CHRISTIANITY HATERS

[Coyote]

If the Hebrews took women from outside the tribe, the resultant offspring would not be considered "Jewish". This has nothing to do with foreign women being considered inferior.

Yeah, and only blacks were slaves because it was good for the economy and had nothing to do with their skin color. Give me a break.

Well, I'm sorry if you refuse to believe me on this but it happens to be the case. Russian Jews come to Israel with their non-Jewish wives, their kids are not considered Jewish because only a Jewish woman, by tradition, can bear Jewish children. I met, in my religious studies school over there, many adult children of mixed marriages where the students were enrolled so they could convert and be considered fully Jewish. It had nothing to do with inferiority.

... I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.

Yes, he wants a Jewish wife. Did it say anything about the daughters of Canaan being inferior? Did the word "inferior" or "low status" or "lesser caste" or "scum of the Earth" appear in the quote? I expected a lot better from you, Durandal, than a big airy strawman like this.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives." The whole assembly responded with a loud voice: "You are right! We must do as you say.

Again, only Jewish women bear halakhically Jewish children; children born to foreign women must be converted according to the tradition. The words "inferior" or "low caste" or "useless shit bitches" don't appear in the quote. Starwman, Durandal, you are above such things. You're hatred for religion is makng 'demons' appear where you need them to be.

Or how about the sons of Ham, who were meant to be servants for everyone else, and how they just happened to be black?

Cushites. How about the Queen of Sheba, an Ethiopian that King David desired so badly that he arranged to have her husband killed so he could make her his wife? Would the King of the Hebrews want to be seen with someone "inferior"?

Were you even aware that there are Black Jews, from Ethiopia- hundreds of thousands of them, and many now live in Israel and are respected greatly for their devotion to the State? Would these Ethiopian Jews have stuck to a religion that considered them "inferior" in the face of the brutal treatment they got fromt he E,mperoro Haile Salisse? Were you aware of the beatings, murders, forced marriages and tattooing the faces of Ethiopian Jews with Crosses-- yet the Ethiopians clung to their Hebrew traditions?

Would you expect this kind of loyalty from a people that was supposed to be "inferior" within their own people?

"

]It is felt that when a Jew marries a non-Jew, then the family will "compromise" on raising children Jewish and the child will grow up missing a vital link to his/her culture and background. S/he will have no link to the faith and will drift away from the population of Jews --a population that doesn't have a lot of people to begin with.

And this has nothing to do with the Jews thinking that they were better than everyone else. Suuuuuure.

Pay attention: Jews. Small population.
Jewish Women: Make more Jews.
Foreign Women: Won't make more Jews.

Hate religion all you want, hate Jews all you want, but at least do it with sense.

As for the slaves, remember that it was the custom of all races/nations/tribes to take slaves; the Jews were a tribe that wanted to end the practice of slavery within their own community (Emphasis added~~ Coyote) but knew they could not guarantee the same if they were captured by others. In a way, your argument could be construed that you support more slavery, by criticising the Jews effort to end it within their ranks.

This is hysterical. There is no indication anywhere that the Jews wanted to end slavery.

Of course not. The Jews didn't give a rat's ass if the Babylonians or Cushites had slaves, why should they, and what could they do if they did care? They felt it wasn't right for a Hebrew to enslave another Hebrew. Why is this so hard to believe?

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].

It's OK to beat your slave as long as he isn't mortally wounded.

When you live in a society that allows the beating of slaves to death, and then one tribe says, "hey, that's wrong, if you beat your slave don't kill him" that is a step up. A small one, but a step up.

...

If a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged, the female slave is to be whipped while nothing happens to the man! Wow! Look at those Israelites! They sure are generous! Let's not even talk about the fact that there is apparently no punishment for raping slave women who aren't engaged. Apparently, they are fair game.

Again, did I say that the Hebrews were perfect? They kept slaves, like everyone else did, but they had a few rules that protected slaves a bit more than other tribes.

