I agree,the majority of Jews and Palestinians want peace,but a few (like in many countries and cultures) do not.Just as there are many terrorists in this world,but the majority of people are(at least in my experience) good and peace loving.
If the purpose for Jesus being killed was to save all mankind, then no matter who killed him would be doing the world a favor, for with out his death(Which I don’t belive makes any sense) Christians or the rest of the world would spend an eternity in Hell a place of eternal suffering! Doesn’t sound to me like a loving ,caring Supreme Being who loves and loved all of mankind.
Traditionally, at least, though, it’s the same thing. Traditionally, in Judaism, the idea’s been “Jews have been chosen to bear a heavier burden and because we do this, we’re loved more by God when we do.” It’s not the idea that a Gentile who keeps the Noahide Laws isn’t loved by God. It’s that “the harder the task, the greater the reward for doing it” sort of thing.
Modern Judaism, especially in the past hundred or so years, has gotten away from that interpretation, but it’s certainly a thing in Jewish theology, and you’ve even got somebody like Rabbi Halevi in the 12th century Kuzari:
Isn’t the words:" he suffered under Pontius Pilate" part of the creed? Wasn’t Pilate a Roman?
Are they hated in Pakistan though? Where does that come from?
I just wanted to point out that Israelis have substantially the same reputation in Indian holiday spots as they do in Thailand, and for substantially the same reasons. Israelis are good with me too, but maybe a few cultural sensitisation sessions may be in order before they get discharged from mandatory national service?
Yeah, that’s not ok by the Noahide laws. I didn’t know people did that.
As always when this “chosen people” stuff comes up, I am astonished, even gobsmacked that Judaism is the only religion where adherents think they have a special relationship with a deity. Christians, Muslims, everyone else realizes their faith has nothing extra going for it, and all other religions are equal to or maybe even superior to theirs.
So naturally, everyone hates them Jews.
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.
- Tom Lehrer
Yes, let’s. Your defense of anti-Semitism isn’t very strong, so you’re continually changing the subject and trying to go on a new tangent of attack. Let’s get back to an issue you’re still ignoring, your metric of the “reasonableness” of this anti-Semitic slander. (As cited the verbiage is in accord with common usage, if you really want to split hairs, feel free to skip any semantic nitpicking and substitute a word that means a false claim which is damaging to the reputation of someone). You’ve ignored this twice I think, and it would be nice if you finally at least address it, if only to admit you’re wrong.
You’ve ignored this massive gap in your argument multiple times. With your ‘logic’, it would be “reasonable” to conclude that Jews keep slaves or at least really want to, since the Torah allows for slavery. That Jews murder other Jews who work on the Sabbath. That Jews believe if their daughter is raped that they must offer her up in marriage to the rapist. That if an angry mob knocks at your house at night, wanting your guests, you should instead offer up your virgin daughters to be raped. And so on. Ironically enough, the only one you’ve chosen to champion as being a totally reasonable interpretation is the anti-Semitic trope with centuries of baggage. Funny, that.
You neither understand the argument nor the fallacy of composition.
And, interestingly enough, you have again changed the subject from how Treis was using the fallacies of composition and division to claim that he understood modern Judaism better than modern Jews, and to argue for why the actions of a lunatic fringe could be generalized to “modern Jews” in general. Oddly enough, not only did you not take Treis to task for such an odd view, you’ve used it as a springboard to attack someone who’s pointing out that using the fallacies of composition and division to paint an ethnic group in a negative light might just be a poor idea.
Curiouser and curiouser.
You are engaging in a highly imaginative bit of Make Believe here. I pointed out that their error was not as all reasonable. Your claim that I’m “accusing them of much worse” is, apparently, something you’ve simply invented out of nothingness at all. What I actually said was that it was completely reasonable to ascribe ill will to those who use “the Chosen People” as a slur, and that even for the other folks, it was not at all reasonable to assume that a millenia-old-book was still followed to the letter. Especially since, like you, modern Christians realize that Jews don’t actually keep slaves like they’re allowed to in the Torah, nor do we pine for that ability since the Emancipation Proclamation. Now, you know this, as you deliberately cherrypicked only the part where I was talking about those will ill will and deliberately neglected to include the next ines.
Either you will retract your errors in your next post, or change the subject to something new and try to go on the attack. Your call.
See, herein lies the problem - non-Jews telling Jews what Jews base their beliefs on.
It is certainly true that the beliefs of Jews are rooted in the OT. What non-Jews do not get is the significance in Jewish thought of the oral law in interpreting the stuff in the OT. The religion in the OT is radically different from “modern” Judaism - even (sepecially) the Judaism of the most Orthodox sort. If you want to understand that Judaism, you need to study the Talmud, not just the OT. If you studied the OT, you would believe that Judaism was a centralized religion, based on a heriditary caste of Priests, whose rituals were all centred on a Temple in Jerusalem. The OT does not veben mention the existence of Rabbis.
The fundamentals of Judaism are rooted in ancient history, certainly. You mention holidays. Does the fact that Dec. 25 is the date of Christmas, and this is “rooted” in the Roman Saturnalia, and the fact that the high priest of the Catholics - the Pope - is based in Rome, mean that one can understand modern Christianity by popular accounts of the life of Augustus and Caligua? No, most people understand that while “Roman” Catholicism is firmly based in history, specifically that of the Roman Empire, it is its own creation.
