Because they are, and perncious ones at that. I’ve seen you go rabid when lies about Catholicism (“Catholics worship the Pope” or “Catholics pray to saints”) are mentioned and with good cause. I’ve seen Monty do the same when lies about Mormonism are posted. Why is this any different?.
Why wouldn’t you call the the bullshit statements that Liberal was spewing lies? You would (and have) when Jews for Jesus says them. You cannot be a religious Jew and believe in the divinity of Christ. To claim that someone isn’t an anti-semite because he’s a Jew who just happens to believe in Christ and Jews can’t be anti-semitic, right? is ignorant and vile.
Lies are lies and lies that spread falsehoods about my faith WILL be debated in the thread where they occur, the same way every other thread is treated.
Nifty, but it’s central to MINE and he spewed his nonsense about Judaism here not in some other thread. I’m not hijacking his thread since he posted the statements there.
I assure you if you make up this rule, you’ll see a series of threads where, just in passing, someone toss off a line about, say American Indians being sub-human savages, and I will expect the same level of special protection that you’re giving him.
It’s not violating the rules. I quoted them and quoted a mod specifically ruling that the OP doesn’t own a thread. I’d be happy to find other examples, including, I suspect, rulings of your own stating exactly that. This thread is no different than any other.
No.
No other thread or poster gets magical mod protection when bigoted, stupid or offensive material is posted. Being a mod does not give you the authority to make up rules on the fly when they contradict longstanding SDMB rules. The rule has ALWAYS been “The OP doesn’t own the thread, or have the right to dictate the direction or content of the thread.”
It’s not a hijack if I’m responding directly to something the OP posted and mods have never decided who’s “made their point” before or since. If it’s irrelevant to the thread, then he shouldn’t have posted it.
As I said in the thread, I refuse to be silent on this issue and would encourage other Jews on the SDMB to post in the thread as well.
I hope I’m not banned over a rule that didn’t exist when I posted, but I will not let this garbage about my faith stand ignored.
I would ask you to reconsider this decision, given the longstanding SDMB rules that this decision contradicts.
Now, regarding references to “the Jews”. The notion has been raised before, among “scholars” (definitely not defining) that these were the writings of an anti-Semite because of John’s frequent references to “the Jews”. But John was himself a Jew. As was Jesus. And in passages in which he refers to Jews, he does so to differentiate some Jews from others. In the case cited above, it was to differentiate Jews who believed Jesus from those who did not. Judaism is monotheistic, but it is not monolithic. John the Beloved was no more an anti-Semite than Barack Obama is a racist for differentiating African-American men who behave responsibly from those who abandon their families. It is a non issue.
Except that that was not the claim. The claim was that John was Jewish, as was Jesus. Both are true. Another claim is that Judaism is not monolithic, which you also called a lie. If Judaism were monolithic, then we would not have Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. You say that all Jews, without exception, disbelieve in any sort of Trinity. That’s fine, but it was never a point that I argued. There is no evidence that John believed in any Trinity either. And it wasn’t just the disciples who were followers of Jesus. There were many other Jews, including the Marys, and Nicodemus, and those who were healed or raised from the dead, and those who sat or stood in crowds listening to His teachings. People now who are Jewish and believe He is the Christ might rightly be called Christians, but you are making an error of temporal logic. Jews who followed Jesus in the early third of the first century were Jews in every sense of the word, from culturally to religiously — including Jesus Himself.
Once again, where are the lies?
I made no statements whatsoever about Judaism. Not in that thread, other than to say that it is monotheistic, but not monolithic. There is no Jewish Pope, nor any equivalent.
You already got it. Right here:
Hey, you insensitive bastard. Per Lib"The rules need to revolve around me"eral [sic], All mentions of Andrew Indian Hater Jackson must go in the Pit unless they discuss how he’s eeee-vil. Because it wouldn’t be fair to Lib if people discussed any aspect of ol’ Hickory other than that anywhere else
In fact, every post you’ve made to, toward, or about me has dripped with hostility since my return. One is given to wonder whether all this is, at its root, the expression of some grudge.
