|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 6:17:28 GMT
That was the usual line of argument of antisemites. A good movie to understand the propaganda is right here:
Aj, do you think this Jewish Third Temple bullshit is going to bring the whole world together? I do. And I want none of it. MY belief regarding anything that Jewish religion says is the same as anything that any other religion says. The Jewish religion is as man-made as Hindu religion, Sikh religion or Islam. There are no golden era of peace. Making third temple would do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 11, 2019 6:19:57 GMT
Aj, do you think this Jewish Third Temple bullshit is going to bring the whole world together? I do. And I want none of it. MY belief regarding anything that Jewish religion says is the same as anything that any other religion says. The Jewish religion is as man-made as Hindu religion, Sikh religion or Islam. There are no golden era of peace. Making third temple would do nothing. I'm going to hold you to those words after they build the damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 6:28:11 GMT
That was the usual line of argument of antisemites. A good movie to understand the propaganda is right here:
The fact that there is a Nazi propaganda film filled with hate doesn't negate the fact that the Jewish minority still has an inordinate amount of wealth. And Israel's creation as a Jewish state on Arab soil may someday ignite World War III. The fact that a community has more wealth is not a justifiable cause for murdering them. Same with Parsis/Zoroastrians in India. They are far richer than average. Instead of murdering them we valued them.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 7:04:35 GMT
The fact that a community has more wealth is not a justifiable cause for murdering them. Same with Parsis/Zoroastrians in India. They are far richer than average. Instead of murdering them we valued them. Of course not. Jews are the only white people I really like, besides Greeks of course. They're an amazing people. For example I'm thinking of this Jewish guy at work. He's no genius, just of average intellect, but he knows all the best bands and has read all the best books. There's something about Jews. Maybe they are indeed god's chosen people. However, like anything, anti-Semitism didn't just illogically evolve with no basis in reason. I've read that The Holocaust was the result of German envy at the wealth of their Jewish neighbors. Finding Finding an excuse for committing evil acts is nothing new to mankind. Usual patterns are to find a few of a community that may fit your agenda then and then blame all of them. People of all countries have always done that and currently do that. Antisemitism is no different in that regard. Only that the scale at which it happened in unprecedented. Holocaust was just one period of antisemitism. The incidences such as one I cited in OP have occurred for a great length of time. There are laws protecting Jews that stop many Christians from doing more ghastly acts. If those laws aren't strong enough then they might restart their Jew-hating campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 8:12:55 GMT
Finding an excuse for committing evil acts is nothing new to mankind. Usual patterns are to find a few of a community that may fit your agenda then and then blame all of them. People of all countries have always done that and currently do that. Antisemitism is no different in that regard. Only that the scale at which it happened in unprecedented. Holocaust was just one period of antisemitism. The incidences such as one I cited in OP have occurred for a great length of time. There are laws protecting Jews that stop many Christians from doing more ghastly acts. If those laws aren't strong enough then they might restart their Jew-hating campaign. In the U.S. the base of anti-Semitism was always the Protestant religious conservatives. However there's been a dramatic change and I can't quite understand how it happened. But Christian fundamentalist are now very pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. It might be due to prophecies about Israel and the expected second coming of Christ. Or maybe it's a greater fear of Islam. I also believe that Hitler hated the Jews more because they fomented Christianity which pacified the warlike German people. You are right that now many Protestants are pro-Jewish. I think Poisoned Dragon had explained it well. These Protestants see Jews as lambs for slaughter and want the existence of Israel for the return of Christ.
