American Christianity�s White-Supremacy Problem

[Gondwanaland]

Yes, but you see she specifically called out "Western" anti-semitism. Obviously, old greek anti-semitism isn't "Western" and therefore doesn't count.

Also, she pointed out that the term "Blood Libel" is defined as the sacrifices of christians for passover. The fact that this is an evolution of older myth of nearly the exact same type is irrelevant, "Blood Libel" only started after christ and therefore MUST be of christian origin.

I think I'll go with the Jews over the lady from the country that implemented and ran the Holocaust.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel

[Ronson]

You make a very fine duck!

giphy.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, but you see she specifically called out "Western" anti-semitism. Obviously, old greek anti-semitism isn't "Western" and therefore doesn't count.

Also, she pointed out that the term "Blood Libel" is defined as the sacrifices of christians for passover. The fact that this is an evolution of older myth of nearly the exact same type is irrelevant, "Blood Libel" only started after christ and therefore MUST be of christian origin.

You should take up Gondwanaland's assumption that an author with the name Dan Cohn-Sherbok is one of those "anti-semites".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

More gibbering nonsense to try to pretend that blood libel is not blood libel.

If anyone is uttering "gibbering nonsense" it is you who, when I suggested to you [at my post #172] that you do some serious background reading on this topic to inform yourself. You could start with Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew made a reply to me at your post #179 in response to that advice that you were "Not surprised to see you carry water for anti-semites though."

You clearly assumed [without bothering to check] that the author Dan Cohn-Sherbok [who is a Reform Rabbi and an Jewish academic] was, in your unique manner of thinking, an anti-Semite.

You do not appear to know the origin of the name Cohn

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

More gibbering nonsense to try to pretend that blood libel is not blood libel.

You are wrong in your views on this. That is a fact. The account given by Apion is not a "blood libel" and regardless of your employment of irrelevant analogies or your attempts to deride your interlocutor [myself] that fact will not change.

[seer]

I did say we seer. We are responsible, the nation, those in power created the legacy of slavery. When I say we I mean that correcting the injustice that has come from the long history of slavery and racism is on the nation that created it. Due to the elongation of the discussion, I never was able to get to the connection between personal responsibility as in my first example and corporate responsibility as exists in this case, but the responsibility is on the nation which was alive when the deeds were done and is still alive and bearing the responsibility to make things right.

Again, I don't believe in collective responsibility, I believe in individual responsibility. I had no hand in what was done to blacks. And it is not that I am without empathy, but I believe that education is key. These kids, for at least a generation, need to get generous vouchers to get out of these failing and dangerous schools. And I would extend those vouchers to two years of Community College or private Technical Schools after high school. Though offering this to just one race is probably unconstitutional.

[seer]

I did not ask about A's responsibility for B's sins , I asked you to explain your understanding of "original sin".

I told you - we are born with a bent towards sin, a predisposition to sin.

[seer]

What did those relatives of yours left behind in Spain and Italy get up to?

• Were your Spanish relatives Falangists during the Spanish Civil War?
• Did your Italian relatives march with Mussolini?

I have no idea what my possible relatives did during those times, I didn't know any of them. Both sets of my grandparents came to the US between the late 1800s and around 1910.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think I'll go with the, you know, actual Jews on this one: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel

Yes, but you see she specifically called out "Western" anti-semitism. Obviously, old greek anti-semitism isn't "Western" and therefore doesn't count.

Also, she pointed out that the term "Blood Libel" is defined as the sacrifices of christians for passover. The fact that this is an evolution of older myth of nearly the exact same type is irrelevant, "Blood Libel" only started after christ and therefore MUST be of christian origin.

[seer]

You seem to be under the impression that all Germans were supporters of Hitler [which by definition would include Jewish Germans who voted in 1932 and 1933].

Do you now realise how ridiculous your suppositions are?

Yet by 1938 that Nazi party won overwhelmingly, and you all knew who the Nazis were by then. 44,451,092 voted for the Nazis to take over the Reichstag and only 443,023 were against. So I will ask again, why do you keep pointing to our sins while trying to justify yours with the above pablum?

1938 German parliamentary election and referendum


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_G...and_referendum

https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=de011938

[Gondwanaland]

That is a very odd response to my post. I'm talking about anti-semitism within the christian church, not anywhere else. And how completely contrary to the teachings (not to mention national origin) of Christ that is. However, that source for anti-semitism (the church), by definition, could not have existed before Christ.

