Conference taveng::bagels

I am afraid the program referenced in .0 ignored the religious persecution
begun by the first Christian emperors of Rome. The early Christians must
seen Judaism and paganism as competing against their own religion and
actively sought to surpress them.

After Rome put down the rebellion in Judea, Jews were no longer citizens of
the Roman Empire but were considered the property of the emperor. The tax
that Jews formerly sent to Jerusalem for the support of the Temple was
collected by the emperor (after the destruction of the Temple) to pay for
his protection (I guess). This "temple tax" was the legal basis for a special
"Jew tax" that was imposed in many European countries over the ages.

As "property of the emperor", Jews were not really citizens of the places
where they dwelled. Usually we could not own land nor join the trade guilds.
The professions left open to Jews were banking, medicine, and international
trade. Banking is mentioned in .0. Virtually every European king had a
Jewish physician (even the anti-Semitic ones). I think international trade
was aided by the fact that Jews in every land could communicate in Hebrew
with eachother.

It was 500 years ago that the anti-Semitic Queen Isabella convinced her
husband to expel the Jews from Spain. It was only 50 years ago that the
Nazis killed 6 million Jews simply because they were Jews. And today in the
former Soviet Union, latent anti-Semitic feelings are coming to the fore
and Jews are taking the blame for the poor economic conditions there. I
would not be surprised to hear stories of atrocities against Jews coming
out of there in the near future.

From what you said so far, it seems Jews have a lot in common with Hindus.

Dave

Anti-semitism has existed ever since there have been Jews.  For examples, see
the Bible.  Two examples that come to mind are Amalek and Haman.

Jews lent money to Christians because Christians weren't allowed to charge
interest to fellow Christians.  BTW, Jews aren't allowed to charge interest
to fellow Jews.  Even today there are many free-loan societies (gemilas chesed, 
or gemach, in Hebrew) that grant interest-free loans to Jews.

    G'day,
    
    >Anti-semitism has existed ever since there have been Jews.  For
    >examples, see the Bible.  Two examples that come to mind are Amalek and 
    >Haman.
     
    I do not know about Amalek and Haman could you tell me a bit more.
    
    One of the things that really bothers me is the fact that people are
    not seen as people but as Jews, Hindus etc.  Because we do not fit into
    a nice tidy box that is defined by a society that we live in we are
    seen as only Jews etc.  This de-humanises people it's okay to kick a
    Jew or whoever they are not humans.
    
    What I feel makes things worse is the fact that we do not fit into
    their religious ideals.  I have seen various diagrams that are drawn
    that show Hindus with satan and his lot because various aspects of my
    religion do not conform to theirs.  Various insults are hurled and they
    all point to the fact that we are satan worshippers.  This is not to
    different from the position that the Jews also find themselves in as
    being Christ killers.  Many of these people do not know anything about
    our religion but they feel they have the right to judge without
    knowledge.
    
    I also find that very subtle forms of misinformation or lack of
    information are used in our society.  I do not think many people know
    of the holocaust of Hindus that took place by the Mogals and the
    British, 10's of millions died.  But all the history is sanitized to make 
    it look like as if we were the luck ones that got civilised.
    
    As an example the World knows something about the "Indian Mutiny". 
    It happened in the 1800's when the Indians tried to overthrow the
    British but failed due to bad communications amoungest other things. 
    But to an Indian this was a revaluation in which 10's of thousands
    died.  The partition of India and the millions that died has left deep 
    scares in the minds of Indians.
    
    I would also like to tell you about an incident that occured in
    England.  My doctor was/is a Jew and I went to see him he wanted me
    take my shirt off so that he could examin me.  When he saw what I was
    wearing his eyes lit up it was a swastika.  I did not realise at all
    why he reacted in the way he did.  After I got home it came to me
    why and I felt bad.
    
    For your information Hindus have swastika's on there Houses, Ships, at
    Weddings etc.  This is a holy symbol and it means alot to Hindus and
    has no Nazi connections.  These people took a religious symbol and have
    misused it and I as a Hindu find it offensive.  I hope if you evercome
    across a Hindu waring a swastika you will know why.
    
    You will also hear about Aryan's in Hindu (Vedic) Culture and we are 
    refering to a civilised follower of Vedic Culture;one whose goal is 
    spritual advancement.
    
    The reason why I have opened this topic is to clearify the position of
    Hindus towards Jews.  I feel that we have many things in common and not
    least our civilisations/religions that are the oldest in the world,
    our sufferings and History that has been distorted and misused.  We have
    alot in common even if we disagree about religion and I hope that we
    could get to understand each other.  Jews are not the only ones that
    have suffered I hope that you do not mind me saying this it's only the
    lack of information that has caused us not to communicate.
    
    I have never in all my life had a chance to know about Jews and their
    history.  I have always got a distorted version and I can say that I
    have never accepted anything that has been said about Jews.  You are
    people just like me and that's all that matters.  I am happy that the
    Jews found a sanctuary in India and I hope that you were not persecuted
    by Hindus at least.
    
    By the way what does the word Semitic really mean ? I have had various
    versions given to me so I want yours for a change.
    
    Sunil

    Dear Sunil,
    
    I am curious:  Do the "arms" on your swastika go clockwise or
    counter-clockwise?
    
    I ask because I read in a book that traditional swastikas (including
    those used by Native Americans) are counter-clockwise, and that the
    Nazis reversed the direction, thus perverting this symbol.
    
    Also, what does the swastika symbolize to you?  I read that it
    symbolizes energy flow, but would like to know more.
    
    Thanks,
    L

Amalek appears in the Torah. He is a king(?) and his people attack the Jews
as they are fleeing from slavery in Egypt (Exodus). There is no reason
given for the attack. In Deuteronomy we are commanded both to to blot out
the memory of Amalek and to remember what he did to us.

Haman appears in the Hebrew bible in the book of Esther. Haman is the
king's prime minister. He concocts a plan to kill all the Jews of his
country and take there money. But the king's favorite wife turns out to
be Jewish. She intervenes, Haman is defeated, and we celebrate the holiday
of Purim to comemorate the event. Biblical commentators claim that Haman
was a remote descendant of Amalek.

Dave

p.s. I named my computer "Haman" at at time when I was down on computers.

    	"Anti-Semitism" was coined in the 19th century to specifically
    refer to hatred and persecution of Jews.  It has no relation to the
    word "Semite" and was not intended to equate Jews as "Semites", an easy
    misconstruction that is often used against Jews--often by anti-Semites.
    It is unfortunate that the word was coined this way, but it probably
    involved old-fashioned manners, where it would not do to use the clear
    and unambiguous phrase "Jew-hating".

    		David

    Hi Laura,      
    
    Your question about the swastika and the direction it points in just
    cannot remember.  I do not have mine on me any longer.  But I know that
    you are right about the Nazis perverting the symbols, because I have
    often heard this from other Indians.
    
    The meaning of the swastika :-)
    
    Before I go into this I would like to make it clear that Hindus DO NOT
    have millions of g-ds, this is incorrect and if you remember I
    explained this in the India Notes conference.  G-d is the Supreme Being
    the cause of all causes and the demigods are his servents as we are. 
    Except for the fact that they are empowered and we are not.  The names
    for G-d are Krsna and Rama but there are more and these are the two
    most commonly used.
    
    Anyway the swastika symbolizes the demigod Ganesh and he helps us
    overcome any hurdles in life.  Married life can be one big hurdle and
    the swastika represents him.  But there is more to it then this
    unfortunately I do not know fully.
    
    I myself follow the Vaisnavas Philosophy and I tend to not engage myself 
    in worshiping the demigods, so I forget about what I was taught by my 
    parents.  Not that it was wrong but I feel that I need serve G-d
    because I am the servent of G-d and that has always been for all living
    entities.
    
    The swastika is not just a representation of Ganesh but has much more
    to it then that.  When I have more information I'll let you know.  I
    hope that I have given you all some insight about the use of the
    swastika.
    
    With best wishes,
    
    Sunil 

    Hi,
    
    Going back to note .1 by Dave 
    
>It was 500 years ago that the anti-Semitic Queen Isabella convinced her
>husband to expel the Jews from Spain. It was only 50 years ago that the
>Nazis killed 6 million Jews simply because they were Jews. And today in the
>former Soviet Union, latent anti-Semitic feelings are coming to the fore
>and Jews are taking the blame for the poor economic conditions there. I
>would not be surprised to hear stories of atrocities against Jews coming
>out of there in the near future.
    
    I hope that it does not seem like as if I am asking a stupid question
    or making remarks that are hurtfullin anyway.  But I have always heard
    this from the Jews about the 6 million Jewish people being murdered.  I
    also get this feeling of it being inevitable that this is going to
    happen again.  Why do you feel that this is possible in this day and
    age ?  Do you as a people still feel the hostility from your host
    communities ?  I got to admit that I have heard some hostile remarks
    about Jews but it's not to different from what I have heard about
    Hindus or anybody else.
    
    But one difference that I do find between Jews and Hindus is that we
    are a demoralised people.  And have lost much of our Vedic Culture
    BUT I must add that there are many people who are trying to revive it. 
    Loss of pride in ourselves and our religion,culture and history is a 
    problem for us.  I see this as a strength in the Jews am I right and if 
    so what has given you this ?
    
    I also remember in the area where I lived in Wembley England there was a
    synagogue and a large Jewish community.  One day I found swastikas and
    other symbols painted on the wall near the synagogue.  But this was not
    to different from what happens to Hindu temples at times, it's not
    pleasent but it happens to others.  But I do find that the Jews react
    very differently in that you tend to cling onto the past and the Nazis. 
    It's good to keep alive the memory of the crimes that the Nazis carried
    out BUT does it prevent you from looking at other possibilities ?  If
    life is transient then there is hope to improve things and prevent them
    from happening again.
    
    Indians I feel have a similar problem in that we still have this
    mentality that we were ruled by the Mogal, British etc.  And our past
    collective consciousness holds us back because we have this feeling of
    being inferior.  This kind of a collective consciousness is really
    debilitating and holds us back.  In terms of overcoming the past and
    accepting it  what have/are the Jewish people doing ?  You have a
    wonderful country that is well organised and are making something of
    it.  I see this as a sign of progress but I still feel this collective
    consciousness saying it could happen again.
    
    Are the Jewish people as united as it appears to the outsiders. 
    Becasue I get this feeling that you are a homogeneous society and that no 
    Jews disagree but I am sure that this is far from the truth or could be. 
    Indians do not have a homogeneous society we have our religion some
    how it has kept us together even though the Vedas have been misused to
    expolite other Hindus.
    
    I know I have asked many questions it's because I am trying to
    understand the Jewish people and question your assumptions about
    yourselves.  I want to know how the past has prevent or not prevented
    you from progressing ?  G-ds love I am sure has helped us endure
    but I am sure that this is not what G-d wants for anyone.  We are not
    less then anyone else or greater we are just people and are not
    different.  So I want to know how optimistic you are about the future ?
    
    Indians have saying "on the wheel of time one day you are at the top and 
    the next you are at the bottom.  No one is invincible only G-d is."  This
    I find helps me and gives me hope for the future of my people.
    
    With many thanks

    Sunil
    

    Hello Sunil,
    
    You are asking a question that is difficult to answer, and touches an
    area of great sensitivity.
    
    The problem for Jews is that so-called anti-Semitism (really Jew-hating
    as an earlier noter pointed out) is an ancient tradition with deep
    roots, and it still exists.
    
