic law and went so far as to argue that the Law no longer applied to Jews. James found it necessary to advise all communities in his movement that he in effect sets the party line and to police Paul. Acts tells us that Paul so angered the Jews that they tried to kill him. In an early Church document we are told that Paul began a riot in the Temple where James was preaching and “the enemy (Paul) attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the Temple steps” and left him for dead." [...]

"The final fracture came in the late 80’s of the Common Era when Jewish services were altered to include “anathemas” against all who deviated from strict orthodox standards and who relativized the ultimate truth of the Torah. This resulted in the excommunication of the Christians from synagogue life and ultimately from Judaism. No doubt a major cause of this was their abrogation of Mosaic Law. This conflict is similar to the present conflict between the orthodox and liberal or secular Jews in Israel."

Regarding Salamon's comment, I also wrote "Another difference of opinion relating to the abrogation of the Law was that Paul said “Justification not by works of the Law but rather through faith in Jesus Christ.” and “if Righteousness is through the Law, Christ died for nothing.” Judaism believed that you must follow the law and do good works to have a portion in the world to come whereas according to Paul, faith alone is enough for salvation. This difference is expressed many times throughout the literature of the times. The Koran follows the Jewish view in this regard. Today, Reform Judaism rejects much of the Law but doesn’t accept Jesus as Christ or Christians as replacing Jews as the chosen elect. Similarly, Christians believe that good works are also important but that they are not necessary for salvation."

I will forward this paper "The Historical Jesus" to all who request it.

6. Ted Belman said:

W. Spotts writes;

Oh my. I think you inadvertantly stepped into a minefield.

I'll give you my response to this in a little while (when I've had time to put them in some kind of order).

The short form is this: I think what may have given offense was the over-generalization. (Statements like "Christians believe . . ." Christians see themselves . . ." and "They think themselves superior as a result.")

The problem comes in because many that call ourselves "Christians" believe very different things. Some of these are legitimately Christian (common to all times and places). Others are not. These differences are very pronounced today because of our pluralistic culture. This is complicated by the fact that what Christianity teaches in the New Testament is often quite different from what Christianity has taught through various church organizations.

Sorry -- A very poor analogy would be to say something like "Jews don't eat pork". This is not, strictly speaking, true. Historic Judaism, of course, teaches that, but many Jews do not observe dietary laws.

HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THE OVER GENERALIZATION.

7. Al Gordon said:

Excellent thoughts from everyone, but I really don't think that Christian anti-Semitism (tarted up as anti-Zionism) is based on anything more than the politics of envy.

Each time a Christian or a Muslim receives medical treatment at the Lawrence Bloomberg Wing of Mt. Sinai Hospital, they are reminded of the debt they owe to Jewish philanthropy. Since they cannot repay that debt, they chose instead, as George Bernard Shaw said, to hate those who have done them a favour.

The staggering lack of positive contribution to the modern world from Islamic nations makes the politics of envy even more toxic in much of the failed Muslim world.

I regularly hear smug anti-Semitic comments from liberal Christians, and I really believe it is because Jews don't need their help. Nothing pisses off a do-gooder more than someone who has no need of their ministrations. The dysfunctional, pathetically dependent, and shameless Palestinian society as it stands today will always need the help of others, and nothing warms the heart of a do-gooder like dependency.

Again, I believe the un-Christianity of many of the mainstream Christian churches is based on nothing more than pandering to dysfunctional clients who cannot survive without their endless handouts and ministrations. It is also their goal to keep these clients hooked on the toxic drug of dependency, so the pusher retains a role for himself.

Al

8. Ted Belman said:

Will Spotts

(I had originally written to will Spotts about his view of the two letters because a very supportive Christian had written to complain.)

I went back and read the comments on the "Canadian Coalition" site to put this in context.