I haven’t claimed to own any of the four threads in the series. I have merely respectfully requested that people involve themselves in all four threads before participating in the upcoming final thread, The Aesthetical Jesus, Part V — the debate. (Note that the first four threads are marked as witnessing threads in particular, and not debate threads. As I understand it, Great Debates is not a forum in which debates must necessarily take place.) The whole point of the first four threads was, as explained several times, to avoid the usual ships passing in the night once we reach the debate in Part V. Their point was to come to agreement on the philosophical aspects of aesthetics, morality, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology so that when we debate, we all know what we mean by the terms we use. That seems to me to be a good thing.
Well, here you are quoting rules, and certainly one important rule is that we do not tell mods “no” when they issue mod rulings. I believe that we are allowed to complain about their rulings, but we are not allowed to disregard them. Is that not the case?
I apologize for offending you. I assure you that I did not take to the keyboard with the intention of offending Fenris. Even now, I do not understand the nature of your offense, but I can at least apologize for having been its source.
The statement that I made was relevant to the passage I quoted. The NIV pointed out which particular Jews Jesus was talking to, and it was those who believed Him. Not believing IN Him, but simply believing what He was saying at the time.
I have welcomed all people (their religion is irrelevant and has never been made a criterion) to participate in the entire series of threads. As Tom explained, they have spanned months of discussion in which a few key participants have managed to come to agreement on the definitions of more than two dozen philosophical terms — a first, I believe, in the history of the boards. If you believe something is a factual error, I don’t mind your pointing it out. But there is no need to bring hostility with the disagreement, especially when no hostility was either given beforehand or returned afterward.
What garbage about your faith? I have no quibble with your faith. I have not even commented on your faith. There is no reason to equate your faith with the faith of John the Beloved. I certainly have not done that.
That’s up to Tom, of course. But you already made your point in the thread. You made it bluntly. You made it rudely. You made it plainly. What more do you want? Now that your point has been made, why not leave others in peace to continue a discussion that we have been having for the past several weeks and months?
Nice bit of equivocation, there.
Liberal’s use of the word Jew in the context of his discussion was pretty clearly regarding the ethnic definition, not the definition based on adherence to Judaism. I would agree that his argument is weak, but it is not as though he was arguing that for any defamation of Judaism. (As to you deciding that the author could not be Jewish due to a belief in the Trinity–a belief that was not even referenced by Liberal–I also reecall that Jewish scholars have argued that one cannot stop being a Jew, although a Jew may fall into heresy and may be liable to a form of excommunication, that person cannot ever not be Jewish. So, now we get to haggle over which form of equivocation I might be posting.
Had Liberal been arguing any point that denigrated Judaism, I might be able to see your point. However, given what he actually posted, I would say that you are mixing terms and going out of your way to take umbrage.
So, are you going to interrupt that thread again to correct your claim that John could not have been Jewish simply because he fell into heresy? Or, having made your point, are you going to let the matter rest?
I have made up no rule. Insults have always been forbideen in Great Debates, calling posters liars has been forbidden for some time, now, and hijacking threads has been forbidden for a long time, as well. I had no problem with you pointing out that the argument that John could not have been an anti-semite simply because he might have been born Jewish was logically unsupportable. (I think you have invested more meaning in the passage to which you reacted than was actually said, there, but the correction was not a problem.) However, having invested more meaning than was posted, you then went on to set up a straw man argument about what Liberal’s statement actually said and then got insulting in your post.
At this point, since you had your say, I figure that you are done. Repeatedly attacking Liberal for what he did not actually say is not going to be permitted. That is not a new rule; it is the enforcement of multiple longstanding rules.
So…just to be clear sarcasm and smarminess is allowed in ATMB? Good. That’ll make the rest of this post easier.
Sez you. “Pretty clearly” is one of those phrases that’s fun to toss around to shore up weak arguments. It certainly wasn’t clear to me. He claimed that despite his non-Jewish beliefs John was still a Jew.