    From the beginning, ancient Israel was a very small country in a
    strategic location, subject to frequent conquering by various empires. 
    Even the Bible records the attacks by Amelek and Haman, as previously
    described.  While these early experiences may be attributed to common
    human barbarity and empire-building, explicit anti-Semitism is
    documented over 1500 years ago.
    
    Anti-Semitism as we know it today developed in the early Middle Ages in
    Europe.  Large numbers of Jews dispersed into Europe and other areas
    after the destruction of the Jewish state and Temple by the Romans.  
    These dispersed groups maintained their separateness and identity, and
    were subject to discrimination by the mainstream, homogeneous
    communities.  
    
    Certainly anti-Semitism still exists in Europe, as seen in Germany,
    Poland, France, and other countries.  It was imported to the USA by the
    European immigrants, and lives on here in the popular mind.  While its
    effects are muted by the diversity of peoples here, and the numerous
    opportunities for various group hatreds, it continues in its unique,
    pernicious way.
    
    It is very difficult to overcome such a long history.  The Nazi
    Holocaust was the most devastating in a long series of violent
    episodes, but it is probably (G-d forbid) not the last.  Until
    anti-Semitism withers, I don't see how Jewish views can change.  In
    countries like the US or Australia we do what we can to make life
    better.  But please forive us for maintaining a rather pessimistic
    outlook regarding our existence in diaspora.  This is why Jewish
    support for Israel remains so strong.
    
    Laura

I think that we Jews are fortunate that our religion requires us to be
literate. We are _supposed_ to study the bible and the Talmud (which expands
the religious laws and has commentary on the bible). We are _supposed_ to
ask our rabbis difficult questions. A good Jew almost cannot be illiterate.
This has always made it relatively easy for Jews to enter the professions
and as a result, Jews are frequently wealthy.

Furthermore, Jews have a tradition of mutual assistance. Poor Jews exist,
but they get a lot of help from their community. This may make the
non-Jewish community jealous (to which we answer that the non-Jews should
support their people the same way).

Also, the Christian and Moslem religions are derived from Judaism. Each
of these has written incidents into their holy books which depict themselves
as the "good" guys and the Jews as the "bad" guys. If a Christian or Moslem
wants to justify Jew-hating, he or she need only look into the relevent
holy scriptures.

Ever since the destruction of the 2nd temple (circa the year 70), Jews have
been without a state. Tyrants could do whatever they wished to Jews without
fear of starting a war. Jews are easy targets.

Re: .9
>   ...  Large numbers of Jews dispersed into Europe and other areas
>   after the destruction of the Jewish state and Temple by the Romans.
You can add another 500 years to the diaspora. After the destruction of
the 1st Temple by Babylonia and the enforced exile, permanent Jewish
communities formed in Babylonia and Egypt. One reason Judaism survived
the Roman conquest was that we still had these communities.

Dave

>    Are the Jewish people as united as it appears to the outsiders. 
>    Becasue I get this feeling that you are a homogeneous society and that no 
>    Jews disagree but I am sure that this is far from the truth or could be. 

Apparently you haven't read many of the notes in BAGELS.

We usually say that if you put three Jews into a room and ask them a
question, you'll usually get at least 4 opinions.

Dave

   re: 1206.8

>                                             One day I found swastikas and
>    other symbols painted on the wall near the synagogue.  But this was not
>    to different from what happens to Hindu temples at times, it's not
>    pleasent but it happens to others.  But I do find that the Jews react
>    very differently

    If we react differently, it may be because  a) for many of us, the Nazi
    genocide is still fresh,  b) proportionally it destroyed a very large
    fraction of our total world-wide population, and c) we have found that
    the most effective means of stopping this kind of behavior (i.e. the
    daubing of anti-Jewish symbols on synagogues, etc.) is to react
    vigorously whenever it happens.

>    Are the Jewish people as united as it appears to the outsiders.

    I think it depends on the issue.  If you follow this conference for a
    while you will see vigorous debate on a lot of things.  The one thing
    that will consistently unite us is something that is perceived as an
    attack on Jews simply because they are Jews.  Our history has taught us
    that at some level we must be responsible for each other, regardless of
    differences.  In some areas we have had a tendency in the past to not
    want to conduct debates in public lest we give ammunition to our
    enemies, and this probably gave an impression that we were more uniform
    in our outlook than was actually the case.  Even today, I think someone
    who reads the Israeli press would find much more willingness to talk
    about certain things than in the Anglo-Jewish or American-Jewish press.

    On the other hand, being a much smaller group than, for instance the
    Hindu population of India, we may be relatively more united simply
    because it is easier to unite a smaller group than a larger group.

                                        Aaron

I hope you all will not mind my interjecting some comments into this
discussion.  I've enjoyed reading here, and also your hospitality in
answering some questions that I've asked previously.  

I do want to comment on the following exerpt from a previous note:

>>Also, the Christian and Moslem religions are derived from Judaism. Each
>>of these has written incidents into their holy books which depict themselves
>>as the "good" guys and the Jews as the "bad" guys. If a Christian or Moslem
>>wants to justify Jew-hating, he or she need only look into the relevent
>>holy scriptures.

I don't know much of anything about the Koran or the Muslem faith.  I
have read the Christian New Testament extensively though and want to point
out that it does not depict Christians as the "good guys" and Jews as the
"bad guys".  It depicts the first Christians as being Jews who believed
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah spoken of in the Tanakh (sp ?).  After
some argumentation and disagreements these people decided that it was not
necessary for gentiles to convert to Judaism in order to become believers
in Jesus as Messiah, and so began an influx of non-Jewish converts which
in time gradually faded (but hasn't completely erased) the Jewish roots 
of this new religion.

It was later, after schisms had developed through certain events, that
what is recorded in the Christian New Testament was _bent and twisted_ by 
people who were attempting to rationalize or justify their bigotry, prejudism, 
or hate through these writings.  But in fact the actual writings do not
justify these terrible things.  Yes, it is recorded that a small and select 
group of Jewish leaders plotted to have Jesus put to death, but that hardly 
is an indictment on a whole population, afterall Jesus was a Jew and so were 
all His supporters and followers while he was alive.  And it certainly is 
not a reason for Christians to practice hatred and bigotry towards your people.
I think that the already existing hate and bigotry was the motivation for
twisting these writings to attempt to justify the hate and bigotry.  I do 
not think that these writings produced the hate and bigotry.

I feel terrible that there has been so much antagonism from Christians towards
Jews.  And I'm sad also when I see the misunderstandings and distrust that
has built up on _both_ sides.  I'd like to see some of those breaches healed.  
The past antagonisms are impossible to undo, and impossible to forget, but 
perhaps we can try not to perpetuate them into the future ?  There are differences 
between Judaism and Christianity, this cannot be denied, but it is not a reason 
to be ugly to each other.  G-d has told us to be hospitable and generous to both 
our neighbors and brothers, and to the "aliens" living among us.  G-d has told
us to love mercy and to act justly.  This is a command for Christians as much
as for Jews.

Okay, I will get off my soap box now.  Again thank you for your friendliness,
and hospitality.  I hope that I've not offended.

Leslie

re .14:

But certainly the Christian Bible portrays the Pharisees as bad guys and the
Sadducees as good guys.  Since Jews today are the spiritual descendents of
the Pharisees, it amounts to the same thing as if it portrayed the Jews as
bad guys.

RE: <<< Note 1206.15 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

Actually, although there were disagreements with some Pharisees, there were
also those who met privately with Jesus - it was not so cut and dried as is
presented by your note.

I should like a little bit more information on what you mean by Jews today
are the spiritual descendents of the Pharisees.  Can you talk a little bit
more about that please ?  I'd like to hear what other people might say about
this spiritual descendents concept also. 

Thanks,
Leslie

Up until the reform movement, the validity of rabbinical law (of which the
Pharisees were proponents) was accepted by practically all Jews.  I don't
think the reform movement has much esteem for the Sadducees either.

    
    Re: .16 
    
    >Actually, although there were disagreements with some Pharisees, there
    >were also those who met privately with Jesus - it was not so cut and
    >dried as is presented by your note.
    
    The word "Pharisee" is all but synonymous with "hypocrite" to
    the western ear, and it is little wonder. Throughout the
    Christian Bible, in its dozens of references to Pharisees,
    they are constantly referred to as "snakes," "evil," "trappers,"
    "hypocrites," "money-lovers," "haughty" and "godless."
    
    The Christian Bible itself, as far as I'm concerned, is the
    "mother" of all anti-Semitic books. It is filled with, and
    continues to fill others with hatred of Jews, whether that
    was the intention or not.
    
    As long as the Christian Bible is the holy book of the
    Christian, there will continue to be Jew-hatred in Christian
    countries, no matter how the Vatican or any well-intentioned
    theologians reinterpret it.
    
    Jem
    

    Hi Everyone,
    
    Re .12 Dave all I have to say is :-) :-) it's the same with us Indians
    and we use the same expression.
    
    Re .13 Aaron I can understand why the Jews feel so strongly about the
    Nazi symbols and I don't blame you.  I feel that the symbols in
    themselves are hiding an intent on the part of the cowards.  By the way
    what does your name mean ?
    
    Re .14 Leslie I agree with you regarding the following
    
    >afterall Jesus was a Jew and so were all His supporters and followers 
    >while he was alive.
    
    I have said this to some people and it seems almost as if they have a
    problem with their hearing.  Maybe I was speaking in Punjabi and not
    English !!!  Well Jews were and are the majority in Isael then and now.
    
    Coming back to the world today and having seen the program and opened
    this topic I have started to question certain norms that I grewup with
    in England.  I hope that you don't mind me mentioning them here but I
    feel that European/Christian society has to face up to the facts.
    
    I not being of European/Christian background took on some of the
    excepted norms unconsciously.  For example if I was a bit tight with my
    money or found someone else was we would say "don't be Jewish". 
    Looking back I took on this because it was only a saying little did I
    know that it had it's links to the history as in .0 and money lending. 
    Further the way society portrays the Jews as a people is as a mean
    people this is the subliminal messages that are given by the "don't be
    Jewish".  But having seen the program and having this forum to discuss
    the issue I am questioning these norms.  Can they be really acceptable
    in any society.  Also going back to .1 really Jews were doctors and the
    Kings employed and trusted them!  With the accepted norms I would never
    have thought that Jews were anything but money lenders and that is
    taking into consideration that my doctor is a Jew in England.  Yes I
    have become conditioned but I will overcome this.
    
    To take this further it appears that the only two religions that I have
    come across that say that they are the "ONLY WAY TO G-D" are
    Christianity and Islam.  Having this monopoly has given them the right
    to judge others with out concern or care for the people.  Even though
    they want to "save our souls" we have paid a very high price in blood
    and suffering.  This has lead towards bigotry and hatred but not
    peace.  It's almost as if the two religions are trying to get as large
    a share of the market as possible.  Many of us don't want to be part of
    this monopoly and want to follow our religion in peace.
    
    I feel the problems are quite deep rooted and are not just directed at
    Jews but anyone who does not fall into that nice little box.  Well I
    like to tell you another incident that occured while I was in England,
    working for a very famous and great company (I mean that).
    
    I went to an Introduction to XYZ company and it was a great course. 
    Part of the course discussed International Relations and it was very
    interesting when one of the people from department came to give us a
    talk.  In short he mentioned that the most import tools for trading and
    gaining a foot hold in the market place were :-
    
    1. Common language
    2. Common religion
    3. Common culture
    4. It helps greatly if they were former colonies
    
    So all this saving us has it to do with G-d or trade.  Are the Jews and
    Indians etc. who have become successful in finance, commerce etc. a
    threat ?  I feel that Anti-Semitism and racism are linked in many
    ways and attacks on other religions really do take place.
    