You mention the state of Israel. Would it shock you to learn that most early Zionists were hard athiests and socialists, and that the most religious Jews despised Zionism? And that these hard athiests adopted Hebrew not because of religious reasons (they were not religious and religious Jews largely regarded secular use of Hebrew as blasphemous), but as a deliberate anachronism - because it harked back to a legendary heroic age? This is exactly like other “quasi-ethnic” groups in the British Isles - consider Welsh nationalists reviving/encouraging use of Welsh.
As noted, early Zionists were not religious. Rather, they were athiests, socialists, and ethno-nationalists.
The choice of Israel was based on historical and not religious factors (and in fact early Zionists did consider other places! For example, Uganda was proposed).
That’s because, traditionally, the charge of “deicide” was a standard trope of Jew-hatred. The notion being that present-day Jews bear the “guilt”.
And Uganda was rejected mostly because it was not the Holy Land. Whether or not early Zionist were religious, the movement was based on returning Jews to the land they were promised in the Bible. If the story of the Bible didn’t revolve around the Jewish people and their promised land, would any Jew know after 2000 years where their homeland was? Probably not.
A good question would clearly ask it. “Do Jews today bear guilt for the death of Jesus?”
Yes. And I’m sorry, dammit. Can we move on? 
Not because it was not “the Holy land” exactly (athiests, remember?), but because it lacked historical resonance for the Jews as a people.
You are conflating a purely religious notion of God’s Promise with the rather more secular issues of ethnic nationalism.
What you should understand is that the Bible is at the very same time a source of religious inspiration and a sort of history-and-mythology, all in one package. You don’t need to be religious to be inspired by the historical bits (many Israelis are not religious, but most know the Bible stories).
Again, in point of fact most highly religious Jews were horrified by Zionism, and many oppose it to this day.
You will seriously mis-understand Zionism unless you comprehend that it fits better within the framework of European nationalism, than that of a religious revival movement.
Seems to me that they are clearly asking it. “Jews are responsible for the death of Christ.”. Note the use of the present tense. How is that in any way ambiguous?
And many think that Israel should annex all of the land promised to them in the Bible. This isn’t an “or” question. I’m sure some Zionist were motivated completely by historical reasons, some completely by religious, and vast majority fell somewhere in between. Besides, you can’t separate history from religion in this case. The reason Israel has a historical resonance is because of religion.
If you study for the SAT these are known as one word wrong answers. When people speak, they don’t always use correct grammar, so we have a habit of filling in the correct word for the incorrect word. The test writers use that to trip you up.
Besides, there are two clear ambiguities in the sentence. “Jews” can refer to all Jews or the ones that committed a specific act. Consider these two sentences: “Muslims believe in Allah” and “Muslims attacked a Hindu temple”. Same word, but a different scope.
Then the world responsible has two meanings. “Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for global warming”. “The criminal will be held responsible for his actions”. The first usage is simply a cause, while the second implies accountability.
The point isn’t whether a grammatical dissection renders the question invalid. Or even if people were confused by the question. The point is that when you ask questions on a survey, the way you phrase the question is very important. In this case, it’s clear that the ADL asked about things and used phrasing intended to get the response they wanted.
What you are missing is the history of Zionism. It was not just “some Zionists” who where motivated by ethno-nationalism rather than religion - it was pretty well every major Zionist figure.
Religious zionists who wish to annex all the land of Zion based on religious motives are a vanishingly tiny minority of Israelis (albeit a vocal and troublesome one). They were even less significant in the founding days of Zionism than they are now.
I honestly do not believe for a second that any significant number of people would mistake what this question was about. Your theory requires that the reader be both ignorant of English grammar in that they do not understand the present tense, and ignorant of the long-standing trope that Jews are collectively to blame for Jesus’ death. It is clear what the questioners “wanted”, and that was to find out how many believe in the validity of the trope.
Could the question have been phrased differently? Of course. Any question can.
Shrug I take that as an ignorance of survey methods. You can get significantly different results based on the questions you ask and how you phrase them. It’s clear that this survey was gunning for a particular result, and can’t be looked on as a reliable indication of anything.
Yes, I quite agree “You can get significantly different results based on the questions you ask and how you phrase them.”. Other than your bald assertion, dubious for the reasons I have stated, I do not see any proof that this question is a prime example of that, as you allege.
I gave you three specific problems with the question:
(1) “One word wrong”
(2) Plural nouns have ambiguous meanings
(3) Responsible has various meanings
The latter two are quite irrelevant. It matters not how “responsible” is interpreted and whether “Jews” is ambiguously applied to some Jews or all.
The significant point is that Jews today are in no way, form or degree, whether only some or all, “responsible”, in either the moral or causitive sense, for the death of Jesus - except of course in the opinions of those who hold to the (widespread) anti-Semitic trope.
I do not see this in any way a “trick question”. Two of your “problems” are not problems in this context, and the third is a mere assertion that people are likely to be confused and not understand the use of the present tense in a sentence. An assertion for which you offer no proof.