Something Bad Jesus Did

[Servetus]

Hi Saltmeister,

Please don’t read this, my current correction.

Corrigendum:

Napoleon, another skeptic and muckraker, said (something to this effect): “God is on the side with the best and biggest canons.”

Aaargh! That should be cannons, double ‘n’.

Note to Bananabrain,

I was oblivious to some of the interpersonal dynamics here in effect. For your information, I have no need to agitate. Some, but not all, of what I have written in this thread is standard boiler-plate, with my own sizeable dose of histrionics added for spice. As far as I am concerned, we can let the matter rest and (probably) pick up some of these issues in other, less sensitive, threads.

As always, I do thank you for your willingness to engage in constructive dialog. Although I don’t observe it, I am preparing in any case to have dinner with friends who do, and, if it is not inappropriate for me, as a non-Jew to say so, Shabbat Shalom.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[bananabrain]

It seems to me that you are arguing as if all things are in this case equal.

not really - if you're talking military, then both sides are looking for any advantage they can get. but this isn't just about warfare.

Given the fact that Israel, unlike Palestine, has realized its national ambitions and has achieved the status of modern, nation state, I hold it to higher standards than I hold the residents of the Gaza Strip, most of whom, I would guess, are as unable to stop the terrorism of those among them as I am to get the US troops out of Iraq.

israel's national ambitions will not be realised until there is peace; a holding pattern is not peace. moreover, israel's national ambitions do not include the destruction of palestine, unlike those of the hamas regime - until they get used to the idea that those pesky jews aren't going anywhere and that they're simply not going to get anything but their own country, their national ambitions aren't realistic. in respect of standards, if i may say so, that is known as the "racism of lower expectations" (i.e. "what can you expect from those savages?") the palestinians are an extraordinarily talented people (if the ones i know are anything to go by) and they are perfectly able to cope with this if not bamboozled by their leaders.

Yes, [international jewry] is the phrase.

well, then i suggest you get a new phrase, because that one comes straight out of the "protocols". you may not like aipac - and i don't much like them either - but they are entitled to exist and to lobby, just as the opposing points of view are (you surely cannot imagine that OPEC draws insignificant weight in washington?)

No, I am saying that, to the extent that it offers Imam John Hagee's books for sale, Wal-Mart is a distribution network for Zionism and Zionistic propaganda. Hagee’s reward is with him for parroting the Zionist party line: he gets a toast, though alcohol-free, from AIPAC.

you see, the problem with that as a point of view is that it essentialises zionism as being identical with the aipac PoV; it isn't. i'm a zionist and i'm clearly not of that PoV. there are left-wing, right-wing, religious, secular, all shades and colours of zionism. it is inadvisable to use phrases like "zionistic propaganda" and "the zionist party line" as if zionism was synonymous with kahanism and, frankly, it shows ignorance; i don't say this to be rude, but i do not think you are entirely conversant with the context here and you seem to have internalised the sort of pantomime point of view of zionism that is popular with angry students. if you want to sum up zionism, it can be described as the set of ideologies that favour national self-determination for the jewish people, just as the palestinians have a set of ideologies that favour national self-determination, some quite acceptable, some less so. however, neither people can be deprived of their right to national self-determination and any criticism of zionism as a whole should first be subjected to that assessment. i believe the person to introduce the UN motion to describe zionism as a form of racism was in fact idi amin. that should tell you plenty about this issue.

Sykes-Picot is a case in point.

there i agree with you - it was strongly contributory to the present ghastly state of affairs.

shabbat shalom.

b'shalom

bananabrain

This traumatizing is nothing more than inability to let it go, why is it traumatizing to your wife?

what a moronic question. i suggest you take a trip to the holocaust museum in washington and arrange to meet a survivor. then you can tell them what you've just told me - and they'll spit in your eye.

 

[Servetus]

The timing on that was interesting, Bananabrain. In light of my response (#201) above, I shall ask if you wish to proceed? I can probably continue with this vollying all day and well into the night but I also like to at least occasionally convince myself that, when need be, I can hold my tongue and retain the peace as well.

Serv

 

[Servetus]

While, for all other issues, I am willing to wait for your approval to continue this discussion, bananabrain, I must address one point because honor is at stake.

sorry, are you saying that wal-mart is an agency of "international jewry" (i believe that's the phrase).

Yes, that is the phrase. No, I am saying that, to the extent that it offers Imam John Hagee's books for sale, Wal-Mart is a distribution network for Zionism and Zionistic propaganda …

well, then i suggest you get a new phrase, because that one comes straight out of the "protocols".

You asked if it was “the” phrase, not if it was “my” phrase. I have neither used it nor claimed it as mine. If, on the other hand, I ever do have reason to use such a phrase, I might reach, instead, for Winston Churchill’s description of the “cold Semitic internationalists” and “Nihilist Central Committee” with which he claimed the conspiratorial Boris Savinikov was aligned and which he also said was then operating deep in the subterranean world of Europe and the United States. But I might think twice about using even that description because it seems, despite my penchant for dramatics, rather too florid a description and rarely, these days, applicable.


Best regards,


Serv
Ref: Churchill, Winston, Great Contemporaries, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1937, pp. 104-106

 

[Ben Masada]

Again, no sourcing, no points. And shame! we call this "plagarism" in academia.

Tell me O Radarmark, since there is no legitimate source in the Tanach for the claims of the NT, could we call them also plagiarism?
Ben

 

[radarmark]

The comment (I thought obviously) was intended for Lunitik and his claims.

 

[Lunitik]

what a moronic question. i suggest you take a trip to the holocaust museum in washington and arrange to meet a survivor. then you can tell them what you've just told me - and they'll spit in your eye.