    While I was at school I was always given and still am given this
    feeling that we will go to hell.  The Bible is used as the standard to
    measure our worth, to degrade us, and to justify any attacks physical
    and non-physical.
    
    I would like to say that the bottom line of this note is, that it's
    about time people started to look at the conditioning that we have been
    put through.  Today I was talking to a Vietnamise work mate about
    problems faced by migrants in Australia and we talked about England.  I
    told him about the program and he was taken back he did not know Jews
    were forced into money lending.  It's suprising how well hidden these
    and many facts are. 
    
    Well I wish you all the best I don't know what Passover is so I don't
    know what to wish you.  I hope that you can understand why I became
    conditioned.
    
    Sunil

    Re .14

    <				Yes, it is recorded that a small and select 
    <group of Jewish leaders plotted to have Jesus put to death, but that hardly 
    <is an indictment on a whole population, afterall Jesus was a Jew and so were
    <all His supporters and followers while he was alive.

    	I have met several Christians who think that Jesus's full name,
    which includes his Christian name and his family name is Jesus Christ.
    They also think that he was born a Christian. They also think that when
    he was born, his mother and father were Christians. They do not know
    because they were never told that Jesus, his mother and father were
    Jews. All they were taught was that the Jews killed Jesus because he was
    a Christian. They think the Jews and the Romans went around killing
    Christians both before Jesus was born and after Jesus was born.

    	The Christians I am talking about are the ones who hardly if ever
    go to church and all their religious knowledge is passed down from
    mother and father to child. 

    			Arnie

>> Note 1206.18 by SUBWAY::STEINBERG 

Jem,

I'm not going to push this here in this notes file.  I don't agree with
your conclusions though, and am willing to discuss it via mail if you want.

Leslie    

    G'day,
    
    I have to make a correction to the base note, the program I saw was
    called "All the Kings Jews" and not "The Kings Jews".
    
    I have a question for you I saw a SBS program in England about Gypsies
    and it was very interesting concerned with their heritage and history. 
    It dealt with the Indian Gypsies who have been living in Europe for
    many years even during World War II.  One I like to know if any of you
    saw the program and can tell me what it was called, it was televised
    about 2 to 3 years ago (I know along time ago).  Do any of you have a
    history about the Gypsies that were murdered by this guy Hitler ?
    
    Basically the history of Indian Gypsies is that they left India over a
    period of a few hundred years because they did not want to live in a
    disunited India.  They vowed to stay as Gypsies until India was united
    ie no Pakistan etc and the end of Mogal and British rule.  Since India
    is not united they are still living as Gypsies.
    
    I am watching a 3 part series on Television which is very interesting
    and deals with the problem of Jewish / Christian relations.  I will
    post a note here giving the title of the program.
    
    I did not realize that this topic could generate such heat.  I would
    like to add that there are many people in this world who use religion
    to justify hatered of others.  I know that the Jewish people have
    suffered and Christians take on a large part of the blame.  But there
    is good and bad everywhere in this world.  I also lose sight of this
    when I have come across a few too many Christians or Muslims who have
    given me a hard time or worse.  I feel that we have to accept the past
    and go beyond it and hopefully reach an understanding where people can
    appriciate each other for what we are.
    
    Yes Anti-semitism and racism is still around and it exists in every
    society no matter how nobel the society.  In India we have Castism
    which is a curse and I Israel we see that the black Jews are
    discriminated againest.
    
    Is Anti-semitism and racism the real problem or are we the real
    problem ?  Is it also our greed that has caused these problems ?
    
    You have given me insight into your sufferings and have answered
    questions that are painful.  I must say that you have excelled and have
    made me feel welcomed we have managed to share something of each other. 
    I don't think that many of you knew about the sufferings the Indians
    have had to go through.  By being open and discussing issues it gives
    us all a chance to experience new feelings and see each other as
    people.  I am sure that some of the Christians who visit this
    conference now know or knew of your pain and have had a chance to
    examin what they think about you.  I must say that I have and I thank
    you for it.
    
    If we want a world in which we respect each other we must start from
    the self and examin our attitudes towards each other.  It's not an easy
    thing to do I know because of my own peoples suffering.  Where do we go
    from here ?  Do we carry on talking and discussing this issuse and try
    to get an understanding of one another ?  Or do we give up and say
    things will never change ?
    
    In the past I have found it difficult to talk to Jews because you are
    always on the defensive as I have said you have excelled here.  Thank
    G-d I appriciate you alot more now.
    
    Sunil

    RE: .18
    
    Jem,
    
    It saddens me to read your words as it shows how ignorance, mistrust,
    and hatred can exist on both sides of an issue. 
    
    Almost a year ago I took an overview course on the Talmud from an
    yeshiva student. During the midst of the course he refered to several
    of the gospel accounts, specifically the gospel account of Matthew. He
    quoted several Judica scholars who had "studied" them. Their take on it
    was that Matthew was like any other midrash writing of the time. A great 
    deal of the references to the Tenach were from the both prevailing 
    schools at the time (Hillel and Gamiel). The negative references made
    against both the Sadducees and Pharisees was not against the people but
    against the actions themselves of which he disagreed. Unfortunately in
    the last 1800 years ignorate, and often on purpose, people have replaced
    comments against actions to comments against people. They have even
    taken this further to comments against a race of people into what today
    is identifed as anti-semmitism. If you live here in the Boston area
    there is a wonderful Rabbi who has taught several courses which
    incorporate these gospel accounts into his studies on the Torah and the
    socio-ecomonic studies of Judaism. 
    
    Nancy  

    
    Re: .21 (Leslie)
    
    >I'm not going to push this here in this notes file.  I don't agree with
    >your conclusions though, and am willing to discuss it via mail if you
    >want.
    
    Let the readers judge for themselves:
    
    	When John saw many Pharisees and Saducees coming to him to be 
    	[B
    
    	Then some teachers of the Law and some Pharisees spoke up...
    	"How evil and godless are the people of this day!" Jesus 
   	exclaimed... (ibid. 12:39).
    
        Some Pharisees and Saducees who came to Jesus wanted to trap
    	him, so they asked him to perform a miracle for them... (ibid.
   	16:1).
    
    	Some Pharisees came to him and tried to trap him... (ibid. 19:1).
    
    	The Pharisees went off and made a plan to trap Jesus with 
    	questions... (ibid�. 22:15).
    
    	How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees!
    	You hypocrites!... (ibid. 23:13).
    
    	When the Pharisees heard all of this, they made fun of
    	Jesus because they loved money. (Lk. 16:14).
    
    	The Pharisees... sent some guards to arrest him (Jesus). (Jn.
    	7:32).
    
    I've listed here only a few of the outbursts against (mainly)
    the Pharisees. I haven't included any of the classical passages
    used against Jews in general, which are also numerous. 
    
    Again, I am not offering any interpretations of these passages,
    and I realize that well-intentioned theologians may try to
    explain them in a way that is not anti-Semitic or anti-Pharisee.
    But the fact is, the passages are there, and not every Christian
    is an erudite theologian, and there are an awful lot of kids
    on Brooklyn streets, Chicago suburbs and Kansas farms being 
    taught still being taught to despise the Jewish Christ-killers.
    Anti-Pharisism is the least of the troubles.
    
    Jem
    
    

	RE: .18

�    The word "Pharisee" is all but synonymous with "hypocrite" to
�   the western ear, and it is little wonder. Throughout the
�   Christian Bible, in its dozens of references to Pharisees,
�   they are constantly referred to as "snakes," "evil," "trappers,"
�   "hypocrites," "money-lovers," "haughty" and "godless."
 
	Part of the reason for this perception may be the typical situation that
"only bad news is news".  We see it even in our day and age -- good news isn't
news.  People doing good don't generate interest; thieves and criminals do.

	I recently had my Performance Appraisal.  And I was a little upset that
all of my positive accomplishments were summed up very briefly, but the things
that "needed work" were outlined in great detail!  When I commented on that, the
only response was that "Oh, well, you're *expected* to do all those good things;
and you did them well, so there's no need to spend time on that.  What we want
to do is to identify those things that need to be worked on."

	I think there are many records of right, upstanding Pharisees --
including Nicodemus (no relation!), Saul of Tarsus (who studied under Gamaliel),
and others.  But it's always the "bad eggs" that get the press.

	When the rabbi Jesus uttered his statements about certain Pharisees
(or Pharisetical practices), I don't think he was judging them as people --
and *certainly* not criticizing them as Jews.  I believe that what he was doing
was singling out the difference between action and attitude, between ritual
and meaning, between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.  In almost
all cases, the diatribes came against those who (usually *very* publicly) held
to their daily rituals, but whose lives (and attitudes) did not match what they
were so grandly proclaiming.
   
�    The Christian Bible itself, as far as I'm concerned, is the
�    "mother" of all anti-Semitic books. It is filled with, and
�    continues to fill others with hatred of Jews

	Interesting comment, since I have studied the Christian Bible for many,
many years, and have never, *ever* felt any anti-Semitism as a result.  In fact,
it constantly continues to proclaim that the Jews are "God's chosen people" --
that they are "special".  Christians often consider themselves "adopted" into
the "family of God", while they feel that Jews are a more natural part of the
"family".

	I am not sure that I can ascribe any anti-Semitism directly to the
writings in the Christian Bible.  I cannot, of course, answer as to any of the
*excuses* used by those who would be anti-Semitic anyway, might use.  I think
we all know that if I want to support my own philosophy, regardless of how
cruel or brutal, I'll find a means of doing it.

	One interesting thought, though, with the passing of this recent 
Passover and Easter season:  as I was re-reading an account of the historical
events that took place in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago, I was struck by a
statement made by the governor of Judea at the time, Pontius Pilate.  As the
highest Roman authority in the area, he was attendant at the trial of Jesus.
And after questioning him, and determining that he had commited no infraction of
Roman law, he basically told the people "This is not Rome's business; this is a
religious matter.  Handle it yourselves."

	Then, in a demonstration of dissociating himself from the problem, he
literally washed his hands, saying "I am innocent of the blood of this man."
The account goes on to say that the people answered "His blood be upon us, and 
on our children!"  I wonder if they had any idea of how prophetic those words
might some day be...

re .-1:

How do you reconcile your claim that the NT isn't anti-Jewish with the
Pontius Pilate story?  How can one believe in the truth of the story
and not believe that Jews are responsible for JC's death?

� How do you reconcile your claim that the NT isn't anti-Jewish with the
� Pontius Pilate story?  How can one believe in the truth of the story
� and not believe that Jews are responsible for JC's death?

	*Precisely* the kind of thinking I was trying to correct.  Let's look at
those two sentences, particularly in light of what I said earlier:

	� How can one believe in the truth of the story
        � and not believe that Jews are responsible for JC's death?

	In the first place, there *were* Jews responsible for Jesus' death; I
never denied that.  There were also Romans responsible (since they were the ones
who carried out the sentence).  However, does the death of Jesus generate any
anti-*Roman* emotions?  Not that I've ever heard.  But it's a far different cry
to say that some of those involved in Jesus' death were Jewish vs. saying that
"the Jews" (usually meaning the entire race, through time eternal!) were respon-
sible.

	My point was that regardless of the specifics of the historical case,
for someone to formulate a generic anti-Semitic viewpoint based on this instance
is no more valid than saying that all Caucasians through history are responsible
for Charles Manson; or that an entire race should be held responsible for
Genghis Khan, or Attilla the Hun.

