MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
AE on Telly News (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 145, 146, 147  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
My wife is Jewish.

Cool. So what's her opinion on things such as this? For example, if she's on YouTube and a video pops up where someone is questioning the official story of the Holocaust let's say, what's her response? Fear, outrage, indifference?

For instance I imagine if I were Jewish I'd be outraged that books questioning the Holocaust were banned on Amazon on my behalf. Plus I would be smart enough to realise that banning such books would increase the perceived sense of Jewish privilege, and therefore lead to an increase in anti-Semitic sentiment.

I'd like to hear the opinions of normal Jewish people on issues such as this.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
...where someone is questioning the official story of the Holocaust let's say...


That would be me at the dinner table.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

She's pretty well accepted that there's some monkey business about Auschwitz. Simply going on my accounts of the research I've seen. On the other hand, I myself don't fully discount the massacres on the eastern front. I simply haven't done sufficient research on that topic.

She read a book on that subject called Holocaust By Bullets that I would like to read given time to do so. But I'm skeptical about such material as the eastern front was all Soviet occupied, and the Soviets were the chief proponents of all the anti-Nazi war-crime propaganda. I've also seen how the rape of Nanking was largely invented by the communist Chinese so.....I honestly think the whole story is up for grabs right now.

People generally believe and promote the truths that benefit them. Doesn't require a Jewish conspiracy.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
She's pretty well accepted that there's some monkey business about Auschwitz.

This is the sort of thing I was hoping to hear. It's quite reassuring. I always assumed there would be diversity of opinion amongst people from Jewish backgrounds in real life. Or at least tolerance for other views. Without hearing Jewish people express this though it can be easy to start to doubt it. Especially when the media and Jewish interest groups tend to be so eager to throw the label "anti-Semite" around.

There does seem to be a general rise in anti-Jewish sentiment online. I've watched it grow over the last few years or so. I don't think it's especially extreme anti-Jewishness, but it is there. Even just going by the increasing number of comments left under videos. I used to argue against it, but it gets difficult. One common argument made is that you never hear a Jewish person doubt the Holocaust. There's this view that all Jewish people are ultimately very tribal. I can never really counter this argument properly - that's why I'm interested in real world views.

As for the Holocaust itself I don't have a fixed view. Only that whatever happened has probably been exaggerated somewhat.

Again though, I watched some David Irving interviews recently. I'd always been led to believe that he was a scary Jew-hating Hitler-lover (I actually felt a little guilty when I started to watch the videos) ..however, when I watched he seemed like a perfectly normal guy. He was quite engaging and intelligent. Censoring someone like him doesn't do Jewish people any favours. It makes it look as though there's something to hide.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As the sole (I think) representative Jew of AEL, I can vouch for never having experienced anti-Semitism. Not everyone of course knows who is Jewish because in England most don't stand out though Jews themselves can usually tell. Like Amis, I note Jewish names in TV credits and am vicariously proud if someone cited for some achievement turns out to be Jewish, perhaps unlike Amis.

I have attended (twice) synagogue services hosted by the local Reform synagogue in Maidenhead which happens to be the constituency of Mrs May, the then Home Secretary, and security was paramount. The first time the entrance was supervised by armed guards (second time was less extreme, just electronic security). Sensible precautions or paranoia? Presumably the former since the first visit was just after 9/11 when everyone was twitchy.

Jews in Europe are unlikely to question the holocaust since most are at least indirectly affected and all have been reared on the narrative. The generation who lived through the '30s are dying out though being Jewish was presumably no less hazardous than belonging to a Communist or Fascist organisation if for different reasons.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Firstly, my apologies if some of my comments have sounded a bit blunt or unsympathetic. I wouldn't want to offend anyone or put people on the spot. The information is very much appreciated though :)

Some of my opinions will no doubt end up offending some Jewish people. My general view is that most Jews are probably Europeans who don't think they're European. (In fact, I watched a documentary on the BBC the other day about orthodox Jews moving to Canvey Island - some of them were the most ginger people I've ever seen. I also recently watched a show featuring Alexei Sayle where he too was talking about his Jewish mother having bright red hair.) I think some of the problems stem from this. The history is so mixed up. I can't imagine too many people will appreciate having their history questioned though, especially by a perceived "outsider".

I note Jewish names in TV credits and am vicariously proud if someone cited for some achievement turns out to be Jewish

This is precisely like how in my family there is a lot of Scottish blood. So some of my relatives constantly take pride in all the countless achievements of Scottish inventors and whatnot - even though they themselves have spent pretty much all their life in England. This sort of thing is probably beneficial in many ways, and is perfectly natural. However, I wonder what the cumulative effect of this kind of thinking can have. Especially when it's mixed up with a particular religion, and in the case of Jewishness sometimes Zionism as well.