Look at it this way-- a lot of people point to the "Magna Carta" as the first step that eventually led towards Democracy in the West. But the Magna Carta did nothing at all for the people, it only decentralized power into the hands of a few noblemen. But it was a small step in the right direction, which opened up the idea that the King does not have divine right to total rule.

But by your reasoning, since the Magna Carta did not automatically give every single peasant a vote, forty acres and a mule, and Parliamentary represntation then it was an utterly useless and even Evil document. But at the time it was enlightened.

The Emancipation Proclomation didn't go far enough either, by modern contexts-- so was it utterly useless, stupid and Evil and should Abraham Lincoln be vilified throughout history?

... I don't care about the social contexts. There was a social context for Nazi-Germany, as well; that doesn't excuse their actions.

Nazi Germany fit only within the social backgrounds of the German people; it did not fit in the overall social context of the world. Anti-Semitism was popular and normal but the Reich took it above and beyond accepted normal practices.

You may not care about social contexts but unfortunately that is how the world's game is played. I can presume from your argument that as soon as humans developed into Homo Sapiens they should have immediately comprehended democracy, sanitation, astrophysics and nuclear medicine, and their failure to do so makes them evil, worthless, corrupt vile contemptuous shits.

The Jews thought they were better than everyone else, so they had a master race mentality, end of story.

You stuill have not proved this claim.

Your attempts to throw the debate off-course by trying to excuse their attitude are nothing more than red herrings and tacit admissions of defeat.

Actually, it is your strawman insistence to read contexts into Bible quotes where the word "inferior" is never used thatreveals that your argument is based not on a solid foundation of fact but rather an unstable hatred and prejudice. You want, desire, and need to hate and vilify the Hebrews so much that you distort and create things that aren't there.

Furthermore, no one is running around today holding the other Bronze Age cultures as "holy," unlike people who honor Moses, a vicious mass-murderer and terrorist, in churches and synagogues.

I (and certainly no Rabbi I know) is saying that a Bronze Age culture was Holy and worthy of being imitated. It was a starting point, not a goal. Nobody I know in an mainstream religion wants to live like that again, and they are disgusted at the idea of having slaves. The closest is the Islamic salafiyya movement, but they have a different goal in mind.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why you have a problem with criticizing those racist, murderous ancient Israelite savages. People freely refer to the Romans as being cruel for using crucifixion; why does a shroud of moral relativism suddenly descend upon the land when we subject Israel to the same kind of criticism?

[Sokar]

Simple, due to their history , and our being guilt tripped by liberal historians and the media, Israel and the Israelite heritage automatically get a free pass. To be critical of a racist, opressive regime, that has powerful friends in government and the media, well that cant be right , even if we are talking about the ancient Isralites, who drove the indigenous peoples of Caanan off their lands, and waged continal war against their neighbors, took slaves and annihilated cities, gee sounds familiar dosen't it.........

Jews today play the holocaust card all the time, it gets old to me. Yes it was tragic , yes it was evil , no we won't forget, now would you all please get the fuck over it and start acting like normal humans.......

[Darth Servo]

now would you all please get the fuck over it and start acting like normal humans.......

They can't. A religious fanatic is incapable of acting like a normal human by definition.

[Coyote]

I suppose it's just because his arguments are based more on a desire to vilify and demonize than to make a real point. All ancient tribes were cruel and barbarous; but Durandal seems to be hold a special, passionate hatred for the Israelites when they don't deserve any more or less censure than anyone else.

He also misrepresents the concept of the "Chosen People" statement as a "Master Race" ideology which I have never seen it aplied in that way (and his examples didn't back it up sufficiently).

Everyone here should know by now that I don't equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But two arguments that are used by anti-Semite groups (both Arab and fascist movements; I know Arabs are a Semitic people but in this case they are usng it as an anti-Jewish stance) are the 'master race' argument and the 'questioning the right to exist' argument.

That is why I do not immediately jump to support the arguments of Nixon and that whosit_1976 guy. They immediately connect criticism of Israel with denying Israel's right to exist, they don't place a distinction between them. Therefore, anyone criticisng Israel is immediately painted to be an anti-Semite whose arguments are worth nil.

