One last note: Tom objected to my example of Paul, not your claims of labeling “an entire race of people” as I assume you mean:
Quit stalling and muttering. Quote even one damning statement I made to support this LIE. There ought to be quite a few to pick from according to the gang here.
No? Then let it go before you paint yourself deeper into that corner of yours. Any apology forthcoming is more for your benefit than mine.
KillerFig: According to the report and follow-up here, “CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY.” No other Jews, and at that, none apparently acted with any moral wrong. Not moral responsibility, mind you – I am morally responsible for paying my bills – but moral wrong.
Go ahead and ask. Was any Jew wrong in the death of Jesus? See what kind of answers you get. Thus, the report is very careful to exclude Jews either completely or from any wrong regarding Jesus, based on very weak historical evidence. I thought that was strange and still do, especially since Christian “experts” supposedly assisted with the report.
Something stinks in regards to what is “straight dope” and what I view as a subtle (or not, depending) form of anti-Christian propaganda (if you believe the Gospels then you are in some way promoting the persecution of Jews as “Christ-killers”), and it smells even worse at this point.
Your use of the phrase was incorrect, historically. It has a particular meaning, not the one that you would like to assign it as a student of the Humpty-Dumpty* rules of language. Introducing a particular view of theology to cover your butt after using a term that has the specific meaning “We condemn this entire group of people for this specific action” is not an “invitation” for you to inject theology into a historical discussion–it is a pretext.
Then you completely misread the Staff Report.
Accepting the Gospels as literal indicates that one has not paid attention to the historical record.
In addition, and separately, some people have used a too-literal reading of the Gospels to rationalize anti-Jewish hatred.
The fact that you insist on the first while continuing to make statements verging on the second is the reason that you have attracted so much negative comment in these threads.
Your interpretation of the Staff Report is in error.
.
.
.
I agree that the term has a specific context: Jews who want to kill Christians and thus kill the message of Christ. Paul was a Jew who want to kill Christians and thus kill the message of Christ.
That Paul may not have been successful means spit to me. Do you have such concern for the classification of failed suicide bombers in Israel? Most sensible people place them with all other terrorists who murder innocent Jews.
As a Christian, do you believe that Jesus taught such concepts of the heart just as a nice filler or something to read in church? Or did he want us to actually look at life along those lines? That I even need to explain this to you does not mean I’m “covering my butt” but rather, that you are something of a fair-weather Christian if you still reject what Jesus taught about these things.
Please explain how taking every word of the Gospels literally results in hatred. Which part says to go forth and hate Jews? Don’t you mean that the problem is that the Gospels are not taken literally or as a whole, and that some racists have twisted them into a message that isn’t there?
Why don’t Christians persecute Italians or those living in Rome today, when the Gospels clearly depict how Romans whipped and mocked Jesus, then crucified him?
The Gospels have little to do with racism, it has always existed and always will until the end comes. At first, the report seems to be a misguided attempt to combat this by casting Jews in a more favorable light, and this goal is clear after reading the first section.
Unfortunately, subsequent Staff comments, such as those coming close to saying that Jesus deserved to die, reveal even more self-serving motives, and one begins to see why the label of “Christ-killer” ignites so much emotion. Perhaps not out of worry for innocent Jews so affected, but for those who really are, at heart, Christ-killers.
—The Gospels have little to do with racism, it has always existed and always will until the end comes.—
Is that a historically verified statement? If it ceases to exist before “the end comes,” is that a problem for Christian theology?
—Don’t you mean that the problem is that the Gospels are not taken literally or as a whole, and that some racists have twisted them into a message that isn’t there?—
I don’t you or anyone is qualified to say what is or isn’t “there” in regards to its message as long as people are asked to both take the document litterally and “read-between-the-lines.” It is not simply that racists pick and choose passages to support their views, it is that almost EVERYONE with a view on the Bible, including yourself, does so. To call one vision of the message right or wrong begs the question of who is truly reading it in the correct spirit.
No. The term does not mean what you want to claim it means.
The phrase means that some Christians held all Jews for all time responsible for the death of Jesus. That is what the phrase has meant for many years, as used by the people who actually spoke the phrase. There is no aspect of theology that justifies little Christian kids beating up little Jewish kids in the 20th century while yelling “Christ Killer,” yet that is how it has been used. (I hope that there have not been any similar examples from the 21st century, although your persistence in this regard seems to argue against that hope.)
I do not believe that you are ignorant of that meaning, so I am compelled to believe that you do, indeed, wish to use the word in its original sense and your attempts to embroil theological issues are simply smoke and mirrors. You could give Humpty Dumpty lessons in language.
Here, however, we apparently have a word that you truly do not understand. Hie thee to a dictionary and look up the word rationalize.