It did not happen to your wife.

 

[Ben Masada]

The comment (I thought obviously) was intended for Lunitik and his claims.

Sorry for the interference.

 

[Dream]

for this, i would strongly recommend you get hold of a copy of a.j. heschel's "the prophets", because he totally "gets" what is going on.

Thanks for that recommend. I've gotten hold of a copy and so far its fantastic.

 

[bananabrain]

The timing on that was interesting, Bananabrain

yes, i hit send and then shut down for Shabbat. no worries.

You asked if it was “the” phrase, not if it was “my” phrase. I have neither used it nor claimed it as mine.

good, because the sort of people who use it nowadays are not the sort of people i consider it worthwhile to speak to. they also tend to see walt and mearsheimer as providing evidence for their sad and pathetic paranoid conspiracies.

I might reach, instead, for Winston Churchill’s description

yes, yes, yes, but he was writing at a time when major politicians could get away with making explicit anti-jewish comments without having to run for mayor of london. nowadays, this sort of perspective is reserved for the lunatic fringe, the hard left and islamist nutballs. it has no place in serious discussions for rational people.

It did not happen to your wife.

it is strange how someone can blame the entire shoah on karma and yet fail to recognise that having a parent who is a victim of genocide might somehow have consequences in one's uppringing.

@dream: you're very welcome; i'd recommend anything by heschel.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Lunitik]

it is strange how someone can blame the entire shoah on karma and yet fail to recognise that having a parent who is a victim of genocide might somehow have consequences in one's uppringing.

Plenty of parents die in the early years of a child, it is not at all rare. How they have died is not important, yet you are making it so, or rather she is apparently.

For me, it is simply an unhealthy hangup, there is nothing which can be done and yet she is still alive.

She will die, you will die, I will die, it is as natural as life itself.

Why allow death to affect life?

It is just an excuse to avoid fear, now she can just be angry at the Nazi's.

The fear is just redirected.

 

[Servetus]

yes, i hit send and then shut down for Shabbat. no worries.

Good. I wanted to ensure that, as y’all say in Britain, “at the end of the day,” I was contributing to your peace and was not perpetuating agitation. Concerning the subject of Zionism and its many facets, how I do wish, sometimes, that I could have been present to hear the discussions between Kurt Blumenfeld and Hannah Arendt, early in the century last, in which Ms. Arendt was said to have been converted to Zionism (or, as it has also been said, to Kurt Blumenfeld himself, his friendship). To me, a ticket to that lecture hall, in that era, would be priceless, and I would listen with rapt attention.

yes, yes, yes, but he was writing at a time when major politicians could get away with making explicit anti-jewish comments without having to run for mayor of london. nowadays, this sort of perspective is reserved for the lunatic fringe, the hard left and islamist nutballs. it has no place in serious discussions for rational people.

Again, that was good form on your part. I couldn’t quite release you to a day of rest and peace without first giving a good-natured tug upon the rope. I think that it might be worthwhile to explore Churchill's statement in historical context, but I can also leave that aside for now.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

well yes it sounds a bit mean, but its not the whole story though is it.

No, it is not. There is some more. Although I do not believe that Jesus had been that mean. If, however, the writer of the gospel of Matthew is to be taken at its face value, Jesus had quite a history of that kind.

In his sermon of the mount, for instance, it is said that he was delivering his speech to a crowd of Jews, if you read Matthew 5:1 and 7:28. Since he was talking to the Jews, whom was he talking about? Obviously the Gentiles, if you read Matthew 7:6, where he says to the Jews not to give what is holy to the dogs or to throw their pearls before swine.

As I said above, I do not believe what this gospel says about Jesus but, what about if the writer is right? Isn't such an attitude weird? If there is a different explanation for this text, I will surely like to hear.
Ben

 

[Hermes]

..and look what happened at the end? Karma is a bitch....

Something Bad Jesus Did


Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. My answer was: Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn about her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and asked her: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter, Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus realized that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she got what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

..and look what happened at the end? Karma is a bitch....

I didn't get it. What has Karma anything to do with this bad thing Jesus is reported by the gospel to have done?
Ben

 

[radarmark]

One reaps what one sows is kinda what Hermes is getting at. I dream I will die in a slow and painful liver bleed out (tat for my tit in Laos). Using same thinking how bad was the something Jesus did to be crucified (never a pleasent way to go as the Romans described it).

 

[Ben Masada]

One reaps what one sows is kinda what Hermes is getting at. I dream I will die in a slow and painful liver bleed out (tat for my tit in Laos). Using same thinking how bad was the something Jesus did to be crucified (never a pleasent way to go as the Romans described it).

Thanks, I understand now. That's the same as the law of cause and effect. One suffers the consequences or reaps the rewards of one's own behavior.
Ben

 

[donnann]

Thanks, I understand now. That's the same as the law of cause and effect. One suffers the consequences or reaps the rewards of one's own behavior.
Ben

Why did jesus suffer? He didnt do anything wrong? Innocent people suffer every day so you reap what you sow doesnt always apply.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why did jesus suffer? He didnt do anything wrong? Innocent people suffer every day so you reap what you sow doesnt always apply.

Jesus suffered because he submitted himself to enter in Jerusalem followed by a multitude acclaiming him as the king of the Jews. That's the reason why Pilate crucified him. Because he had been proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at that time.

Jesus could have avoided that by retiring to his own place and not exposing himself so dangerously. And Pilate made no secret about Jesus' bad luck. It was written on that plaque on the top of his cross. That he had been crucified for being king of the Jews. So, he reaped what he had sown.
Ben