:rolleyes:
Isn’t it nice that we Jews have you here to tell us what’s denigrating to us and what’s not? All this time I thought that it was impossible to be a Jew and believe in the divinity of Christ and I’m glad you’re here to correct 6000 years of Jewish thought.
It depends if he brings it up again. He said it, I rebutted it. If he says it again, warning or no, I’m going to rebut it again.
Good thing I didn’t insult him then.
Good thing I didn’t call him a liar. The closest I got was saying that it was tough to figure out a way of saying that his posts are lies without saying the magic forbidden words. The list of circumlocutions permitted are stupid and awkward and I was griping about that. And I’ll be happy to point out example after example of other circumventions of the forbidden “Liar” phrase where no-one was warned.
Good thing I didn’t hijack his thread. Discussing a comment made by the OP is pretty much not a “hijack” by any definition.
By calling his statements “pernicious falsehoods” or however I phrased it? I never once insulted him, just the statements he made about my faith. And the rule has always been “Insult the post, not the poster.”
Where did you see a strawman and where did you see me insult him?
You figure incorrectly.
Nope, it’s not. You’re inventing rules for reasons that honestly I don’t get. He said it, I rebutted it and if he says stuff like that again, I’ll rebut it again.
This might be a little pedantic, but the term “antisemitism” refers to racial/ethnic hostility. Anti-Judaism refers to a per se religious hostility without any necessary racist component.
The Gospel of John is decidedly anti-Judaic, but not technically antisemitic. It’s also doubtful that the author (actually multiple authors) was/were ethnically Jewish. The book certainly was not written by an apostle of Jesus, or by any Palestinian Jew. Fenris is absolutely correct that it’s impossible to be both religiously Jewish and believe that Jesus is either God or the Messiah (who are decidely NOT the same entity in Judaism).
This is religious witnessing, not historical fact. There is, in fact, no evidence at all that any of Jesus’ original Jewish followers believed he was God, and if they had believed it, they would have immediately ceased to be religiously Jewish.
it’s possible (but not a proven fact) that some of them may have thought he was the Messiah, but the Jewish conception of thje Messiah is not God. It is theologically impossible to worship Jesus and be religiously Jewish.
And how about a cite for anybody being raised from the dead?
Where does Liberal say that he’s using Jew in the specifically religious sense? It seems to me that he’s clearly using it to mean someone of Hebrew descent, which is one of the primary definitions for Jew in the OED, along with follower of Judaism and Israelite.
Try as I might I can’t see any insult to Jews in the post referenced by Fenris.
Well, although you make a good point about being God, but certainly at that time, one could be Jewish and believe Jesus was the Messiah. There have been several Jewish Messiahs, here’s a long list:
"Among the Chabad Lubavitch movement of Hasidic Judaism, there was a growing messianic fervour in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the belief that their Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson was about to reveal himself to be the messiah. Schneerson died in 1994 and some of his followers still believe he will be the messiah and will reveal himself when the time is right. A few years before he died, rabbi Schneerson accepted a delegation of non Hassidic Rabbi’s who came to ask him general and specific questions. One of the questions was if he was the Messiah.Rabbi Schneerson vehemently denied the assumption."
Are those Jews who believe Rabbi Schneerson was or even is the messiah no longer Jewish? At what time does belief in a particular potential messiah make one non- Jewish? Who revokes their Jewishness, can they be excommunicated?:dubious:
Certainly at some point in time most of the “adherents of Jesus as the Messiah” = Christians, but most of those were gentiles at that point anyway.
It seems to me like Fenris is looking for an acknowledgement that GJohn is anti-Judaic. Lib is saying that it can’t be antisemitic if the author was ethnically Jewish. It’s not actually a fact in evidence that the book had any ethically Jewish authors, but even if it were granted for the sake of argument, it still would not follow (as I think Lib at least appears to be implying) that the book is not religiously hostile to Jews. It most certainly is, and merely appealing to the presumed (not proven) Jewish ethnicity of the author does not make that hostility go away.