Apos: Then apply that to “your end” if that makes you happy – I’m confident that racism will not cease to exist by the time you die, unless a supernatural force intervenes. I’m asking where the Gospels teach followers of Jesus to hate Jews. This kind of reasoning dictates that some ought to hate Romans and Italians too, but what does the evidence tell you? Plain old racism and religious intolerance are to blame for much of what the report pins on the Gospels, and I’m also confident that it would still exist without them.
tomndebb: No, just because some misapply the term does not invalidate it. I normally use the term “anti-Christ” for Paul before Jesus appeared to him, yet “Christ-killer” also works. It means what it implies, not what YOU or some racists want it to mean regarding all innocent Jews. If you want to cling to its incorrect use and imagine broader contexts that are clearly not there regarding Paul, that’s your problem, not mine.
Rationalizing based on too-literal readings of the Gospels would be taking an existing phrase like “kill all Jews!” and then acting on it. What you should have said was that some make up their own Gospels and do not act on any similar call for hate contained in the real Gospels. If you can produce a statement in the Gospels that calls for hatred of Jews, and may result in that if taken too literally, by all means, do so.
Your zeal to apologize for Christianity rather than support it as a Christian, as revealed through slip-ups like this one, is rather astonishing and questionable.
If you were the High Priest, would you send Jesus to his death, assuming that the Roman threat was a reality, as claimed by the report? If you did, would that make you a Christ-killer too?
Live.org, I think you’d be much better off picking a new term besides “Christ-killer” since the vast majority of the world knows exactly what that means and it is inline with what tomndebb said.
You seem to be scrambling further and further afield from your original message in some bizarre attempt to cling to some patently offensive and disengenous ideas. It certainly doesn’t do your message or your reputation any good.
If I decide that “nigger” means something else and use it in a bar on Beale street, I’d still have the snot beaten out of me.
You really should go back and read Through the looking Glass. Your arguments sound more like Humpty Dumpty’s at every post. Words mean what the speakers of the language use them for. The phrase “Christ Killer” has meant what I have described. It would be interesting if you could find any use of that phrase with a meaning closer to yours and not identical to the meaning I have indicated it has.
Statements taken too literally and used by haters of Jews to rationalize their hatred?–Remembering what rationalize actually means? Sure:
I’ve been staying away from this thread, because I don’t think Live is worth debating with any further. His arguments are smoke, and he doesn’t listen to what anyone else says back to him. I have stated about six hundred times that the Staff Report is NOT anti-gospels. Someday, I’ll do a Staff Report that IS anti-gospels, and then you’ll see the difference.
The term “Christ-killer” has been used for centuries as the justification of murdering Jews, stealing from Jews, disenfranchising Jews, and exiling Jews. It is a loaded term.
Live, you may have some special meaning for the word “nigger”, but you’d better recognize that it is a loaded term in society, and carries a great deal of implication and imprecation.
So with the term “Christ-killer.” That term has been used as the justification of hateful and murderous acts that are contrary to everything Jesus ever preached. Your continued use (or misuse) of the term is an offense against the rules of this board – we do not permit racism – and will be discontinued NOW.
I am currently exploring options for suing any party that has claimed that I am racist, if anyone would like to retract their statements, now is the time to do it. I realize that this may result in my suspension from the board, however I will still be monitoring it for any more false claims made.
[ ::: sounds of laughter ring through the halls of the Straight Dope ::: ]
This is a claim that I am racist:
You and others claimed that I was dishonest.
If you would like to say that you think I am dishonest or racist that’s fine. When you start making statements that I am, you better have proof. You don’t.
I will be notifying Cecil and other parties that I am considering such an action. Even if I decide against it, perhaps you will act with greater responsibility in the future.
[ul][li]It is not a claim that you are a racist; it is an observation that you have behaved in a manner that promotes racism. There is a difference, although I would be surprised if you could see it.[/li][li]My comments, and those of other posters regarding your debating tactics, are part of the give and take of any discussion and are not actionable.[/li][li]You are an anonymous contributor to a message board. No statement made here has the power to damage you in any way beyond hurt feelings. They are not actionable. [/li][li]While there is a 99.99999999999999999% chance that you will be laughed out of any good lawyer’s office, on the .00000000000000001% chance that you could find a lawyer to take such an absurd case, there is no chance that you could win.* [/li][li]On the other hand, several of us live in states where they have passed laws against using frivolous lawsuits for harrassment. [/ul][/li]You are the one who has tried to claim that you get to single-handedly set and change the meaning of words in despite of 100% of the other speakers of the language. I think that you might consider what you should be learning, here, regarding responsibility.
.
Well, Tom, I seriously think that anyone who bandies about the term “Christ killer” to describe any Jew is a racist.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Since the debate seems to be over, and to prevent excessive attacks on persons no longer able to defend themselves, I am locking this thread. Move along now, nothing to see here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]