	Several years ago, during the Iranian crisis, I found myself falling
into the same "trap";  I began to discover generic anti-Iranian feelings within
myself, generated predominantly by the actions of the Iatolla Khomeini.  Later,
I found that one of my co-workers was married to a beautiful, sweet Iranian
girl from Tehran.  And in getting to know them better, I realized how wrong it
was to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few.

	I'll repeat what I said earlier:  when *anyone* uses an incident like
this to propagate generic, eternal anti-Semitic feelings, my own personal belief
is that that person (or persons) *wants* to believe what they believe, and they
are looking for excuses to support their belief -- not the other way around.

	Now, as to the other statement:

	 � How do you reconcile your claim that the NT isn't anti-Jewish with
         � the Pontius Pilate story?

I'd caution all of us to be just as careful to *not* do what we're condemning --
namely, to make sweeping statements about people, historical records, or what-
ever, based on our own feelings, or on what we *want* to believe (or support).

	First, it would seem to be just as radical to say that simply relating
the facts of an historical account (recorded by historians *outside* of the NT
as well) makes a document "anti-Jewish".  That's like saying that any biography
of Adolph Hitler must be anti-Jewish -- because it's relating the facts that
took place.

	Secondly, the accounts related in the NT were all written by *Jewish*
writers.  It seems rather odd that they would be considered "anti-Jewish".

	Third, other than the statements of historical facts, such as at the
trial and death of Jesus, I would challenge anyone to find an anti-Semitic
statement in the entire NT.  On the other hand, there is constant reiteration of
the "specialness" of the Jews.  All of the disciples of Jesus were Jews; and
they even got into some arguments among themselves, because some felt that the
message Jesus had brought should *only* be passed on to the Jews -- to the total
exclusion of all other races.

	Finally, in an almost ironic twist of logic -- and this is probably the
wrong audience for this, but it's aimed particularly at any who call themselves
Christians, but try to support anti-Semitic feelings based on the death of Jesus
-- part of the Christian philosophy is that God has a plan... for *everything*.
And nothing happens that He doesn't allow.

	The birth, life, and death of Jesus were all part of that plan.  If one
believes the historical records of the NT, Jesus himself predicted his own 
death.  What this means is that *without* that death, his prophecies would have
been unfulfilled; his message would have been incomplete;  indeed, there would
*BE* no Christianity!  So in essence (and here's the irony), Christians should
be *most* greatful to the Jews of Jesus' time who were responsible for beginning
something that has lasted almost 2000 years, and upon which they (Christians)
base their faith.  

	Bottom line:  if someone is "anti-anything", they'll find a way to
support it -- regardless of how ridiculous it may be.  However, anyone who
attempts to support anti-Semitism based on the historical record of Jesus' death
is fighting a losing battle.  In the same manner, however, to decry *any*
document -- whether the Christian Bible or a modern-day biography of a madman
-- as being, in and of itself, "anti-Semitic", simply for relating historical
events, is just as wrong.

	Let's all practice moderation, understanding, and above all open-
mindedness.

    RE:  .27
    
    A few nits:
    
    The NT includes a number of books, written at widely varying times, by
    different authors.  I recall reading that only one of the books
    (Matthew?) is even close to Jesus' time, but still many years after his
    death.  
    
    It should be pointed out that the "facts" reported in these books vary
    somewhat, were written down many years after Jesus' life, were
    documented for ideological reasons, and probably bear only a limited
    relationship to the truth of whatever happened or was said.
    
    I don't think the authors of the NT can properly be called Jewish.  The
    books were written to provide an underpinning to the developing
    religion.  Even if one or more book authors were born Jews (rather than
    pagan or Christian), they certainly considered themselves members of a
    different religion by the time they wrote.  
    
    (It would be most useful here to have a chronology of when Christianity
    was considered a new religion as opposed to a Jewish sect, and when the
    books were composed, as well as the best-guess identities of the
    authors of the books.  Perhaps one of our Christian readers can supply
    this information.)
    
    In summary, to defend the NT from the charge of anti-Semitism on the
    basis of its Jewish origins, has no validity.
    

    
    Re: .25 (Frank)
    
    > Part of the reason for this perception may be the typical situation that
    >"only bad news is news". 
    
    The point is that there's more than just "perception" here, there
    are numerous *passages* in the Christian Bible which foster those
    perceptions.
    
    >I think there are many records of right, upstanding Pharisees --
    >including Nicodemus (no relation!), Saul of Tarsus (who studied under
    >Gamaliel), and others.  But it's always the "bad eggs" that get the press.
    
    Paul, of course, *claimed* to be a Pharisee, but there is much evidence
    from the Christian Bible (CB) itself to counter this claim. We can 
    discuss this off line if you wish. The main reason, in my opinion,
    for his claim of Pharisaic background was to convert Jews to his
    new religion, as he himself says, "To Jews I became like a Jew, to win
    Jews...although I am not subject to it (the Law)...Indeed, I have 
    become everything in turn to men of every sort, so that in one way or
    another I may save some" (I Cor. 9:20-22).
    
    Be that as it may, he certainly was no Pharisee in the eyes of the
    Pharisees after his experience in Damascus and his subsequent exploits
    in Europe. 
    
    > I don't think he was judging them as people --
    
    I'm not interested in debating his intention - I'll grant for
    the sake of argument that he simply wanted them to practice
    what they preached. The point is that in calling them hypocrites
    six times in a handful of sentences, along with snakes, fools,
    prophet-killers, etc. (Mt. 23:13-36), there is little wonder
    that the casual reader would walk away equating "Pharisee"
    with at best obnoxiousness.
    
    >Interesting comment, since I have studied the Christian Bible for many,
    >many years, and have never, *ever* felt any anti-Semitism as a result. 
    
    Well, there are certainly quite a few who have. One who reads, "All
    the people of Israel, then, are to know for sure that this Jesus,
    whom you crucified... is Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36), or "...the
    Jews, who killed ...Jesus and the prophets..." (I Thes. 2:14-15),
    is supposed to remain a philo-Semite?
    
    >  I cannot, of course, answer as to any of the
    >*excuses* used by those who would be anti-Semitic anyway, might use.
    
    Again, I'll grant for the moment that the writers of these passages
    did not intend to foster Jew-hatred. But this is little more solace to 
    the Jew in the Bensonhurst schoolyard who is beaten with baseball
    bats to chants of "Christ-killer," than it was to Jews burned at 
    the stake or bludgeoned, stabbed, shot and gassed to the same
    refrain. As long as those passages or in the Christian holy book,
    Jews will hear the same howls.
    
    Re: .27
    
    >However, does the death of Jesus generate any
    >anti-*Roman* emotions?
    
    First of all, the question is rather moot since there
    are no Romans around to taunt. And their extinction is
    exactly the fate that most Christians expected to befall
    the Jews; when it didn't happen, many thought they'd nudge
    history in the right direction.
    
    > But it's a far different cry
    >to say that some of those involved in Jesus' death were Jewish vs.
    >saying that "the Jews" (usually meaning the entire race, through 
    >time eternal!) were responsible.
    
    Your levelheadedness notwithstanding, and that of many others
    of your faith, the canard continues.
    
    >I'd caution all of us to be just as careful to *not* do what we're 
    >condemning -- namely, to make sweeping statements about people, 
    >historical records, or whatever, based on our own feelings, or on what 
    >we *want* to believe (or support).
    
    If this were a hypothetical, ivory-tower, left-field sort of
    question that never happened and was never likely to happen,
    I for one would make no mention of the passages in question.
    But the fact is that rivers of Jewish blood have been spilt
    during the last two millennia, all by men holding a CB in their
    left hand and an uplifted sword in their right.
    
    >Secondly, the accounts related in the NT were all written by *Jewish*
    >writers.  It seems rather odd that they would be considered
    >"anti-Jewish".
    
    You're barking up the wrong tree here. Some of the worst anti-
    Semites today are Jewish. An accident of birth does not mean
    anything.
    
    > All of the disciples of Jesus were Jews;
    
    But they were Religiously Correct Jews (to coin a phrase), in
    that they believed in Jesus. Those who did (and *do*) not 
    believe in him are in a different category, no?
    
    >Finally, in an almost ironic twist of logic -- and this is probably the
    >wrong audience for this, but it's aimed particularly at any who call
    >themselves Christians, but try to support anti-Semitic feelings based 
    >on the death of Jesus -- part of the Christian philosophy is that God 
    >has a plan... for *everything*. And nothing happens that He doesn't allow.
    
    Well, I'm no Christian, but I'm just as perplexed about this as you.
    Nonetheless, it persists.
    
    > However, anyone who
    >attempts to support anti-Semitism based on the historical record of
    >Jesus' death is fighting a losing battle.
    
    On the contrary, I think it is well-intentioned Christians such
    as yourself who are fighting the losing battle. Jew-baiting
    based on the CB will continue until the end of time.
    
    >        Let's all practice moderation, understanding, and above all
    >open-mindedness.
    
    Good advice. But how would open-mindedness have helped axed to 
    death because of a blood-libel? Some were so eager to encourage
    open-mindedness that they split skulls.
    
    Jem
    

	RE: .28

�   (It would be most useful here to have a chronology of when Christianity
�   was considered a new religion as opposed to a Jewish sect, and when the
�   books were composed, as well as the best-guess identities of the
�   authors of the books.  Perhaps one of our Christian readers can supply
�   this information.)
 
		Approx. date
	Book	 of writing	Author		Background
	----	------------	------		----------
	Matthew	   A.D.50	Matthew		Jewish; a tax collector
						for the Roman gov't.
						One of the 12 principle
						disciples of Jesus.
						Account is firsthand.
	Mark	   A.D.68	John Mark	Jewish; native of
						Jerusalem.  Account is
						firsthand.
	Luke	   A.D.60	Luke		A physician.
						Probably the most precise
						and technically accurate
						writer (most likely due to
						his professional training).
	John	   A.D.85	John, son of	Jewish; a fisherman by trade.
				Zebedee		One of the 12 disciples of
						Jesus.  Account is firsthand.
	Acts	   A.D.60	Luke		Describes the activities in
						the early years after Jesus'
						death.

	The remainder of the NT, rather than being of an historical nature
(as are the first 5 books), is principally made up of letters written by
various leaders to contingents located around Europe.  The titles of the 
books typically reflect to whom they are addressed:  Romans (i.e., the 
people in Rome), Galatians (i.e., the people of Galatia), Ephesians (i.e., 
the people of Ephesus), etc.

	The writers of these books include Simon Peter, a Jewish fisherman 
and close friend of John, and also one of the 12 disciples of Jesus (making 
all of his accounts firsthand); John again (he wrote 4 other books of the 
NT); Saul of Tarsus (who later changed his name to the more Roman 'Paul', 
and who, by his own declaration was "a Jew, born in Tarsus... brought up
at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law 
of the fathers, and zealous toward God... I am a Pharisee, the son of a 
Pharisee" -- Acts 22:3, 23,6); James, the brother of Jesus (obviously, also 
a firsthand account), and head of the church at Jerusalem; and Jude, another 
brother of Jesus.

	These books date from about A.D.40 (i.e., shortly after Jesus' 
death) through about A.D.85, the latest being written by John.  In the 
majority of cases, they were written as firsthand accounts by people who 
lived on a day-to-day basis with Jesus, and recorded the various events that 
comprised his life.