By these standards, I'd technically be some sort of Nazi, a laughable notion.

But even I say that there is a difference between objective criticism and derision born of personal contempt and nothing else.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose it's just because his arguments are based more on a desire to vilify and demonize than to make a real point. All ancient tribes were cruel and barbarous; but Durandal seems to be hold a special, passionate hatred for the Israelites when they don't deserve any more or less censure than anyone else.

You could argue that. However, while the ancient Israelites may deserve no less criticism than anyone else of the era, they get less criticism than anyone else of the era. People are often VERY reluctant to call a spade a spade when it happens to be the spade upon which their religion is based. So Durandal's special negativity toward the ancient Israelites is more of a "corrective" action, ie- aimed at attacking a wall of propaganda that seeks to glorify the Israelites' actions.

Look at "Prince of Egypt", a recent movie directed at CHILDREN, which GLORIFIED the wave of ruthless terrorism (even directed SPECIFICALLY at innocent children at one point) through which the ancient Israelites supposedly freed themselves from Egyptian rule.

[Durandal]

I suppose it's just because his arguments are based more on a desire to vilify and demonize than to make a real point. All ancient tribes were cruel and barbarous; but Durandal seems to be hold a special, passionate hatred for the Israelites when they don't deserve any more or less censure than anyone else.

All right, Coyote, let's cut the bullshit. The problem is that everyone else seems to think that the Jews should be completely exempt from criticism. In a thread about Roman crime and punishment, I'd criticize Rome for feeding Christians to lions as a public spectacle.

Also, enough of this appeal to motives bullshit. You've been dancing around the fact that the Jews did all this shit long enough.

He also misrepresents the concept of the "Chosen People" statement as a "Master Race" ideology which I have never seen it aplied in that way (and his examples didn't back it up sufficiently).

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

This must be where that "Israel was only supposed to be priests" thing came from, but God makes it clear that he favors the Israelites over everyone else. He also delcares them as a "holy nation," implying that all other nations are unholy.

And, just for fun, here's the entire chapter 7 of Deuteronomy.

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?

Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt;

The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the LORD thy God brought thee out: so shall the LORD thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.

Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.

Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.

And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.

And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.

The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Let's sum up, shall we? The Israelites believed that God favored them above everyone else, and that anyone who didn't worship their God was to be destroyed, and that marrying into any other race would turn them away from God, or make them impure. What a coincidence that they thought they had the favor of God above everyone else, and took slaves from every nation but their own. Come on, Coyote. All this screams, "We think we're better than everyone else!"

You wanted the duck to quack at you and say, "I'm a fucking duck, all right?" So there you have it.

Everyone here should know by now that I don't equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But two arguments that are used by anti-Semite groups (both Arab and fascist movements; I know Arabs are a Semitic people but in this case they are usng it as an anti-Jewish stance) are the 'master race' argument and the 'questioning the right to exist' argument.

And yet, you accuse me of anti-Semitism for criticizing the ancient Israelites when I've hardly spoken a word about current Jews.

That is why I do not immediately jump to support the arguments of Nixon and that whosit_1976 guy. They immediately connect criticism of Israel with denying Israel's right to exist, they don't place a distinction between them. Therefore, anyone criticisng Israel is immediately painted to be an anti-Semite whose arguments are worth nil.

By these standards, I'd technically be some sort of Nazi, a laughable notion.

But even I say that there is a difference between objective criticism and derision born of personal contempt and nothing else.

More appeals to motive.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yeah, thats the way things were in the Bronze age, kill the men enslave the children, bash the babies heads against the wall, rape the women. btw that's paraphrased from Henry V.

That's the way war was Fought and tribes survived back then!

Ease the fuck off.

I am no more responsible for the massacures of the anchient isrealites, then Wong is for the slaves killed making the Great Wall, or I am responsible for the Holocost by virtue of being of partial German ancestry.

Chill out Durandel.

[IDMR]

Yeah, thats the way things were in the Bronze age, kill the men enslave the children, bash the babies heads against the wall, rape the women. btw that's paraphrased from Henry V.

That's the way war was Fought and tribes survived back then!