What caused offense to your article contributor was most likely the tone of Joan's comments (and some others on the CC website). Your comments were more even-handed; if they were taken by themselves I don't think you'd have got that reaction. The issue is the broad brush generalizations and the attempt at psychoanalysis. Personally, I'm not offended, but I do disagree with a couple of the theological arguments, particularly about the text of the Greek New Testament.

Christianity has taken a number of different paths over the years -- with denominations and groups forming at each of the break-off points. That history is too convoluted to get into now, but in many cases these movements have not been novelties introduced. Instead they intended to return to the original principals of the religion. The Protestant Reformation was, at least to its proponents, re-discovering Paul and Augustine -- all of this was standard Catholic doctrine at one time, but had drifted over the centuries. The Calvinist/Reformed movement partly reacted to what they perceived as Luther's incorrect break between grace and law. For Calvinists these are both parts of one divine plan. This tension between change and returning to founding principals is a recurrent theme in modern Christianity. Given this circumstance, it is difficult to make one, accross the board statement about what Christianity is or teaches that would be true for all people who call themselves Christian.

American Christianity took a somewhat different form than its (at the time) European counterparts. The conservative elements in American Christianity by and large did not have the anti-Semitism so common to conservative elements in European Christianity. For example, the practice of using names from the Hebrew Bible for both places and children was not done in many parts of Europe. In America (up to the early 20th Century) it was very common; the more conservative the group the more likely this was to occur. Racism among conservative Christians in America has historically been mostly an issue of skin color as opposed to the form this took in Europe. I am not saying there were not hateful stereotypes, ignorance, or anything of the kind -- but most serious anti-Semitism in America came from Modernist (now liberal) "mainline" denominations. This stopped for a while at the end of WWII, but now it's back in spades. The reason I mention this is that conservative and Evangelical Christians tend to be very supportive of Jews and Israel. This group makes up the largest majority of Christians in the US. They are unaware of the incidence of anti-Semitism in the modern church, unless they're a conservative indivdual or congregation that is caught in one of the "mainline" denominations like the PC(USA), UCC, etc. Being ignorant of the background, when they hear (all) Christians described as anti-Semites, they are confused and hurt. Many question the motives for conservative Christians' support for Israel, and this confuses them as well. There are several reasons this occurs, but in the main it is genuine and based on their views of what is right and just.

I believe that the conservative Christians in America are right in this regard. (I should mention, I suppose, that I am a theological conservative or traditionalist in a mainline denomination.) Their view of the origins of their religion is more accurate than its liberal counterpart. If you ask most conservatives, they may know very little about the practices and beliefs of modern Judaism, but they're very familiar with the Hebrew Bible. They know, for example, that Jesus never claimed to introduce new moral concepts. He was commenting on and teaching things from the Tanach. You rightly note this in your follow up comment. He was not teaching concepts alien to Judaism. (By the way, I was impressed with your knowledge of Christian history on this). A simple look at the number of Greek New Testament quotes or direct referrences to the Torah, Psalms, Isaiah, Samuel, Proverbs, Hosea, Daniel will demonstrate this. This is apparent both in the writings of Paul and the sayings in the Gospels. The majority of conservative Christians in the US are aware of this. It is in the progressive camp (such as the leadership of the PC(USA)) that a gulf is fixed between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. However they only do this incompletely. They like to refer to Isaiah and Micah, but to ignore Torah as that is the "mean god" in their estimation. (To me it seems that they also ignore the mercy included in the Torah). I don't want to go into this because of its complicated nature, but there is a double standard of trying to demand some behaviors of Israelis on the basis of a covenant, while taking away the promise of land that went with that same covenant.