	However, if we limit ourselves to only the above, then we truly miss the
fact that other historians -- including Flavius Josephus, Pliny, and others --
all corroborate at least the historical evidence, making the statement that
the NT was written later, and "munged" to support a particular philosophy --
or "only a limited relationship to the truth of whatever happened or was
said" -- of not much credence.

	RE: .28

�   Paul, of course, *claimed* to be a Pharisee, but there is much evidence
�   from the Christian Bible (CB) itself to counter this claim.

	I'm not aware of any; contrarily, note the above quotation -- not 
written by Paul, but documented by an academically astute, and carefully
detailed, writer -- the physician Luke.

�   But this is little more solace to 
�   the Jew in the Bensonhurst schoolyard who is beaten with baseball
�   bats to chants of "Christ-killer," than it was to Jews burned at 
�   the stake or bludgeoned, stabbed, shot and gassed to the same
�   refrain. 

	I'm sorry to say that history continues to be rife with accounts of
those who -- either because they are, themselves, misled, or because they are
looking for a "cause" to support their own philosophies -- will commit any
amount of mayhem in the name of religion.  Everything from the Crusades to the
situation in Northern Ireland supports this.  I have no answer... other than
those actions are *directly contradictory* to what is presented in the NT.  So
which is wrong:  those commiting these acts, or the document which specifically
teaches the opposite???

	Also, recall that "blood-letting" and "skull-splitting" are not unique
to Christian history; almost every major religion -- including Judaism -- has,
at some point in time, included those fanatics who felt that violence was their
only method of "getting the message across".  That does not make it right.

	People will always be fallible; factions will always arise that foster
the negative in any situation.  We must be careful to sort things out, and
judge the message, and try not to be adversely affected -- or, worse yet,
become arrogant or self-righteous ourselves -- when we see the shortcomings of
the "messengers".

    
    Re: .30 (Frank)
    
    >                Approx. date
    >        Book     of writing     Author          Background
    
    ...
    
    This is, of course, a believing Christian's account of the
    chronology. Keep in mind also that there are tens of thousands
    of versions of the CB in *Greek* itself. But all this can be
    addressed off line, since it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism
    in the CB.
    
    >  I'm not aware of any; contrarily, note the above quotation -- not
    >written by Paul, but documented by an academically astute, and carefully
    >detailed, writer -- the physician Luke.
    
    Again, this can be discussed off line. The point here is not to 
    prove or disprove any of the CB's claims or Christian belliefs
    in general, it's a discussion of anti-Semitism. In any event,
    the alleged Jewish birth of some of the CB's writers is immaterial
    in a discussion certainly of its anti-Semitic results and even
    of possible anti-Semitic intentions themselves, as Laura and
    I have pointed out.
    
    >or the document which specifically
    >teaches the opposite???
    
    I'm not sure we're making progress on this point. As has been pointed
    out, there are numerous passages which at least to those pre-disposed
    to Jew-hatred are used to promote their agenda. Unless these are
    struck from the record, this will continue.
    
    >almost every major religion -- including Judaism -- has,
    >at some point in time, included those fanatics who felt that violence
    >was their only method of "getting the message across".
    
    The Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court) was empowered with the
    ability to utilize capital punishment. However, the Talmud
    calls any Sanhedrin which exercised that right even once in
    seven years (some say *seventy*!) "a destroyer" (i.e. murderous).
    Keep in mind that this included all manner of convicted
    criminals.
    
    > We must be careful to sort things out, and
    >judge the message, and try not to be adversely affected -- or, worse
    >yet, become arrogant or self-righteous ourselves -- when we see the
    >shortcomings of the "messengers".
    
    I would agree with that, but I would hasten to add that it is
    the responsibilty of those "messengers" who believe the "message"
    to be other than hateful to dedicate themselves to eradicating 
    the ignorance and hate of the haters, before say, attempting to
    evangelize among "unbelievers."
    
    Jem
    

    
    Re: .16
    
   >I should like a little bit more information on what you mean by Jews today
   >are the spiritual descendents of the Pharisees.  Can you talk a little bit
   >more about that please ?  I'd like to hear what other people might say about
   >this spiritual descendents concept also.
    
    I consider myself very much a Pharisee, even though there are
    other labels in vogue today. I say this because I lead my
    life based on the principal work of the Pharisees, the Talmud.
    I also study the various works of _midrash_, another Pharisee
    product. 
    
    Needless to say, I consider myself neither a hypocrite nor a
    snake, a  prophet-killer nor a blind, godless money-lover.
    
    Jem
    

    According to Salomon Reinach, a noted scholar of antiquities, the
    dates for the Gospels are:
    
    Mark	60-70 c.e., probably 65-68
    					(Mark is clearly the oldest version.)
    Matthew	after 70 c.e.
    
    Luke	93-100 c.e.
    
    John	after 93, perhaps as late as 130 c.e.
    
    John is certainly not by an eye-witness:  "This is the disciple who
    is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things,
    and we know that his testimony is true."  John 21:24.
        ^^           ^^^
    							Ann B.

    G'day,
    
    As I have mentioned that I am watching a program that addresses many
    issues regarding Jewish/Christian issues.  I will enter the name of the
    program and what the newspaper critique.
    
    One of the comments that was made by a Christian was that "The Jews
    forfeited the right to Israel because they rejected Jesus who is the
    saviour".  Is this true that Christians belive this ?  Or was it a case
    that a group of Christians belive this and is not generally accepted by
    all Christians ?
                                         
    This comment really made me think it has taken the Jewish people 2
    thousand years establish Israel as there homeland again.  Could part of the
    reason be the above comment that expressed the real feelings and attitudes
    of some or majority of Christians ?  I say this because if a people
    have no country to call home they generally end up being wiped of the
    face of the earth.  Even to this day people have this feeling that
    Israel should not exist because Jews have no right to a state ?  How
    very sad that people think like this.
    
    Sunil

    re .33 and previous
    
    I believe the oldest actual documents of the NT we have are from the
    400s--the dates of composition are based on internal evidence and the
    reconstruction of a primary document from its descendants (itself a
    fascinating science, and widely applied in other areas).  Does anyone
    have the dates of the earliest-written actual physical sources?
    
    (This is partly why the Dead Sea scrolls are so interesting: they are
    quite old as documents go and from the same culture/linguistic group,
    and so can help NT work by giving more insight into vocabulary, grammar
    and style).
    			-John Bishop

	RE: .33

�    Luke	93-100 c.e.
    
�    John	after 93, perhaps as late as 130 c.e.
    
�    John is certainly not by an eye-witness:  "This is the disciple who
�    is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things,
�    and we know that his testimony is true."  John 21:24.
�        ^^           ^^^

	I realize that this is straying from the original note's topic, but I
have to admit that I'm confused by the above references.  In the first place,
Luke was a contemporary of the other disciples.  He traveled with them exten-
sively during their early days.  Given the above dates, he would have to have
been a *very* old man when he wrote what he did.  Furthermore, the approximate
date for the other book he wrote -- The Acts of the Apostles -- is around
A.D.60, and it's hard to believe that a scholar and educated man like Luke
would wait another 30-40 years to write about the incidents that *gave rise* to
the reasons for all of his travels...

	But I'm more surprised at the statement about John.  This book has,
perhaps, the greatest amount of support as to its writer.  Based on the language
used, the grammar and structure within its content, the events portrayed, the
viewpoint displayed, and the historicity of other writings referring to this
book, the burden of proof *must* be on anyone disclaiming John as the author of
the book.

	Given that, and given that John was one of Jesus' disciples, and died
(very likely) before A.D.100, it seems ridiculous to place the date as late as
A.D.130.  And I'm puzzled by the reference quoted, since it states quite clearly
who is writing.

	As Jem says, let's not take things out of context.  So looking back 4
verses earlier, we read about Peter, making a reference to John -- "...the
disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on his breast at supper..." -- and
this reference is then followed by the statement "*This is that disciple* who's
telling you about these things!"

	The entire book is written in the third person; but to give added cre-
dence to what is being said, the author is basically stating "Just so that all
of you gentle readers can believe what I've said here, I want to be sure you
understand that *this is a firsthand account*;  it is I, John, who write it
myself."

	Anyway, 'nuff said.

	RE: .34

�    One of the comments that was made by a Christian was that "The Jews
�    forfeited the right to Israel because they rejected Jesus who is the
�    saviour".  

	I have never heard this; however, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere
could come up with a statement like that.  It's like I was saying before about
anyone who has a "chip" on their shoulder will find *any* reason to exploit
"the other guy".  It kind of reminds me of today's politics -- where it's more
important to *tear down* the other guy than it is to reinforce one's own
strengths.

	(The following is a personal statement, and does not necessarily reflect
the views of management.  8^)  )  The land of Israel was given to the Jews by
God.  (There's other discussions in this conference about that, and I've
expressed similar feelings there.)  When the Jews have had trouble in their
land, or particularly when they have either lost the land entirely (whether to
ancient Egypt, Babylonia, or to more modern-day governments) or have had severe
conflicts to preserve it, have been the times when they have either rejected,
or at best ignored, God.

	As you read through the Talmud, or the other chronologies of the 
centuries before the birth of Jesus, when Israel still possessed the land and
prior to the destruction of the temple and dispersion of the Jews, there
is a constant repetition, a constant cycle.  As Israel begins to stray from God,
as they begin worshipping the pagan gods of other cultures, as they begin to
ignore the Torah, problems arise.  Wars break out.  Strife increases.  And
sometimes they are totally driven from their own land, often into captivity.

	Yet there is a phrase that is repeated again and again and again.  After
realizing their errors (and often through the leadership of a strong, God-
fearing king or prophet or high priest), they return to God and (here's the
phrase I love) "...there was peace in the land..."

	One time, just as an exercise, I roughly charted the amount of material
in the Talmud that deals with the times of strife and problems vs. the times of
peace and prosperity, and compared that to the amount of *TIME* of each.  And
I started asking myself, "Why are there 6 chapters here to describe a time of
3 years of conflict, and one verse that says '...and there was peace in the
land for 80 years...'?  And in another place, entire books are dedicated to
the times of captivity or war, again followed by a simple reference like '...and
there was peace in the land for 120 years...'."

	The message I got was that Israel's prosperity and peace (and, BTW,
possession of the land) was directly due to their acknowledgement of, and
following of, the laws of God.  On the other hand, when they tried to excuse
them away -- when they tried their "Yeah, but"s -- they paid a great price.

	And just so no one misunderstands, I personally believe that we're in
the same situation in the U.S. today.  I believe that our success and prosperity
as a nation has resulted from our original founding on, and belief in, God and
His laws.  Yet as I see us turning more and more away, isn't it coincidental
that we're seeing that prosperity slip away?

	Another note has discussed the laws of the Torah.  And I guess I'd have
to reiterate that we can believe them or not... follow them or not...  that's
our choice, our free will.  We can even say *we* don't agree with them, or
don't believe in them.  Again, our choice.  But then we must also be prepared
to pay the price -- personally, or as a nation.

	(Whew!  End of sermon...  how did I get into all of that??  It must be
a quiet week...  8^)  )

>	I have never heard this; however, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere
>could come up with a statement like that.  It's like I was saying before about
>anyone who has a "chip" on their shoulder will find *any* reason to exploit
>"the other guy".  It kind of reminds me of today's politics -- where it's more
>important to *tear down* the other guy than it is to reinforce one's own
>strengths.

I suspect the problem is more inherent in Xianity than you believe. According
to Graetz, the Roman emperor Hadrian (circa 117 CE) was prepared to allow
the Judaeans to rebuild the Temple. The site was cleared of rubbish and fund
raising had begun. However, the Christians opposed the rebuilding on
theological grounds. (The Samaritans were also opposed.) The dissapointment
at the failure of the rebuilding effort led directly to the disasterous
Bar Cocheba revolution.