Ease the fuck off.

I am no more responsible for the massacures of the anchient isrealites, then Wong is for the slaves killed making the Great Wall, or I am responsible for the Holocost by virtue of being of partial German ancestry.

Chill out Durandel.

Nobody is calling him responsible. What they are doing is making him see that those things were wrong despite being done in the past and should not be held up as standards for today's behaviour.

[Darth Wong]

I am no more responsible for the massacures of the anchient isrealites, then Wong is for the slaves killed making the Great Wall, or I am responsible for the Holocost by virtue of being of partial German ancestry.

Good. So stop getting offended when Durandal trashes the ancient Israelites for their crimes, since you disavow any responsibility for them.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Let's put it this way, for those of us without the benefit of Myopia in regards to Culture.

EVERY culture, and civilization (Not just religions, but any civilization), has done awful things. Most of them have used religion to "Justify" these things. Do we go on these boards and accuse Verillion or Pounder of burning someone alive in a wicker basket?, Do you think that the decendants of the people of Europe enjoy a good Gladiatorial Circus?, Do you suggest that people of Africa, Germany, Norway, China, & South America still drown babies? Sure that was indicitive of their culture a long time ago.

Now if you were to say that Isreal is wrong for being quite oppressive today, is one thing. But to paint all people of Jewish ancestry, as such, for the actions of their anchint ancestors, is kinda insulting.

[Darth Wong]

Let's put it this way, for those of us without the benefit of Myopia in regards to Culture.

EVERY culture, and civilization (Not just religions, but any civilization), has done awful things. Most of them have used religion to "Justify" these things. Do we go on these boards and accuse Verillion or Pounder of burning someone alive in a wicker basket?, Do you think that the decendants of the people of Europe enjoy a good Gladiatorial Circus?, Do you suggest that people of Africa, Germany, Norway, China, & South America still drown babies? Sure that was indicitive of their culture a long time ago.

Now if you were to say that Isreal is wrong for being quite oppressive today, is one thing. But to paint all people of Jewish ancestry, as such, for the actions of their anchint ancestors, is kinda insulting.

Does the word "strawman" mean anything at all to you? I defy you to find a single post where Durandal or myself "paint all people of Jewish ancestry" badly based on the actions of ancient Israel.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I believe my original swipe agianst another here, was when it was claimed that the Jewish Religion was the most Rascist, exclusionary religion out there, more so then christianity. Strange when one considers that both Christianity and Islam are splinter groups from Judaism.

I find it annoying when people equate Moslems=Terrorists, You wonder do these people even know any Bahai (Ok, Closer to Jews for Mohammad), Sufi, or Sunni?

I did not see Coyote stating that the Jewish religion maintians an Inherient superiority, Yes many sects are still very exclusionary, Hell, most of the sects in Isreal wouldn't accept me. However, of the majority of Jews that's not exactly the case. Isreal actually does not represent the majority of the Jewish population. New York and California do, (At least in terms of population)

[Sokar]

*looks under rocks, inside closets and any handy places of worship*
Out of curiosity, what the hell happened to Zarove......this was his thread till we all hijacked it .......Not that I was looking forward to another magled post , but this just has the feel of someone who starts an argument and then slips out while the fist fight begins.........

[Darth Wong]

I believe my original swipe agianst another here, was when it was claimed that the Jewish Religion was the most Rascist, exclusionary religion out there, more so then christianity. Strange when one considers that both Christianity and Islam are splinter groups from Judaism.

Not strange at all (look at how bloodthirsty the Old Testament is), and how does the Jewish religion translate to "all people of Jewish descent?" Einstein was of Jewish descent, but he did not subscribe to the Jewish religion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

On a correlarry Note:

I do know a friend from High School, whose parents were very upset that she was dating a non-Jewish boy, worse yet, a German Athiest.

Of course her father is now very happy with his son in law, because his daughter is happy.

[Coyote]

The problem is that everyone else seems to think that the Jews should be completely exempt from criticism.

The Fundies; yes. But...

You've been dancing around the fact that the Jews did all this shit long enough.