Irish nationalists who are predominantly Catholics have a known history of antisemitism. I do partly agree with your explanation regarding Hitler although there may have been more reasons. I personally do not believe Hitler was a devout Christian. Just a selfish man who used preexistent antisemitism for his propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 11, 2019 11:34:04 GMT
Perhaps so. Should Christians of this time apologize for him? They should apologise for carrying out 1000s of years of horrible atrocity on a group. If I were a Christian I will accept that many people of my religion were horrible human beings and did things that no decent humans will do and I will pledge that I won't carry the same thoughts and actions. If one takes pride in good things about one's community then she/he should also accept mistakes and condemn those mistakes made by followers of their religion. Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 11:55:16 GMT
They should apologise for carrying out 1000s of years of horrible atrocity on a group. If I were a Christian I will accept that many people of my religion were horrible human beings and did things that no decent humans will do and I will pledge that I won't carry the same thoughts and actions. If one takes pride in good things about one's community then she/he should also accept mistakes and condemn those mistakes made by followers of their religion. Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened. Exactly the way I would feel if I were in your place. I do not have any religious identity but I am an Indian and I feel that way for whatever feudal society has existed in India in the past or present. I believe if things were wrong then it was because of people who lived or if things are wrong in the country then it is because of us. Just because I myself personally feel otherway doesn't mean I am not appalled and sorry for deeds of others.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 11, 2019 12:11:07 GMT
Yeah, I figured there'd be a catch.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 11, 2019 12:28:00 GMT
They should apologise for carrying out 1000s of years of horrible atrocity on a group. If I were a Christian I will accept that many people of my religion were horrible human beings and did things that no decent humans will do and I will pledge that I won't carry the same thoughts and actions. If one takes pride in good things about one's community then she/he should also accept mistakes and condemn those mistakes made by followers of their religion. Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened. I don't think it's the same thing. To say that the Crusades were wrong is not any weightier coming from me as it is a theophobiac and thus not even an apology of sorts. The only difference is the weight of responsibility people of no concern to me place on me for stuff that happened during the Crusades.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 11, 2019 14:18:12 GMT
Look at the criticism President Obama received when he called out the Crusaders as doing horrendous things. He was attacked and many said it proved he was not a Christian. I posted my thoughts that I am most bothered by acts of violence done in the name of religion. It bothers me when people ignore the teachings of their own faith, or pervert them to suit their views. As a Christian I am especially appalled by wrongs done in the name of Christ. They should be called out for what they are, a mockery to Christ and the faith. This is true of Christians in the past who committed evil deeds. I think doing so is an apology, in a way, by saying what was done was wrong and should never have happened. I don't think it's the same thing. To say that the Crusades were wrong is not any weightier coming from me as it is a theophobiac and thus not even an apology of sorts. The only difference is the weight of responsibility people of no concern to me place on me for stuff that happened during the Crusades. I do not agree. I think it is the responsibility of any Christian to denounce evil and wrongdoing, but especially necessary if such things are done in the name of Christ. It is necessary to speak out to defend humanity in any case, but in the case of Christians doing wrong it is also defending Christianity from being misunderstood. As such any of us can apologize for wrongs done in the name of our faith, and it think it holds more weight coming from Christians.
The Crusades happened long ago, so it is difficult to apologize to victims, or even their progeny. But what about more recent atrocities committed using Christ as a rationalization? I grew up as a Mormon in an era where you would get in trouble with the church to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was covered up for decades, and then a lone scapegoat executed. Relatives of the victims were bitter that Mormon leadership would not accept responsibility for what had been done. Finally after 150 years an apology was issued. Better late than never I guess. The church did not apologize for the actions of their past "prophet" Brigham Young. I doubt he actually was culpable in ordering the murders, but many do. On the other hand he clearly was involved in the cover-up.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 11, 2019 14:19:45 GMT
I don't think it's the same thing. To say that the Crusades were wrong is not any weightier coming from me as it is a theophobiac and thus not even an apology of sorts. The only difference is the weight of responsibility people of no concern to me place on me for stuff that happened during the Crusades. I do not agree. I think it is the responsibility of any Christian to denounce evil and wrongdoing, but especially necessary if such things are done in the name of Christ. It is necessary to speak out to defend humanity in any case, but in the case of Christians doing wrong it is also defending Christianity from being misunderstood. As such any of us can apologize for wrongs done in the name of our faith, and it think it holds more weight coming from Christians.
The Crusades happened long ago, so it is difficult to apologize to victims, or even their progeny. But what about more recent atrocities committed using Christ as a rationalization? I grew up as a Mormon in an era where you would get in trouble with the church to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was covered up for decades, and then a lone scapegoat executed. Relatives of the victims were bitter that Mormon leadership would not accept responsibility for what had been done. Finally after 150 years an apology was issued. Better late than never I guess. The church did not apologize for the actions of their past "prophet" Brigham Young. I doubt he actually was culpable in ordering the murders, but many do. On the other hand he clearly was involved in the cover-up.
I never said anything about not denouncing evil and wrongdoing, I'm saying that isn't an apology.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 14:23:29 GMT
I do not agree. I think it is the responsibility of any Christian to denounce evil and wrongdoing, but especially necessary if such things are done in the name of Christ. It is necessary to speak out to defend humanity in any case, but in the case of Christians doing wrong it is also defending Christianity from being misunderstood. As such any of us can apologize for wrongs done in the name of our faith, and it think it holds more weight coming from Christians.
The Crusades happened long ago, so it is difficult to apologize to victims, or even their progeny. But what about more recent atrocities committed using Christ as a rationalization? I grew up as a Mormon in an era where you would get in trouble with the church to bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was covered up for decades, and then a lone scapegoat executed. Relatives of the victims were bitter that Mormon leadership would not accept responsibility for what had been done. Finally after 150 years an apology was issued. Better late than never I guess. The church did not apologize for the actions of their past "prophet" Brigham Young. I doubt he actually was culpable in ordering the murders, but many do. On the other hand he clearly was involved in the cover-up.