Dave

    G'day,
    
    The TV program I have been watching is called "Born of The One Father",
    it's a French production.  It's easy to follow because most of the
    people talked in English.
    
    It's a Three-part seriers about the relationship between the Jewish and
    Christian faiths.  The first part looked at plans to build a convent on
    the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp.
    
    This part go very heated at times and delt with the convent that exists
    on the grounds.  The Jewish people consider the ground to be holy
    because 3 million unfortunate Jews were murdered there.  The Catholic
    (namely the Polish) church had promissed to move but it never happened. 
    The various Rabi's from around the world made the comment that the
    reason why the convent exists there is to rewrite history.  Future
    generations will see the convent and forget about the 3 million Jews
    and hence think that the Christian had been the victims.  I can
    understand this point of view, history has been re-written so often to
    favour the mighty.
    
    It was also reported that the Pope and the Vatican have been involved
    in ensuring that the status quo continues, by sitting on the fence. 
    The Pope has been to the convent and blessed it and the Jewish people
    found this offensive for obvious reasons.
    
    A group of Jews went to Auschwitz to pray and they held hand and
    surrounded the convent.  They had water mixed with urine etc. thrown on
    them and were beaten.  The reason that was given was that the nuns
    and other by-standers thought that they were invading the convent. 
    
    The other thing that was important was the fact that Jews who had
    converted to Christianity became saints and were used to justify the
    convent.  In that they were Jews they became Christians and this would
    show that the Church was trying to reach out to the Jews it was an
    honest effort.
    
    The quote in .34 about Israel was in the context of the above and also
    that the number of Christains in Israel has fallen to about 11,000 from
    about 24,000.
    
    I know that it's been said by some Christians that the Jews are G-d's
    choosen people all I have to say is that actions speak for themselves. 
    It's interesting to know that the established Churchs say one thing
    then do another.  The reconciliation that the church wants regarding
    Auschwitz is really on there terms and rejects the feeling of the Jews. 
    This is not so different to how the church has behaved in the past to
    other cultures and religions.  Times don't really change that much.
    
    I often get this feeling when it's said that the Jews are "G-d's choosen
    people", it's said out of guilt BUT a real change of heart is required. 
    If the Christians do really belive that then why do you want to convert
    Jews to Christianity ?  I would have thought that all of you would want
    to become Jews and be part of the choosen ones !!!!   I really do not
    understand the logic of the Vatican and other Churches.  Am I missing
    the point somewhere ?
    
    Sunil

>   If the Christians do really belive that then why do you want to convert
>   Jews to Christianity ?  I would have thought that all of you would want
>   to become Jews and be part of the choosen ones !!!!   I really do not
>   understand the logic of the Vatican and other Churches.  Am I missing
>   the point somewhere ?
    
I may be putting my foot into my mouth (again), but the reason for this
seems to be hard-wired into Christian (Catholic?) theology. Christians
seem to believe that the Messiah will not come (or return) until all Jews
have converted to Christianity. If the Messiah isn't here yet, it must
be the Jews' fault :-(. A second reason applies to all other religions --
many Christians believe that Christianity is the ONLY path to heaven in
the afterlife. Therefor, converting non-Christians is good for them.

Dave

    RE:  The dispute at the concentration camp convent.
    
    The fundamental issue in this dispute relates to the differing
    Christian and Jewish treatment of burial grounds.  For Christians, the
    constuction of a chapel in a cemetary (the whole concentration camp is
    in fact a cemetary) is quite appropriate.  For Jews, no construction is
    permitted in a cemetary.  The nuns argued that they planned their
    construction to honor both Jewish and Christian dead.  The Jews argued
    that the construction would be a desecration in any case.
    
    The dispute involves intricate historical and political questions.  It
    is significant that it occurs in Poland, a country with a long history
    of virulent anti-Semitism.  I believe most Jews feel the nuns' tenacity
    reflects a lack of sensitivity and respect for Jewish feelings.  If the
    nuns had changed their plans, such as by building outside the
    concentration camp border, the Jews would have attributed the incident
    to misunderstanding, and would have forgiven them.  But the nuns were
    very stubborn in their plans and showed no concern for Jewish feelings. 
    This was compounded by the failure of Polish clerical leaders to
    attempt a compromise.    The problem escalated to the Vatican,
    compounded by the Pope's Polish origins.
    
    L

    G'day,
    
    Has anyone heard of David Irving ?
    
    I saw another this time dealing with the Holocaust because of the 50th 
    anniversary.  David Irving is a member of a group that is trying to
    re-write history and according to him and the people in his
    organisation it did not happen.  He has said that in the next two years
    they would have proved it beyond doubt !!
    
    According to him Hitler was protecting the Jews he liked Jews.  I just
    sat there think what a lot of @#$@%$^ can people really believe him ? 
    It appears so because of the rise in Nazi activity in the world today.
    
    By the way this organisation is located on the West coast of the USA
    and has links with Britain, Germany and other European countries.  I
    can't remember the name of the organisation.
    
    Sunil

Hi Sunil. Yes I've heard of David Irving.

He's a revisionist. These are a group of people who have made and continue to
make allegations that the Holocaust never took place. Their aims generally seem
to be motivated by jew-hatred. I got interested in Irving (who is English by the
way) because he was invited to speak at a debating society in Trinity College,
Dublin when I was a student there. I think this happened in 1989. His books
claim that Hitler was a misunderstood leader who has been somehow tarnished
since the second world war by a conspiracy (read "the jews"). Irving claims that
the gas chambers used in the concentration camps were in fact delousing chambers.
He also claims that zionists collaberated with the Nazi's to assist in the 
foundation of the state of Israel by generating sympathy. Confused? You should
be because the claims of Irving and his associates aren't terribly logical.
Nevertheless, he is a dangerous and unpleasant figure. If you want to know more
about the kind of stuff the revisionists spout, I suggest you take a look at
the Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism.

Incidentally, the outcome of his visit to Dublin was that the students union in
cooperation with a number of anti racist groups in Ireland put up such a protest
that his speach never took place. I had a lot of arguments with friends over
the implications for free speech that such an act has but I stand by my actions
because I believe that its foolish to hand a chainsaw to an axe murderer.

Irving and his like would take free speech from all of us and should be treated
with comtempt (in my not so humble opinion).

Even more incidentally, I live now in Edinburgh were the recent general 
elections for parliament gave me an interesting opportunity to see some 
Nazis in action. Two constituencies in Scotland were contested by members of
the British National Party. Their campaign 'literature' demand among other 
things the 'repatriation' of non white immigrants and even non-white Britains.
I don't doubt that Jews would be next on the list if these people gained power.

Sorry if I've ranted here but you touched a sore spot.

-colin

Hello All,

My name is Gerry O'Keeffe, I am an Irishman and I am also a Christian.

I've been reading this notes file for about the past year or so and have 
found it to be of great interest.

This issue of anti-semitism and racism really touches my heart deeply. As an 
Irishman, I belong to a race that has had a very turbulant history and has 
suffered over a millenium of wars, famines and strife due mainly to the 
presence of occupying powers on this little Island.

The Bitter Fruits of this violence and bloodshed are still being harvested 
today in the Northern portion of the Island.

From a family perspective, my mother was 16 years of age when her Grandfather
died at a very ripe old age. He had as a young boy survived the Irish Famine,
which saw members of his family die of starvation or `famine fever' or have 
to leave their homeland, never to return. This famine reduced the population
of Ireland by half and over 1.5 million people died of hunger and disease, and
all this while food was being exported by those in power. To see the pictures 
of today's starving people in Somalia, Ethiopia etc grieves me deeply.

From a Christian perspective, I am deeply grieved by the fact that for 
almost two millenia, people have been persecuting Jewish people using
portions of the Christian Bible taken out of context as one of the 
justifications for these horrific acts. I have as an Irishman also seen 
people use the same justification to kill others of different Christian
denominations or sects.

The prime two motivation factors as far as I can see for anti-semitism or 
racism in general are Greed and Pride. Greed in coveting that which belongs
to others and pride in so called racial superiority etc. These people who 
wish to perpetrate such horrific acts as Crown Heights, LA riots, car 
bombing in Northern Ireland right on up to the Genocide of Hitler's death
camps, will use almost any reason they can to generate an `us and them'
mentality. They will use religion, colour, class, sexuality etc etc as 
implements of divisiveness and derision.

These evils stem from the hearts of the perpetrators and will usually start
with racial jokes progress (if that's the right word to use) to Jew or Paddy
or whatever bashing and this evil root of bitterness will give it's fullest
bloom of expression in horrific acts of genocide such as that suffered by the 
European Jews under Hitler and his co-horts.

As a Christian, I am taught to Love my neighbour as I love myself, to bless 
those who hate me and to do good to those who hurt me. I am taught that if I 
hate anyone I am guilty of murder. I must love good and hate evil. Please don't
take this as an attempt to thump the Christian Bible here, as this is not my 
intention. I just want to present a balance to what has been said already.

When I read my Bible I see that G-d chose the Jewish people through Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob and He has never un-chosen them. G-d has made a covenant with
Abraham giving the (total) land of Israel (Nile to Euphrates ???) to 
the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an everlasting possession.

Since I became a Christian I have grown to have a special love in my heart
for G-d's special people for their resilliance, and dilligence and can see
throughout their history G-d's provision which has kept them alive with a
seperate entity intact through millenia of adverse circumstances. As an 
Irishman I wish that Ireland would forge closer links with Israel and not 
blindly follow the west and rest in making life difficult for Israel.

The point I am making with all this longwinded bladder is that becomming a 
Christian does not give one a disposiition towards anti-semitism or racism.

If it did, there is a problem with this persons heart and this person must 
deeply repent (turn away) from this evil and mend his/her ways. Much 
suffering has come to the Jews and others in the name of Jesus, and this 
fact pains me greatly. But I would contend that those who do such things
are Christian in name only and not in their hearts.

    As for Mr Irving and his like it serves us all well to learn the
    lessons of History.
    
May the G-d continue to richly bless all who participate here.

With heartfelt love,

Gerry

    re .42, "chainsaw"
    
    I don't think that letting a nut lecture is handing him a chainsaw.
    At worst, it's handing him a microphone.
    
    I think members of his audience will figure out pretty quickly that
    there's no logical connections behind his statements.  But then I'm
    willing to let other people try to make up their own minds.  If my
    opinion is sound and based on realilty, and I can defend it against
    other opinions, why should I think others less capable?
    
    Shouting down a speaker or preventing one from talking is a far greater
    evil than anything a speaker could say, in my opinion, as it is an 
    attempt on your part to control other people's access to information.
    It's also an arrogant assertion on your part that while you are capable
    of hearing person X without harm, I am not.
    
    		-John Bishop

    G'day Gerry,
    
>From a Christian perspective, I am deeply grieved by the fact that for 
>almost two millenia, people have been persecuting Jewish people using
>portions of the Christian Bible taken out of context as one of the 
>justifications for these horrific acts. I have as an Irishman also seen 
>people use the same justification to kill others of different Christian
>denominations or sects.
    
    I have to say this I just can not help it.  BUT this does not apply
    just to Jews, Christian denominations or sects you forget how you treat
    people of other religious.  I can say this for sure that I never came
    across Jews who ever looked down on me because of my religion.
    