Where? I never denied that the Hebrews had slaves, I only said that the rules regarding slaves that you used as 'evidence' only showed that in a few circumstances the Hebrews were more lenient.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

This must be where that "Israel was only supposed to be priests" thing came from, but God makes it clear that he favors the Israelites over everyone else. He also delcares them as a "holy nation," implying that all other nations are unholy.

Durandal, are you implying that the world is solely black and white? That what is not specifically Holy must therefore be regarded as Unholy? No nation is described as cast down/cast out or a province of demons. In this passage the Hebrews are particularly Holy in God's eyes but it does not say that the other nations are corrupt.

You yourself have pointed to what God does to 'corrupt' nations elsewhere in the Bible; he destroys them in a gluttony of mass-murder (itchy trigger finger). If the Hebrews are the only "good" nation on Earth, and the rest "bad", why are they not utterly destroyed? The other nations may be neutral or unimportant in God's eyes by this passage; his lack of vengeful action seems to imply this.

God did consider the Hebrews to be his 'favorites' because they accepted the restrictions and rules of the Commandments and the other 613 mitzvot.

...For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (underline added~~ Coyote)

Now THIS adds a lot of weight to your argument and is hard to refute. I will build a defense within the quote itself as we continue...

...But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers(underline added~~ Coyote), hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Remember, God revealed his desires to the Hebrew people at Mount Sinai; he did this because of all the people in the Earth the Hebrews were the tribe that was the most upright in his eyes.

Yes, they kept slaves, as was the custom back then, but these were the people that would later go on to develop laws demanding leniency in certain slave situations, that slaves could not be beaten to death and that they were not to enslave one another. Still quite barabaric by our standards, but for the times it was a fairly enlightened concept.

The Hebrews were the only tribe willing to accept God's rules. Even then they weren't perfect (they were still struggling with polytheism and idolatry), so they became God's favorite. Thus my defense of the quote that the Hebrews are to be "a special people above all people" is that by accepting God's rules, they will eventually excel spiritually compared to other tribes.

This would fit if the goal is to make the Hebrews Priests to the Nations rather than Rulers. How are the people of Israel to be "superior"? The only time God mentions how their superiority is to be manifested it is in a spiritual way, to be Priests above the nations.

This does seem to imply an ethical superiority, which is arrogant, but still not a racial superiority or "Superman" ideology. I'm not sure how to read this-- I admit an arrogance but deny it is racial. Rather than "master Race" it is more like "master Priests".

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Another one that is much better for your argument than the previous examples. I contend that this was a situational example; the Hebrews were about to make war on their enemies and "God" (or their Chieftan) is telling them to feel no pity or remorse for these are the evil bad guys, etc... in other words, demonization of the enemy which is a very normal and unfortunate situation in any war.

Again, I never said that the Hebrews were above this sort of posturing, I recognize their tribal cruelties but seek to dispel the idea that "chosen people" means "master race". Yes, they were very arrogant and sought to push out other tribes. But any country going into war againat a rival will say things like "well, they are less than us, we are better," yadda yadda.

Battle posturing. The US does it, extolling our social virtues and condemning the enemy's. But the US does not have a "Master RACE" ideology (since there is no "race" to America) although we do have a cultural arrogance. I would attribute this to the Hebrew tribe as well, since the Hebrews even then were made up of many different physical races (Ethiopians, Egyptians, and other backgrounds).

The Israelites believed that God favored them above everyone else, and that anyone who didn't worship their God was to be destroyed, and that marrying into any other race would turn them away from God, or make them impure.

Yes, they believed that God favored them, I never denied that. That anyone who didn't worship their God was to be destroyed is doubtful, they would have been forced into contant warfare that would have destroyed them. While they destroyed many tribes to carve out their nation (and any other nation would have done the same, and would have been just as bloody about it) they did not continually pursue this course.

Probably the perceived social self-importance would have been sufficient, they would have disdained other tribes as less enlightened-- but again, a social, rather than racial, arrogance. Remember, the only time God spells out what that "superiority" means is in a spiritual concept.