As for blood libel, it also, by definition, refers to a rumor Jewish people used christian children's blood in the preparation of passover bread or other rituals, which became a source of anti semitism in Europe. Since no Christian's existed prior to Christ, that term too, by definition, applies only to events after Christ.

I think I'll go with the, you know, actual Jews on this one: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel

A Blood Libel is the allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christian children, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals: most blood libels occurred close to Passover, being basically a another form of the belief that Jews had been and still were responsible for the passion and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the divine child; a complex of deliberate lies, trumped-up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their bloodthirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general. It is combined with the delusion that Jews are in some way not human and must have recourse to special remedies and subterfuges to appear, at least outwardly, like other men. The blood libel led to trials and massacres of Jews in the Middle Ages and early modern times; it was revived by the Nazis. Its origin is rooted in ancient, almost primordial, concepts concerning the potency and energies of blood. In the early 2000s a controversy among scholars surrounded the argument that the blood libel began in the Middle Ages in the wake of the sacrifice of Jewish children by their parents during Crusaders raids on Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land.

Origins

Blood sacrifices, practiced by many pagan religions, are expressly forbidden by the Torah. The law of meat-salting (meli?ah) is designed to prevent the least drop of avoidable blood remaining in food. Yet pagan incomprehension of the Jewish monotheist cult, lacking the customary images and statues, led to charges of ritual killing. At a time of tension between Hellenism and Judaism, it was alleged that the Jews would kidnap a Greek foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and then convey him to a wood, where they slew him, sacrificed his body with the customary ritual, partook of his flesh, and while immolating the Greek swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks. This was told, according to Apion, to King Antiochus Epiphanes by an intended Greek victim who had been found in the Jewish Temple

[oxmixmudd]

Anti-semitism and blood libel existed long before Catholicism, and long before the founder of Christianity even lived.

That is a very odd response to my post. I'm talking about anti-semitism within the christian church, not anywhere else. And how completely contrary to the teachings (not to mention national origin) of Christ that is. However, that source for anti-semitism (the church), by definition, could not have existed before Christ.

As for blood libel, it also, by definition, refers to a rumor Jewish people used christian children's blood in the preparation of passover bread or other rituals, which became a source of anti semitism in Europe. Since no Christian's existed prior to Christ, that term too, by definition, applies only to events after Christ.

[Gondwanaland]

No it is not. Your contention that "Anti-semitism and blood libel existed long before Catholicism, and long before the founder of Christianity even lived" is an erroneous and inaccurate statement and nothing is going to alter that fact, irrespective of how often you insist that you are correct.

The blood libel is a later medieval conception premised on certain specific texts found in the New Testament.

Anti Jewish feeling in Egypt in the late first century CE and early first century CE [and Apion was certainly anti-Judaic] had nothing to do with the Jewish religion. The account Apion presents [and which is first recorded by Posidonius in the second century BCE] is of a blood sacrifice and ritual cannibalism, the latter calumny against the Jews would later appear in the writings of John Chrysostom [347-407 CE].

The account in Apion is not a blood libel. You quite clearly have no understanding about what you are writing but are unable [or unwilling] to acknowledge your error.

How interesting. You have just called Dan Cohn-Sherbok, who is both a Jewish academic and a Reform Rabbi, an anti-Semite. Assuming of course that you are actually referring to Dan Cohn-Sherbok whose book was the subject of my comment which elicited that reply.

However, we can never be entirely sure who or what might be the topic of your stream of conscious contributions.

Analogies have no bearing on this. We are dealing with historical facts.

More gibbering nonsense to try to pretend that blood libel is not blood libel.

[oxmixmudd]

Then tell me Jim what did your ancestors do that makes you responsible? And again you made a blanket statement. That we are responsible. Who is the we Jim? That too is an absolute statement.

I did say we seer. We are responsible, the nation, those in power created the legacy of slavery. When I say we I mean that correcting the injustice that has come from the long history of slavery and racism is on the nation that created it. Due to the elongation of the discussion, I never was able to get to the connection between personal responsibility as in my first example and corporate responsibility as exists in this case, but the responsibility is on the nation which was alive when the deeds were done and is still alive and bearing the responsibility to make things right.

Interestingly Germany, the subject of another sub thread in this overall thread, did in fact take corporate responsibility for what they did to the jews in the reparations agreement between Germany and Israel signed in 1952.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repa...lic_of_Germany

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We are all born with a bent towards sin, that does not mean I'm responsible for your sins, or you for mine. Not a hard concept, nor are you responsible for the sins of your ancestors.

I did not ask about A's responsibility for B's sins , I asked you to explain your understanding of "original sin".