Recently there was a big furore when Yair Netanyahu (son of Benjamin) was accused of being anti-Semitic for sharing an anti-Semitic meme. It seems like quite a crazy situation to me when the son of an Israeli PM can be accused of being anti-Semitic. I don't know too much about Israel, but just trying to think about it logically I would imagine that overtime normal Israelis will come to have more in common with British and American nationalists, than with diaspora Jews. This maybe explains why Trump is often accused of being racist in America by Jewish people, yet is not so unpopular in Israel. Again though I'm not really sure. More just curious.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Firstly, my apologies if some of my comments have sounded a bit blunt or unsympathetic. I wouldn't want to offend anyone or put people on the spot.

In that case would you push off to some other forum.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Firstly, my apologies if some of my comments have sounded a bit blunt or unsympathetic. I wouldn't want to offend anyone or put people on the spot.


Keep going...

My own interest in antisemitism has been to learn about John Chrysostom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom


wiki wrote:
John Chrysostom (/ˈkrɪsəstəm, krɪˈsɒstəm/; Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος; c. 349 – 14 September 407),[5] Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority[6] by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities. The epithet Χρυσόστομος (Chrysostomos, anglicized as Chrysostom) means "golden-mouthed" in Greek and denotes his celebrated eloquence.[2][7] Chrysostom was among the most prolific authors in the early Christian Church, exceeded only by Augustine of Hippo in the quantity of his surviving writings.


Golden mouth.....John's father died soon after birth and he was raised by his mother....... .


In Antioch, over the course of twelve years (386–397), John gained popularity because of the eloquence of his public speaking at the Golden Church, Antioch's cathedral, especially his insightful expositions of Bible passages and moral teaching. The most valuable of his works from this period are his Homilies on various books of the Bible. He emphasised charitable giving and was concerned with the spiritual and temporal needs of the poor. He spoke against abuse of wealth and personal property:


Nice Fella bit like christ, still you wouldn't want to offer him a pint.


John's social and religious world was formed by the continuing and pervasive presence of paganism in the life of the city. One of his regular topics was the paganism in the culture of Constantinople, and in his homilies he thunders against popular pagan amusements: the theatre, horseraces, and the revelry surrounding holidays.[40] In particular, he criticizes Christians for taking part in such activities:


OK he was a bit devout, but basically a good man.

During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386–387), John denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight homilies delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances.[44] It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame, censure).[citation needed]

One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom's flock. In his homilies, John criticized those "Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.[45]

John claimed that synagogues were full of Christians on the shabbats and Jewish festivals, especially of Christian women, because they loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy and enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom.[46] A more recent theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity.[47]

In Greek the homilies are called Kata Ioudaiōn (Κατὰ Ιουδαίων), which is translated as Adversus Judaeos in Latin and Against the Jews in English.[48] The original Benedictine editor of the homilies, Bernard de Montfaucon, gives the following footnote to the title: "A discourse against the Jews; but it was delivered against those who were Judaizing and keeping the fasts with them [the Jews]."[48]

According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[49] This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.[50]


I didn't actually know him.


Homily against Homosexuality[edit]
Chrysostom loathed homosexuality.[51] His most notable discourse in this regard is his fourth homily on Romans 1:26–27, where he argues that those who have sex with the same gender must do so because they are insane:

"All of these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases. ... [The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men."[52]

He describes homosexuality as the worst of sins, greater than murder. He asserts that punishment will be found in hell for such transgressors, and that women can be guilty of the sin as much as men (although the former disrupt the patriarchal hierarchy through such as act). Chrysostom argues that the male passive partner has effectively renounced his manhood and become a woman – such an individual deserves to be "driven out and stoned". Chrysostom was particularly influential in shaping early Christian thought that same-sex desire was an evil that ultimately resulted in social injustice – altering the traditional interpretation of Sodom as a place of inhospitality, to one where the sexual transgressions of the Sodomites became paramount.[53] Allen describes the sermon as the "climax and consummation of homophobia in the late classical world".[54]


As I was saying, total bastard.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Because he disagrees with you? Seems a bit harsh.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chrysostom was among the most prolific authors in the early Christian Church, exceeded only by Augustine of Hippo in the quantity of his surviving writings.



John Chrysostom (I doubt he existed) is an important figure in the development of the Jesus Christ story, in particular how it developed through the use of homilies and imagery. Up to 400 (whatever that means) the most common image were those of Apollo/Augustus. After 400-500 (whatever that means) images of Christ became more prevalent.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.

These people were probably just Jews (or some approximation). The label "Judaizing Christian" is probably just a re-branding to make it look like Christianity was always preeminent.

Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Christianity was a relatively new religion. So it would mean these people, or their immediate ancestors, adopted Christianity, in spite of the great persecution they suffered, then just dropped it again and started following another faith. Also it doesn't really explain how a minor Jewish group of people could incorporate a much larger flock of non-Jews. They'd need quite roomy synagogues I'd imagine.

It's probably a similar story re the druids. There's no evidence for them outside of ancient Roman texts. So they're probably just a generic placeholder to fill in the "pre-Christian" blank in order to hide the real history of competing religious traditions.