And marrying "impure" women I have explained already as a means to ensure that enough Jews were being born due to the traditions of where Jews come from (the mother). Having children with foreign women would only increase the number of foreigners and the children would have to convert. But if you are willing to convert the children, then the "race" argument breaks down and it becomes a social position.

What a coincidence that they thought they had the favor of God above everyone else, and took slaves from every nation but their own. Come on, Coyote. All this screams, "We think we're better than everyone else!"

Everyone wants to think that they have the favor of God; the legend of personal contact between God and the Hebrews at Sinai will reinforce their belief.

And again, back to the slaves-- stick with Deuteronomy, it supports you better, the slave issue does not-- would the Hebrews be more moral if they enslaved their own? That does seem to be your implication here, and leads me to the conclusion that at least this part of your argument is driven by emotion rather than logic (not anti-Semitism, we'll get there in a moment).

And yet, you accuse me of anti-Semitism for criticizing the ancient Israelites when I've hardly spoken a word about current Jews.

No-- I should have made this more clear, and I want to apologize profusely to you for this. I did not want to accuse you of anti-Semitism; I am sure we would have run across this a long time ago. My pov was:

...two arguments that are used by anti-Semite groups... are the 'master race' argument and the 'questioning the right to exist' argument.

.

My feeling was that you were using a criticism that is also used by anti-Semitic groups, not that you are anti-Semitic. I do not feel that the "master race" argument is a valid one (for reasons I have outlined) but admit that some criticism is warranted, and that there may be an arrogance there but the RACE aspect of it is wrong.

To take a realistic criticim of Israel and claim that it is anti-Semitic makes a mockery of all the people who have truly suffered at anti-Semitic oppression and hatred. It cheapens the Holocaust and makes it a thing of contempt.

Again, Durandal, I think you have realistic criticisms to address but under NO circumstances do I consider you an anti-Semite and I apologize to you again for that impression my words gave you. I used a very piss-poor selection of words (I went back and re-read it and winced) and can understand if you are angry about this.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The old testement is very bloodthirsty.
Actually the Talmud is even more in depth, and gorier.
The Greek Epics, Beowulf, and the Bagada-Gita are also very bloodthirst too.
So, King Arthur, and Grimm's fairy tales (If you read the non-cleaned up version)

Unfortuantly I read all of the older versions when I was very young.

[Coyote]

I don't miss Zarove. I feel for the guy; dyslexia, but shit, there's spellcheckers, man!

[Coyote]

... while the ancient Israelites may deserve no less criticism than anyone else of the era, they get less criticism than anyone else of the era.

There is a strange insistence to whitewash what happened-- even if the Bible is not literal as far as the actions of God or the so-called "miracles" the rest of the barbarinc tribal actions are right there.

But Fundies bend over backwards to justify it or say that 'cause it was God-ordered or God-inspired then it was 'okay'. This is silly, I agree that we should recognize that the Israeilites were just another tribe and they happened to win, therefore we all get to know their story.

But what you and I can agree with here, in a few ordinary words, are articulated in very vehement terms by Durandal, which I don't understand the reasons for.

[Durandal]

Coyote, I'll work out a full response later, but I'm cooled down now. Last night I was pulling my hair out over some issues with my printer giving me shitty color, and I was pretty frustrated.

[Coyote]

No problem. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding and deal with this when you have the time, it's not like we're actually trying to bash a troll or something.

[Durandal]

The Fundies; yes. But...

Not just the fundamentalists. The US government seems to think that the Jews are not only not deserving of criticism, but deserving of billions of dollars in weaponry and equipment each year in order to crush people they don't like.

Durandal, are you implying that the world is solely black and white? That what is not specifically Holy must therefore be regarded as Unholy? No nation is described as cast down/cast out or a province of demons. In this passage the Hebrews are particularly Holy in God's eyes but it does not say that the other nations are corrupt.

Are you implying that there is some sort of limbo state between "holy" and "unholy"? Besides, the entirety of the Bible is written from perspectives of black and white.