Your comments about Passover are spot on. Christianity (liberal and conservative) tries to focus on the oppressed. It is not "victimology" as such. I would say it is more identity with the oppressed. However, I believe the "progressive" error in the case of support for Palestinian nationalistic aspirations grows out of mistaking the group for the individual. The unempowered group is supported, as opposed to defending the oppressed individual. The aspirations or goals of the group are endorsed as if they were just or morally valid -- when in fact, the only issue Christians would be justified (by Christian teaching) in addressing would be the unjust treatment of the individual. There is no implication of virtue by being oppressed or unempowered. In the Palestinian case, it is not rational to support the nationalistic aspiration, and Christians who try to use Christianity to justify this will simply become hypocrites. The situation is farther complicated by the question of exactly who has victimized individual Palestinians. Yes, people can legitimately complain about certain Israeli actions (or the actions of some Israelis); but to ignore the contributions of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, etc. is unjust. To ignore the contributions of Palestinian sub-groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, and various clerics is also unjust.

I am persuaded that Joan is off base in her assertion that the Christian anti-Semitism that we're seeing in the US has anything to do with Jews rejecting Jesus. The most vitriolic -- those who most freely and openly express their hatred of Israelis (and in many cases all Jews) -- do not concern themselves with things like that. Jesus is, for them, a symbol of a person suffering unjustly. Consider, for example, that these same Christians are the progressives within American Christianity -- have no problems with Muslims -- who also, as a matter of faith, reject Jesus. The Presbytery of the Pacific, for example, prayed to Allah at a recent meeting. Or more specifically to the "God some worship as Allah". They are rather obviously not that picky about whether people accept or reject Jesus.

9. Ted Belman said:

Will

You overstate in the last paragraph. Muslims accept Moses and Jesus as prophets but not Jesus as G-d. Your defense of your view that Christian antisemitism in America does not stem from the rejection of Jesus is weak but not without some merit. The Gospels implanted in Christianity two ideas in this regard. 1) Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and 2) Jews killed Christ. You dismiss too easily the effect of these teachings over the millenium on today's North American Christians. I submit that at a deep level they work their evil.

As "for the God some worship as Allah" I similarily take issue. How can you divorce God from his teachings? While all three religions accept God as the Creator, Benefactor and Judge there is diaagreement as to what He demands of us. Christianity and Judaism have much in common for obvious reasons and differ mainly on theological questions. But insofar as Allah demands a code of conduct far removed from our sensibilities, I refuse to see him as the same God. Someone once said that Communism is what Communism does made the point that it didn't matter what its scriptures say or what its adherents say it stands for. Similarily, Islam is what Islam does and Allah is what Allah does and demands.

10. BobW said:

Shalom All Thread Participants,

"The deeper motives of anti-Semitism have their roots in times long past; they come from the unconscious, and I am quite prepared to hear that what I am going to say will at first appear incredible. I venture to assert that the jealousy the Jews evoked in other peoples by maintaning that they were the first born, favourite child of God the Father has not yet been overcome by those others, just as if the latter had given credence to the assumption. Furthermore, among the customs through which the Jews marked off their aloft position, that of circumcision made a disagreeable, uncanny impression on others. The explaination probably is that it reminds them of the dreaded castration idea and of things in their primeval past which they would fain forget. Then there is lastly the most recent motive of the series. We must not forget that all the peoples who now excel in the practice of anti-Semitism became Christians only in relatively times, sometimes forced to it by bloody compulsion....
...
...
The hatred for Judaism is at bottom hatred for Christianity.

Sigmund Freud, MOSES AND MONOTHEISM, 1939, Section I, IV.

Kol tuv,
BobW

11. Ted Belman said:

Hi Bob

I recall reading Moses and Monetheism many years ago. I still have it in my library.

I think Freud also said that antisemites hate Jews for introducing God and conscience to the world.

12. BobW said:

Shalom Ted,

Yes, the mono-or combined gods all into one Supreme Being, ie monotheism.

and,

Yes, the conscience is the superego.

Kol tuv,
Bob

13. Ted Belman said:

I also once read that the central idea in monotheism as presented by the Torah is not so much one God as opposed to many i.e. a numbers game, it is really about the type of God. In the pagan world, Gods were part of nature. In the Jewish world, God was the creator of nature and above it. He was all powerful and Omnipotent. This represented a major paradigm shift. Christian theology blurred the distinction and introduced the trinity.