Also Jews are supposed to have a written tradition going back thousands of years, yet they have the exact same blanks in their history that everyone else has. We should be able to consult the Jews to find out what was happening in, let's say, the Dark Ages, but they don't know. They don't even know what they themselves were doing in that period. So they have a historic chain of literate Rabbis, but for hundreds of years they never write anything down - or at least anything worth keeping.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Christianity was a relatively new religion.

You've got to be a bit careful here. On the orthodox view, 'Talmudic' Judaism is more AD than BC.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here is the model of religious development I have in my mind.

Once upon a time, all of the religious authorities in Europe were Jewish. Jewish Law was European Law. When we read about the medieval "Catholic" Church, most of the time, this is what we are talking about.

Christianity began as an insurgency against the Jewish Priest class. It may have been an import from India (krishna = Christ, according to Fomenko). When we read about the medieval "Protestant" Church, most of the time, this is what we are talking about. Early Christianity. This is why Martin Luther seems so outrageously anti-semetic. It's because the editing of the history books has removed the context for that anti-semitism.

So what happened to the Catholic Church?

The counter-reformation.

The counter-reformation saw the incorporation into the Catholic Orthodoxy many of the key elements of Christianity--effectively Christianizing the Catholic Church. This counter-reformation occurred prior to the Great Schism between east and west. During this period, eclesiastical histroy was re-written to make many protestant martyrs into Catholic Saints. The "Catholic" rulers who had them killed were renamed "Romans."

(Note that Jesus was handed over to the secular Roman authorities after trial, as was the practice during the "Catholic" inquisition).

So who are the Jews? The Jews are the Catholic Priesthood that rejected the Jesus teaching. They had no place in the reformed Church so they retained the old practices in their own temples.

Only real question is where Islam came from. Islam seems more "Jewish" than the Jews.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:

It's probably a similar story re the druids. There's no evidence for them outside of ancient Roman texts. So they're probably just a generic placeholder to fill in the "pre-Christian" blank in order to hide the real history of competing religious traditions.
Also Jews are supposed to have a written tradition going back thousands of years, yet they have the exact same blanks in their history that everyone else has. We should be able to consult the Jews to find out what was happening in, let's say, the Dark Ages, but they don't know. They don't even know what they themselves were doing in that period. So they have a historic chain of literate Rabbis, but for hundreds of years they never write anything down - or at least anything worth keeping.



Here is a handy comparison between The Hebrew Mind and the Western Mind.
http://www.godward.org/hebrew%20roots/hebrew_mind_vs__the_western_mind.htm

It's probably a similar story re the druids. There's no evidence for them outside of ancient Roman texts. So they're probably just a generic placeholder to fill in the "pre-Christian" blank in order to hide the real history of competing religious traditions.

Not that you or I, would accept the headings.

There again this is not just about competing religious traditions. Its about different conceptions of space and time. (For me)

(Western) Linear time divided into neat segments. Each event is new..... V ....... (Hebrew) Cyclical or spiraling time. Similar events constantly reoccur.

Just assuming time is linear.... and shifting the christian calendar 300 years (blanks) this way or that, won't work. (For Wiley).

JC is not happy that
"Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.


They don't accept his notions of time and space.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Here is the model of religious development I have in my mind.

This is an excellent model. It gives structure to where I was vaguely heading. I hadn't even considered looking at the Catholic Church itself in this way.

This is why Martin Luther seems so outrageously anti-semitic. It's because the editing of the history books has removed the context for that anti-semitism.

I had problems with this. I was originally thinking that some of his opinions were forged, but I couldn't make that work. This makes much more sense.

Christianity began as an insurgency against the Jewish Priest class.

This is my opinion as well. Also, I think it was probably much more of a political/economic rebellion than people realise. I think some of the religious "Christian" aspects probably developed as a consequence of the political struggle.

Jesus kicking the money changers out of the church, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" etc.

Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?" Peter answers, "from others," and Jesus replies: "Then the children are exempt...

I think Jesus represents the archetypal rebel/martyr, whereas Judas personifies the self-interested shill or sellout.

The relationship between Jews and taxation is always apparent as well. In the earliest stories Jews always seem to be the tax collector. Either collecting at temples, or doing it on behalf of a king or ruler. It's always said for example that the Normans brought over Jews to collect taxes for the king. You also hear these notions of Jews "belonging" to or being the "property" of the king. I think it's probably more likely that this simply means that they worked on behalf of the state, like a civil service, rather than that they were owned slave-like.

However, when you move further forward in time Jews become tax payer, with all these special Jewish taxes. Some of the laws even say things like Jews must be accompanied by bodyguards, as well as paying a tax, in order to operate in certain areas. I can only really make sense of this to think of it as a kind of tariff. For example, when the British Empire controlled India they controlled the trade themselves, but now the Indians are back in charge British people and businesses need to pay taxes to operate there.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 145, 146, 147  Next

Jump to:  
Page 26 of 147

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group