    From what has been said in this conference the Jewish people are
    tolerent which can not be said for Christians.  In the conference that
    you are a member of they certainly do not encourage people to follow
    their faith.  Matter a fact I don't know how Christian can say on the
    one hand that Jews are special and on the other hand condemn them
    because they "rejected" Jesus.  Plus the fact it's pointed out in this
    topic that Christians believe that ALL Jews must be converted before
    Jesus will return.   Well as for the rest of us we are going to hell at
    least it's warm there mate !!!
    
>The prime two motivation factors as far as I can see for anti-semitism or 
>racism in general are Greed and Pride. Greed in coveting that which belongs
>to others and pride in so called racial superiority etc. These people who 
>wish to perpetrate such horrific acts as Crown Heights, LA riots, car 
>bombing in Northern Ireland right on up to the Genocide of Hitler's death
>camps, will use almost any reason they can to generate an `us and them'
>mentality. They will use religion, colour, class, sexuality etc etc as 
>implements of divisiveness and derision.
    
    I can not believe what you have written because this is not the line of
    fundamental Christian tenants as I understood.  I am refering to >They
    will use religion, colour, class, sexuality etc etc as implements of 
    divisiveness and derision. bit.  If you don't know what I mean just
    read the various topics condeming non-Christians.
    
    From a devil worshipper as some of would have me painted because I am 
    not a Christian.
    
    Sunil
    
    (Sorry I had to get it off my chest)

    re .44 JBISHOP
    
    Hi John. I suspect that I'm about to embark on a semi rathole. If
    anyone objects I'll remove this note.
    
    You said about David Irving...
    
    "I think members of his audience will figure out pretty quickly that
    there's no logical connections behind his statements.  But then I'm
    willing to let other people try to make up their own minds.  If my
    opinion is sound and based on realilty, and I can defend it against
    other opinions, why should I think others less capable?"
    
    Because not everyone has your education or my liberal upbringing.
    Here's when I show myself to be a despot at heart but what makes you
    think that everyone is as capable and reasonable as you are? Strange as
    it may seem to us, Hitler gained power on a majority vote. I guess
    everyone in Germany at the time new the methods he used and the things
    he intended but they voted for him nonetheless. Now, I would be no
    better than a nazi myself if I claimed that the german people where in
    some way genetically evil but the fact stands that they collectively
    voted for a nutter. The best conclusion I can come up with is that
    they were the same as everybody else and they did a stupid thing. 
    
    People are just as capable of doing stupid things now as then and
    debate has only a small part to play. Looking at the current US
    campaign for presidential nominations it seems that the political
    issues come a very poor second to some sort of televised long term
    beauty contest. This is not intelligent behaviour. So, why, how can you
    presume that people will figure out whats right everytime. Sure, given
    long enough most things can take on a new perspective but if Irving
    gained power there would be no chance to debate for me or any other
    jew.  He's not going to engage in reasonable argument about whether or
    not I'm sub-human, he's just going to kill me. This is not someone I
    give a platform for debate to. You may say that I'm wrong in principles
    but principles are for theoreticians. To follow the advice of a famous
    quote (Rambam maybe? Are you listening Jem?), I'm for me now and
    tomorrow.
    
    So, end of rant. Prove me wrong and make me happy, I'm much too young
    to be this jaundiced and set in my ways.
    
    regards
    
    	colin
    

    I seem to remember that it wasn't an actual majority (greater
    than 50%) vote, but a vote large enough to make the Nazis the
    largest party in the legislature (somewhere around 30%).  But
    I'll freely admit this is only a quibble.
    
    The real issue is "If sometimes bad ideas _do_ win temporarily,
    and then not only lead to bad things but also cut off debate,
    so that 'temporarily' can become 'permanently', is it then ok
    to suppress bad ideas?"
    
    While I'm sympathetic to the above argument, and know that bad
    ideas have won in the past, causing immense suffering (the USSR
    comes to mind as an example), I think that this is one of the 
    risks that has to be taken in a free society.  That's because
    the alternative requires some form of authority to have the power to
    determine what is sayable and what is not;  such an authority is
    easily lead to increase its power (is challenging the rules itself
    an "unthinkable" thought?), and thus you will have paradoxically
    made yourself unfree in an effort to be free.
    
    An analogous argument is used in criminal justice: at the moment,
    we know that a fraction of crimes go unpunished because the 
    system is loaded with features designed to prevent the punishment
    of the innocent.  If we could just weaken those protections, we
    could really clean up--gather up all the known scum without trial
    and ship them off to jail (or execution)!
    
    And most of them would be criminals.  But the cost is not just the
    few innocents in the crowd of crooks--it's also that now the police
    would be in a position of total power: they might start out only
    targeting criminals, but they would be unstoppable if they decided
    that it was a crime to fail to be sufficiently respectful of a
    policeman, or to fail to pay them new taxes they had created, or
    to fail to give them your children as recruits, or to fail to 
    worship in their church.  I'll grant that few current policemen
    would go so far--but over centuries of total power, what are the
    odds the organization would stay "good"?
    
    So we pay in more crime now to prevent the risk of loss of liberty,
    just as we pay in petty vandalism and the risk of take-over by
    <name your un-favorite ideology> to prevent the more certain loss
    of preventing free speech.  And since this is an imperfect world,
    we are in the position of having to live with a level of risk and
    uncertainty no matter what mixture of liberty and saftey we pick;
    perhaps the police really ought to be a little more restrained, or
    perhaps they really ought to be little more free, to maximize our
    long-term welfare--we don't know.
    
    Given the history of human organizations, erring on the side of 
    apparently "too much" freedom of speech is the right way to go.
    Governments are too tempted to tyranny by the censor's power to
    make me want to give them access to it.
    
    		-John Bishop

re .45

Hello Sunil,

First of all Sunil please don't be sorry about what you have to say in your 
reply. In my opinion Sunil it is not good to carry such burdens because that
is exactly what they are burdens. 

It is better always to let G-d carry the burden of judging the motives and 
hearts of others. For even we don't fully know the motivations of our own 
hearts so how can we assume to know the motivations of the hearts of others.

    
>>  I have to say this I just can not help it.  BUT this does not apply
>>  just to Jews, Christian denominations or sects you forget how you treat
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  people of other religious.  I can say this for sure that I never came
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>  across Jews who ever looked down on me because of my religion.
  
Some points for clarification Sunil... 

Firstly do you mean `You singular' or `You plural' as in Christians as a 
corporate body ?

Secondly  Sunil if anyone calling themselves a Christian has ever used this or
any other reason to `look down' on you, they are disobedient to their faith and
are in grevious sin. For we are taught that G-d is not a respecter of persons
that is that He has no favourites. He chooses people and deals with people in
accordance with His purposes.  

>>  From what has been said in this conference the Jewish people are
>>  tolerent which can not be said for Christians.  

Sunil again lets look at the word `in-tolerant'

There *is* good in all beliefs. As such, all beliefs are worthy of respect
and indeed if I as a Christian wish to be respected by you or any other 
person, I must firstly respect you. In fact freedom of worship is enshrined
in the constitutions of all major free societies where a large proportion
of the people would profess to be Christian. Oh yes Sunil, there have been
horrific things done in history in the name of Christianity but again I
believe as a Christian that those who do and continue to do such things
will answer to a vengeful G-d.

Now there is another word call fellowship. For fellowship to occur, there 
must be common ground, that is there must be a basis for fellowship. I
or you could not go into a Jewish synagogue and seek fellowship there simply 
because we are not Jews. This we must respect, that is their right to be Jews
and their right to their beliefs, even though we don't fully agree with them.

And as you said Sunil, you have found respect for your beliefs here. This is
laudable. Let me say Sunhil, I too respect your right to beieve what you 
want, even though I don't agree with those beliefs. You might find my beliefs
offensive to you Sunil, but if I ever stop respecting or loving you, I am 
guilty of grevious sin, according to my faith.
 
>>  In the conference that
>>  you are a member of they certainly do not encourage people to follow
>>  their faith.  

Sunil if I encouraged someone to do something that I believed was wrong, I would
be disobedient to my faith. If I ever lost respect for you, or started hating 
you or stopped loving you I would also be disobedient to my faith.

>>  Matter a fact I don't know how Christian can say on the
>>  one hand that Jews are special and on the other hand condemn them
>>  because they "rejected" Jesus.  

Yes I am a Christian and yes my bible tells me that the Jewish people are 
special and are chosen of G-d through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yes Judaism
rejected and still rejects Jesus' claim to be Messiah while I accept Jesus'
claim to be Messiah. If I ever condemn or judge Jewish people or Judiasm, then
the clear message I give is that I am G-d, because He alone will judge and 
judges. This attitude would make me as a Christian a blaspheemer (sp). I
judge none, nor is it for me to condemn.

>>  Plus the fact it's pointed out in this
>>  topic that Christians believe that ALL Jews must be converted before
>>  Jesus will return.   

This is an error Sunil. This could so easily lead us into a theology discussion
which is not I am sure the purpose for you initiating this note. But if you 
want me to write you off-line on this subject I will be glad to oblige. To 
enter this material in this forum may offend some of the reader's deeply held
religious beliefs. In the Golf::Christian conference Sunil I have briefly 
spoken on this topic under Last Judgement (I think) topic, you could read it 
there.


>> Well as for the rest of us we are going to hell at least it's warm there 
>> mate !!!
   
Sunil this is not funny, I don't want to see any go anywhere but to Heaven. 
The Christian bible says that G-d wills that no one be lost. It also says 
that He made the lake of fire for Satan and his rebelious angels. In other 
words, I believe that He is a good G-d and never intended humans to go to
final damnation.

Sunil I feel that there is an `us versus them' ring to that remark. Forgive
me if I'm wrong.
 
    
>>  I can not believe what you have written because this is not the line of
>>  fundamental Christian tenants as I understood.  I am refering to >They
>>  will use religion, colour, class, sexuality etc etc as implements of 
>>  divisiveness and derision. bit.  If you don't know what I mean just
>>  read the various topics condeming non-Christians.
  
As I said Sunil, for any to look down on you, or to judge you in the name of
Christianity is a grave wrong. But an integral part of the Christian faith is
accepting Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. The Christian Bible quotes Jesus as
saying that there is no other way to G-d than through Him. You have a perfect
right to choose your beliefs, as I do, but neither of us has a right to change
the doctrine of another mans faith. But in exercising our right to free speech
and freedom of worship we have a right to speak freely of our beliefs even in
the hope of winning another over. This cuts both ways Sunil, it is your right
just as it is mine. 

We do however have the right to free will and to make our own choices. The 
Christian bible teaches that G-d will not transgress the free will that He
gave to Humans. I will not transgress this either Sunil.

Hoping that we can be friends in spite of our differences in belief. I love
you as a fello creature of the Almighty and ever living G-d, the G-d of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
 
>>  From a devil worshipper as some of would have me painted because I am 
>>  not a Christian.
    
  I'm sure Sunil that you would never worship the common enemy of all 
  mankind.

with heart felt love,

Gerry

    Re: 1206.43 (Gerry)
    
    Your note is appreciated.
    
    
    Re: .46 (Colin)
    
    >better than a nazi myself if I claimed that the german people where in
    >some way genetically evil but the fact stands that they collectively
    >voted for a nutter. The best conclusion I can come up with is that
    >they were the same as everybody else and they did a stupid thing.
    
    Even if they didn't vote for him, those who stood by and let Europe
    turn into a giant inferno for Jews are guilty of complicity.
    
    >He's not going to engage in reasonable argument about whether or
    >not I'm sub-human, he's just going to kill me. This is not someone I
    >give a platform for debate to. You may say that I'm wrong in
    principles
    >but principles are for theoreticians.
    