You yourself have pointed to what God does to 'corrupt' nations elsewhere in the Bible; he destroys them in a gluttony of mass-murder (itchy trigger finger). If the Hebrews are the only "good" nation on Earth, and the rest "bad", why are they not utterly destroyed? The other nations may be neutral or unimportant in God's eyes by this passage; his lack of vengeful action seems to imply this.

They were utterly destroyed. God sicked his Israelites on them. Also, God promised that, after the Great Flood, he wouldn't do such a thing again.

God did consider the Hebrews to be his 'favorites' because they accepted the restrictions and rules of the Commandments and the other 613 mitzvot.

They were the only people he gave them to, apparently.

Now THIS adds a lot of weight to your argument and is hard to refute. I will build a defense within the quote itself as we continue...

The entire chapter stinks of master race-like propaganda. "Bla bla bla, you're my favorites. Go out and kill everyone else, because you're my favorites, bla bla bla <insert Biblical talk of "graven images" and "holy" things here>."

Remember, God revealed his desires to the Hebrew people at Mount Sinai; he did this because of all the people in the Earth the Hebrews were the tribe that was the most upright in his eyes.

Of course they were! They were the only people that bought into his existence!

Yes, they kept slaves, as was the custom back then, but these were the people that would later go on to develop laws demanding leniency in certain slave situations, that slaves could not be beaten to death and that they were not to enslave one another. Still quite barabaric by our standards, but for the times it was a fairly enlightened concept.

I wouldn't call beating a woman who has just been raped because she was raped "enlightened," by any standard. However nice the Jews were to their slaves in comparison to everyone else is irrelevant, since no one else is claiming today to be moral paragons, like the Jews. You don't see hundreds of millions of people world-wide honoring the Roman emperor who introduced gladiatorial games, do you? But, hundreds of millions of people do honor Moses, a mass-murderer and terrorist. I wouldn't have a problem if Jews and Christians would just admit that the ancient Israelites were a bunch of savage barbarians, hardly better than anyone else of the time, but they don't, do they? They label mass-murderers as "wise" and "holy."

The Hebrews were the only tribe willing to accept God's rules. Even then they weren't perfect (they were still struggling with polytheism and idolatry), so they became God's favorite. Thus my defense of the quote that the Hebrews are to be "a special people above all people" is that by accepting God's rules, they will eventually excel spiritually compared to other tribes.

It's never documented that God revealed his ridiculous rules to anyone else. God just arbitrarily chose them, which is consistent with a master race-like mentality. "He chose us cuz we're us."

This would fit if the goal is to make the Hebrews Priests to the Nations rather than Rulers. How are the people of Israel to be "superior"? The only time God mentions how their superiority is to be manifested it is in a spiritual way, to be Priests above the nations.

He deems it necessary and acceptable for them to arbitrarily invade other lands at a whim because it's the "Promised Land" or other such nonsense. In other words, Israel's needs come before everyone else's.

This does seem to imply an ethical superiority, which is arrogant, but still not a racial superiority or "Superman" ideology. I'm not sure how to read this-- I admit an arrogance but deny it is racial. Rather than "master Race" it is more like "master Priests".

Priests don't help people out by butchering them. Also, if we look at their religion as defining of their race (which it pretty much is), then we see that God's commands to not only overrun others' cities, but to also destroy their religious icons implies racial superiority.

Another one that is much better for your argument than the previous examples. I contend that this was a situational example; the Hebrews were about to make war on their enemies and "God" (or their Chieftan) is telling them to feel no pity or remorse for these are the evil bad guys, etc... in other words, demonization of the enemy which is a very normal and unfortunate situation in any war.

I agree, however the people claiming to be "morally enlightened" and "superior" compared to everyone else should be held up to higher standards, now shouldn't they?

Again, I never said that the Hebrews were above this sort of posturing, I recognize their tribal cruelties but seek to dispel the idea that "chosen people" means "master race". Yes, they were very arrogant and sought to push out other tribes. But any country going into war againat a rival will say things like "well, they are less than us, we are better," yadda yadda.