I thought I’d already said that. They certainly could have believed he was the Messiah and still been religiously Jewish (at least until he died), as long as they didn’t deify him. They’d have been wrong, but they’d have been Jewish.
Umm… Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
*Fenris is absolutely correct that it’s impossible to be both religiously Jewish and believe that Jesus is either God or the Messiah
*
Well, yeah. It’s impossible NOW because he died without fulfilling any of the requirements.
That very small fringe who thinks that Rabbi Scneerson will come back to life do not think he’s the Messiah YET. Only that he WILL be once he gets back. The Jewish Messiah is defined by accomplishment, not by birthright. Nobody is the Messiah until they fulfill the requirements.
I won’t argue with that, and I haven’t made that argument. I said He had “followers” who believed He was the Christ. (Peter is one obvious example.) I have no beef with whether they were religious Jews or not, and it has no bearing whatsoever on any of the philosophical discussion taking place in the series. I’ve made it plain as day — repeatedly — that my interest is in the words as written, and then only as an epistemic source for the presentation of a Christian theosophy. I don’t care who wrote it. I care only whether the words ring true to me, and whether other people can accept my interpretations of the words as reasonable. I am using the book of John to make my case for my belief system. I am fully respectful of the beliefs (and the nonbeliefs) of others. I never intended to insult anyone. Hundreds of pages have spanned months of time, and this is the first time anyone has expressed any offense. I have apologized for it. I am continuing the layout of my epistemology. I’m afraid this turnip is out of blood.
I don’t think that what you quoted from Liberal contradicts that. Reread what he said about early followers as opposed to followers (Christians) today.
Which accords with every Jewish scholar, (including numerous posters to the SDMB), I have ever heard discussing the concept that one who is born a Jew cannot put off his or her Jewishness.
Y’know, other than hurling a charge of lying at Lib while hiding behind the word game that you cannot say this insult that you explicitly lay out for everyone to see, you have not ever even made a point about what you imagine his insult of Jews might be.
I agree that Lib’s assertion that John’s Gospel cannot be construed as anti-Jewish, (or anti-Judaic in DtC’s words), is not supportable. Beyond that, you are insulting him and picking fights with me for no good reason that you have actually identified.
Piffle. If you think that you can weasel out of your claims that he was lying with that sort of word game, then you are truly not paying attention to what you posted and I read, nor to the actual rules posted at the top of the GD forum.
I also notice that you have jumped to the conclusion that Lib was posting lies without even ever asking whether the error was deliberate or even what he actually meant. That looks to me as though you are simply looking for a fight when a simple request for clarification might have gotten you an actual restatement that satisfied your view of the truth.
I don’t think you intended to insult anyone. I think that Fenris feels that you waved away the anti-Judaic content in GJohn a little too glibly by saying the author was an ethnic Jew. I think Fenris is also using the wrong word by calling it “antisemitic,” which pedantically it isn’t. To some degree, it just looks like you guys are talking past each other. You’re right that it’s not antisemitic, but he’s right that it’s still religiously hostile to Judaism. He’s just using the wrong word so it’s causing confusion.
Is this the rule? Before one may respond to what one understands to be said, one must first require the person to whom one is responding to repeat for the sake of clarity what has already been delineated?
Or is it, as with almost all communication, a fair expectation that if someone misspoke and someone starts a discussion about the originator can simply say that s/he misspoke? I don’t see why it’s suddenly necessary to come up with such a novel concept as asking “did you really mean to write x” when the person actually wrote x. It’s simple enough to respond to x and if the person who first laid it out realizes it wasn’t what he meant to say, he can simply say sorry, I didn’t mean x, I mean x modified.
Hi, noob. Welcome to the SDMB. Such a tactic as you have described is civil and not all that novel here. I used it in Post #16 when I suggested that Diogenes the Cynic might have misread Liberal’s post. But then, the misreading may have been mine.
“Little Willie in bows and sashes fell into a can of ashes.
Now the room is getting chilly, but no one wants to stir up Willie.” – author unknown