I never said anything about not denouncing evil and wrongdoing, I'm saying that isn't an apology. Denouncing wrongdoings is good enough for me. Some might also do that with lots of ifs and buts. But in any case, it seems you & (I & Geode) merely disagree on terminology. Honesty is enough to win my appreciation.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 11, 2019 14:41:03 GMT
I never said anything about not denouncing evil and wrongdoing, I'm saying that isn't an apology. Denouncing wrongdoings is good enough for me. Some might also do that with lots of ifs and buts. But in any case, it seems you & (I & Geode) merely disagree on terminology. Honesty is enough to win my appreciation. Most people are not Crusade defenders so a discussion about whether it should be denounced is silly. The reason for the Crusades, as are the reason for Muslim expansion that helped trigger the Crusades, are too varied to be worth condemning an entire ideology on.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 14:45:27 GMT
Denouncing wrongdoings is good enough for me. Some might also do that with lots of ifs and buts. But in any case, it seems you & (I & Geode) merely disagree on terminology. Honesty is enough to win my appreciation. Most people are not Crusade defenders so a discussion about whether it should be denounced is silly. The reason for the Crusades, as are the reason for Muslim expansion that helped trigger the Crusades, are too varied to be worth condemning an entire ideology on. That's not the core of this discussion but just a side issue. Although a few days back a vid was posted by Cody glorifying crusades. But doesn't matter as that poster has already given his thoughts many times enough.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 11, 2019 14:50:06 GMT
Most people are not Crusade defenders so a discussion about whether it should be denounced is silly. The reason for the Crusades, as are the reason for Muslim expansion that helped trigger the Crusades, are too varied to be worth condemning an entire ideology on. That's not the core of this discussion but just a side issue. Although a few days back a vid was posted by Cody glorifying crusades. But doesn't matter as that poster has already given his thoughts many times enough. That's Cody and I would condemn his statement too without taking any blame for them. My statement is certainly germaine to the notion that Christians today are responsible for the actions of Christians in the 10th century. It's a ludicrous argument that narrows the notion of who commits atrocities in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 11, 2019 14:54:47 GMT
That's not the core of this discussion but just a side issue. Although a few days back a vid was posted by Cody glorifying crusades. But doesn't matter as that poster has already given his thoughts many times enough. That's Cody and I would condemn his statement too without taking any blame for them. My statement is certainly germaine to the notion that Christians today are responsible for the actions of Christians in the 10th century. It's a ludicrous argument that narrows the notion of who commits atrocities in the first place. No one is holding you actively responsible for anything done by people in the past, man. I will get back to you tomorrow as I am logging out now.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on May 12, 2019 1:19:32 GMT
Monarchy Why Richard I shared his bed with the king of France Helen Castor
Shares 30 For the past half-century, Richard the Lionheart - that buff, bronzed warrior who hardly saw his wife and had no children - has been something of a gay icon. As a presence on the silver screen (most famously in the shape of the young Anthony Hopkins in The Lion in Winter) his homosexuality has rarely been in doubt.
English history isn't short of gay or bisexual monarchs - Edward II, James I, possibly William II - but the historical evidence for counting Richard I among their number rests on one contemporary document concerning his relationship with King Philip II of France. In 1187, a chronicler reports, the two men were so close that "at night the bed did not separate them". Read more Now, however, as the BBC prepares to air a new Lionheart docu-drama, the king's biographer, Professor John Gillingham, has pointed out that Richard's ostentatious bed-sharing with the French king was the product of a political alliance rather than a lovers' tryst.
Gillingham's suggestion that this was "an accepted political act, nothing sexual about it" might strain modern credulity - but we should remember that diplomacy has always been intensely personal, if not downright physical. Only this week, Jonathan Powell's account of the Northern Irish peace process has highlighted the significance of Tony Blair's decision to shake hands with Gerry Adams - the press of prime ministerial flesh on republican palm a powerful gesture of political intent.
In centuries past, a wider range of body parts might come into diplomatic play. Medieval rulers, for example, routinely greeted one another with a kiss (the biblically sanctioned "kiss of peace"). Richard's decision to share a mattress with Philip was the ultimate public demonstration of trust in an age when PR had to rely on word-of-mouth rather than the lenses of the international media.
And it worked, in the context of a monarchy where privacy was relative and political life didn't stop at the bedroom door. The king held court in his bedchamber, and his favourite servants slept at the foot of his bed. World leaders don't, any more, feel the need to ratify a treaty by getting into bed with each other - though, interestingly, that's still the language we use when we talk of sealing a deal. Perhaps we should just be grateful that, these days, the "special relationship" between the UK and the US doesn't involve seeing Bush and Brown in their underpants.
· Helen Castor is a medieval historian and author of Blood & Roses: the Paston Family and the Wars of the Roses.
|
|