Of course, and that implies a master race line of thinking. You could rightfully accuse America of this, except that there is no "American race." There is a Jewish race (apparently in constant danger of another Holocaust, as well). Nationalism and master race ideologies are very close together.

Battle posturing. The US does it, extolling our social virtues and condemning the enemy's. But the US does not have a "Master RACE" ideology (since there is no "race" to America) although we do have a cultural arrogance. I would attribute this to the Hebrew tribe as well, since the Hebrews even then were made up of many different physical races (Ethiopians, Egyptians, and other backgrounds).

Ooh, you can predict the future.
The point remains that the line of thought remains the same. People associate the group they're a part of as being the best, thus giving them excuses to butcher and slaughter others as they see fit.

Yes, they believed that God favored them, I never denied that. That anyone who didn't worship their God was to be destroyed is doubtful, they would have been forced into contant warfare that would have destroyed them. While they destroyed many tribes to carve out their nation (and any other nation would have done the same, and would have been just as bloody about it) they did not continually pursue this course.

Probably the perceived social self-importance would have been sufficient, they would have disdained other tribes as less enlightened-- but again, a social, rather than racial, arrogance. Remember, the only time God spells out what that "superiority" means is in a spiritual concept.

The social life of the Israelites was their religion, and for all intents and purposes, they are a race of people due to their self-imposed isolationist policies with respect to breeding. No one could possibly read the Old Testament and think that the Jews' mission was to enlighten others. That's one of the stark contrasts between the Old and New Testaments. Jesus preached conversion of foes; the Old Testament preached the destruction of foes.

And marrying "impure" women I have explained already as a means to ensure that enough Jews were being born due to the traditions of where Jews come from (the mother). Having children with foreign women would only increase the number of foreigners and the children would have to convert. But if you are willing to convert the children, then the "race" argument breaks down and it becomes a social position.

Except that they weren't willing to convert children, by all appearances. They'd just assume have killed impure children and their parents.

Everyone wants to think that they have the favor of God; the legend of personal contact between God and the Hebrews at Sinai will reinforce their belief.

And again, back to the slaves-- stick with Deuteronomy, it supports you better, the slave issue does not-- would the Hebrews be more moral if they enslaved their own? That does seem to be your implication here, and leads me to the conclusion that at least this part of your argument is driven by emotion rather than logic (not anti-Semitism, we'll get there in a moment).

My argument comes from the fact that no one wants to criticize the Israelites for their actions because of past persecutions, and the fact that lots of people hold ancient Jewish mass-murderers and bloody conquests as acceptable and even holy.

[papachulo10]

Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

[papachulo10]

Has anyone brought up the point (sorry i haven't read all 10 pages so far lol) that the bibel was written by man, and as such is full of opinions and the such. The bibel is a good start but men make mistakes, taking it literally is not wise, yet learning from the teachings like the 10 commandments isn't bad. Remember many people became chrisitans in the later parts of the romand empire cause it offered a benevolent savior and preached obiedience to one god.

Not to mention if it wasn't for christianity the empire would have fallen sooner.

I am quite sure the hindus discriminated back in the day (lol i am not sure of the exact date) and this led to deaths i am sure. So one cannont blame this on the religions of the people of the book (Christianity, Islam, and Judism).

True the crusades were bad, but one must look at the political (or more accurately lake of) climate of the middle ages in the early 11th century. Europe was a barbarian wasteland. What was left of the Western roman empire was rotting in the dust and the East turned a blind eye because the west didn't recognize the Patriarch(not sure if this is the right title, just consider religious mackdaddy) in constantinople, they recognized the pope. So urban decided that the populous of europe would actually do something good if they went east and conquered the holy land. The arabs conqured god know how many people. True the tolerated the christians and the jews, yet one just needs to look at the conquest of persia to observe not everything was roses in Dar es Islam.

In all likelyhood the crusades helped bring the dark ages in europe to an end. When the crusaders came back from the holy land they brought all the opulent things from the east. This stimulated trade (which was relatively nonexistent in the dark ages) with the muslims. It was a step in the right direction.

All right lol, ill quit my ranting. SHoot sorry bout the lenght, i sound like a damn professor.