14. Ted Belman said:

One more email that I received
--------------------
Some brief comments (ok, not so brief) ... Again, as Ted noted, here are my views, but not to deny the validity of what you are saying.

It is soul-wrenching to read of the ugly actions of anti-semitism, whether done by ‘Christians,’ or others. Divestment is clearly destructive, and intentionally anti-semitic: a pox on all their houses, those who would destroy Israel !!

The usefulness of analysis ("Why ...?") is limited to the level of understanding that is required for appropriate response, and when we hit a wall, we know we must stop asking ‘why’ and we must protect ourselves. I have spent far too much time in the ‘therapeutic mode’ in which the appropriate response is predicated on a change of position in an unwilling other. The ugly truth is that there are many, many destructive people around us, who will continue being destructive because it gets them what they want. The potential solution is to address the ambivalent, the silent and the clearly anti-destructive people, to mobilize them, and to work toward expanding their numbers. Strategy ... There really is considerable value in ‘preaching to the converted’ in this sense.

I strongly disagree with the comment that "... good and decent people" lack empathy: I cannot accept that "good and decent people" allow anti-semitism to continue. To be good, one must be actively behaving in good ways: passive inaction in the face of deliberate destructive action by others does not constitute ‘goodness.’ The whine ‘I don’t want to get involved,’ the bullying admonishion ‘to mind your own business’ are sickening excuses which have managed to become socially acceptable, and which in the process, destroy the humanity of all those involved.

As Joan has pointed out, the churches are abandoning their own - but then, antagonism amongst religious groups is hardly a new phenomenon. The most recent wave of disparagement of religiosity continues unabated: it has long been ‘politically correct’ to deny all forms of religious _expression, and now any mention of religion appears to be assumed to be fundamentalist. The New Scientist Journal (once a rigorous, refereed journal), in its October 8-14 issue, headlines a "Special Report: Fundamentalism Descent into the new Dark Ages" in which several issues are discussed ... worth a careful read (which I have not yet done).

I agree with Al that "trendy liberalism" drives the "rush to support their enemies" but what is fueling this trendy liberalism? Christopher Lasch’s "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979) was the first (to my knowledge) to describe "the culture of competitive individualism, which in its decadence has carried the logic of individualism to the extreme of a war of all against all ..."(preface, p.21). Just a few days ago, I received a copy of the article whic first appeared in the July 1, 2002 edition of FrontPage Magazine.com "Conservative Debate..." involving Bukovsky, Daniel Pipes, Paul Hollander, and Ledeen. Hollander refers to "the psychotic state of the minds of Western leftwing intellectuals ... their self-destructive tendencies ... and why they represent such a great threat ... now in the face of Islam extremism."

It seems obvious that the media’s endless need for new and exciting news is part of the excessive attention preferentially given to these "psychotic" voices, as opposed to moderate voices; as they are brought to the fore, they gain further strength as a group, and easily run roughshod over moderates.

Another psychological interpretation could suggest that destructive outlets are accessed when positive, creative outlets are thwarted. Even moderates have very few outlets for their creative energies. In Canada especially, pride in one’s country is not an acceptable outlet; pride in one’s own accomplishments ('boasting' / "who do you think you are?!") or in that of one's children is strongly condemned ... Lacking socially legitimized, overt goals for their self-identities, many resort to ‘identifying’ with bullies, with the news-makers of the moment.

To close - somewhat abruptly - It is not only ‘Christians’ who are anti-semitic, and, especially at the start of Operation Rudolph, when we partner with the Christian College, it is important to remember that sweeping statements have always contained damaging, unfair distortions.

Operation Rudolph is a brilliant and positive initiative - Let’s give it all we’ve got - I’ve started making my contacts ...