    What do you suppose would happen if a group formed whose purpose
    was to claim that there were never any black slaves in America?
    Do you suppose it would be allowed to continue and receive the
    attention it does? Would CNN have a piece entitled "The Black
    Slavery Hoax" without having its offices burned to the ground
    at a *minimum* (they had a feature called the "Holocaust Hoax"
    2 months ago, repeated several times)? The Steve Bernsteins of the
    world would of course be egging on the rioters in that case, but
    they suddenly lose their tongues when the targets are Jewish. Many
    Jews have obviously begun to believe the lines pounded into their
    skulls over the millennia by their enemies - they believe that
    they *are* sub-human.
    
    Many of the same people howling about the revisionists' inviolable
    right to free speech did everything in their power to prevent the
    late Rabbi Meir Kahane from exercising *his* right. Does that tell
    you something?
    
    >To follow the advice of a famous
    skulls over the millennia by their enemies - they believe that
    they *are* sub-human.
    
    Many of the same people howling about the revisionists' inviolable
    right to free speech did everything in their power to prevent the
    late Rabbi Meir Kahane from exercising *his* right. Does that tell
    you something?
    
    >To follow the advice of a famous
    >quote (Rambam maybe? Are you listening Jem?), I'm for me now and
    >tomorrow.
    
    Perhaps you mean Hillel, "If I am not for myself, who will be for
    me...?"
    
    Re: .47 (J. Bishop)
    >
    >Given the history of human organizations, erring on the side of
    >apparently "too much" freedom of speech is the right way to go.
    >Governments are too tempted to tyranny by the censor's power to
    >make me want to give them access to it.
    
    The U.S. Constitution speaks of *Congress* being
    proscribed from restricting free speech. Citizens,
    or groups of citizens have a right and obligation
    to use every legal means at their disposal to
    derail their enemies. Legislatures have very
    narrow definitions of criminal "inciting to riot,"
    as they should. But potential targets of haters
    are permitted to have wider definitions, and hold-
    ing one's peace on "principle" is often just an
    excuse for laziness.
    
    Re: .48 (Gerry)
    
    There are good Christians and bad Christians,
    just like every other group. Jews have had
    contact with both sides, but the latter
    unfortunately seems to stick in our collective
    memory longer, especially since the canards
    continue to this day.
    
    If a group of Jews were to start a campaign of
    hate against Christians based on some erroneous,
    out-of-context passages in our holy writings,
    *every* Jew would be held responsible for not
    acting to stop them. Claiming that "they're
    not real Jews" would be a transparent cop-out.
    
    Jem
    

    re .49
    
    I disagree on almost every count.
    
    1.	Words are not blows.  No matter how offensive the TV show,
    	nobody has a right to burn down a building in response.
    	I suspect some mob _might_ do that (pragmatics), but they
    	would be wrong to do so (ethics).
    
    2.	Not helping is not the same as hurting.  You say that standing
    	by is the same as being involved.  I disagree.  To what deeper
    	principle we both share might we appeal to resolve this?
    
    3.	I'm hardly howling, if your phrase refered to me, and I know
    	I was in support of Kahane's right to free speech and his party's
    	right to run in the Israeli elections in the past.  So what does
    	_that_ tell you?
    
    4.	Yes, "Congress shall pass no law..." is what it says.  What
    	legal means includes arson and threats of personal harm?
    
    	As for "merely" disrupting a speaker: the speaker is on someone's
    	property.  You are there under the owner's sufferance, and the
    	owner set up rules of behaviour.  If you are disruptive, the owner
    	or owner's agents have the right to eject you.  Or do you feel
    	you have a right to demonstrate loudly during an opera or play
    	whose plot you don't like, like Merchant_of_Venice?
    
    		-John Bishop

	RE: .-1

�    If a group of Jews were to start a campaign of
�    hate against Christians based on some erroneous,
�    out-of-context passages in our holy writings,
�    *every* Jew would be held responsible for not
�    acting to stop them. Claiming that "they're
�    not real Jews" would be a transparent cop-out.


	But Jem, I think you're missing the point; that's *precisely* what Gerry
was saying!  Since I believe that I feel much the way that Gerry has described,
let me respond to your statement.  If, as you say, a group of Jews were to start
a "hate campaign" against Christians, I personally would not even *think* of
"holding every Jew responsible"!  That's the whole point.  If I do that, then
I am making myself "God".  I might be very upset about those who deny *me* my
freedom of belief; but to take it out against an entire race??

	I think you realize, as well, that the statement you made is a cognitive
distortion, since it assumes, it generalizes, and it rationalizes.  So you
probably didn't mean it as strongly as it came across.  But to repeat what
Gerry has already pointed out, anyone -- Christian or not -- who could "hold
every Jew responsible" for the actions of a few is as much at fault as the
original perpetrators.

	I would hate to think that my strong, positive relations with my fellow
Jews would be affected by any radical elements -- of *any* belief.  If I *did*
allow that to happen, *I* would be the "weak one".

	F

    
    Re: .50
    
    >Not helping is not the same as hurting.  You say that standing
    >by is the same as being involved.
    
    We've been through this before, John. "Do not stand idly by your
    brother's blood" (Lev. 19:16), is one of the 613 commandments.
    The Talmud further says, "silence is tantamount to agreement."
    As we've discussed in the past, there are of course differences
    between transgressions of commission and those of omission, both
    in Jewish and civil law, but even in the latter the notion of
    criminal negligence exists. 
    
    >I'm hardly howling, if your phrase refered to me
    
    I wasn't. Unfortunately, it was mainly the Jewish organizations
    themselves which spearheaded the effort to revoke his citizenship,
    deny him visas, lock him out of speaking engagements, the media
    and yes, the Knesset. When it comes to Holocaust deniers or rabble-
    rowsers like Farrakhan or Sharpton, these "Jewish leaders" suddenly 
    rediscover the First Amendment.
    
    >Yes, "Congress shall pass no law..." is what it says.  What
    >legal means includes arson and threats of personal harm?
    
    I hardly advocated any such thing. I said some do react that
    way, but all have the right and *obligation* to use legal
    means to act in their self-interest.
    
    >You are there under the owner's sufferance, and the
    >owner set up rules of behaviour.  If you are disruptive, the owner
    >or owner's agents have the right to eject you.  
    
    Your point is moot, since we're only discussing legal activities.
    
    >Or do you feel
    >you have a right to demonstrate loudly during an opera or play
    >whose plot you don't like, like Merchant_of_Venice?
    
    Again, the question of "right" would depend wholly on the
    local law. The question of prudence is another matter. Although
    the Shylock stereotype perpetrated by Shakespeare is unpleasant,
    one must always way the benefits and drawbacks of any potential
    action, especially public protest.
    
    Jem
    
    
    

    
    Re: .51
    
    >I personally would not even *think* of
    >"holding every Jew responsible"!  That's the whole point.  If I do that, then
    >I am making myself "God".  I might be very upset about those who deny *me* my
    >freedom of belief; but to take it out against an entire race??
    
    I suspect that I was misunderstood. I'm not referring to the reaction
    of the gentile world to the hypothetical misconduct of such a Jewish
    group. I'm saying that if indeed they were acting incorrectly, then
    the all *Jews* have an obligation to rebuke them, and if they don't,
    they have in effect given tacit approval. "All Israelites are
    guarantors for one another" is the formulation of the Sages, and
    the Torah itself says, "...you shall surely rebuke your friend"
    (Lev. 19:17).
    
    To be clear: This applies to current events, not to any alleged or 
    actual actions of previous generations, which the current generation
    obviously has no control over whatsoever.
    
    >I think you realize, as well, that the statement you made is a cognitive
    >distortion, since it assumes, it generalizes, and it rationalizes. 
    
    I hope I've cleared up the ambiguity. I intended none of the above.
    
    > So you
    >probably didn't mean it as strongly as it came across.  But to repeat what
    >Gerry has already pointed out, anyone -- Christian or not -- who could "hold
    >every Jew responsible" for the actions of a few is as much at fault as the
    >original perpetrators.
    
    See the previous reply for omission/commission clarification. But
    in some ways one *is* his brother's keeper. Certainly, I would
    consider it a much higher priority to correct the hypothetical
    misactions of my fellow Jews that that of missionizing amongst
    non-Jews.
    
    Jem
     
    

Hello Jem,

Thank you for your replies. I have enjoyed and been deeply enriched by many
of your entries.

re: .49 and .53 
    
>>  To be clear: This applies to current events, not to any alleged or 
>>  actual actions of previous generations, which the current generation
>>  obviously has no control over whatsoever.
  
I agree with you here Jem, the sons shall not be held accountable for the sins
of the fathers. But if we do not learn the lessons of history then this is one 
way that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons because the same
mistakes will be made and the same traps fallen into. But as Psalm 91 says as 
we continue to abide under the shaddow of the Almighty, G-d will deliver us 
from the fowler's snare.
  
    
>>  See the previous reply for omission/commission clarification. But
>>  in some ways one *is* his brother's keeper. Certainly, I would
>>  consider it a much higher priority to correct the hypothetical
>>  misactions of my fellow Jews that that of missionizing amongst
>>  non-Jews.
   
Believe me Jem when I say that I do not wish for any transparent cop-out when
I say that those who have done horrific things to the Jews and others in the 
name of Christianity could not really be Christians. Enough attempts have been
made to sweep wrongs under the carpet.

My bible tells me that G-d looks not on outward appearance but on the heart 
of man. This means that a person could appear to be a Christian but in fact 
only be giving lipservice to G-d, all the while that person's heart might be 
full of murder, lies and deceit being very far from G-d. 

Also as I said in .48, if I were to try and judge or condemn another for his or
her actions not to speak of judging that persons family or race for what that
individual did, I would be setting myseld up as G-d. 

You are so right Jem when you say that if I stand by and allow fellow 
Christians or whatever to commit horrendeous crimes and do all manner of 
un-speakable evils against others, that I myself am also guilty of these crimes
by omission.

As a Christian, my bible instructs me to remove the logs from my eyes before I
tackle the speck in another's eye. Therefore I have accountability for my own 
actions before I tackle the actions of another and must look to the actions of 
a fellow Christian before I look to the actions of those who are not of my 
faith.

Please do not take the following as any attempt to preach, Jem, the quotes, I
believe are from your sacred writings as well as mine.

>>  I would
>>  consider it a much higher priority to correct the hypothetical
>>  misactions of my fellow Jews that that of missionizing amongst
>>  non-Jews.

I believe that King David beautifully expressed this principle, you quoted, 
in his Psalm 51;

         Create in me a clean heart, O G-d,
        And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
         Do not cast me from your presence,
        And do not take your Holy Spirit from me.
         Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
        And uphold me with your generous Spirit,
         Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
        And sinners will be converted to you.


Also proverbs 16 Vs 32 says that

        He who is slow to anger is better that the mighty,
        And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.

 

For too long the crimes perpetrated by Christians or so-called Christians have
been swept under the carpet. My hope and belief is that as more and more 
Christians come into an fuller and more acurate knowledge of their faith and 
their G-d, hearts will change. 

The Jewish people are chosen of G-d and no man can ever change that fact to 
suit his or her personal belief, gripe, or jealousy. For attempting to do so
these people will answer to a Holy and a Just and a Vengeful G-d, the G-d of
Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob. As is said in my bible, what G-d has cleansed
let no man call defiled.

The change of heart has happened in me Jem and I will continue to highlight
amongst fellow Christians the special place that G-d holds for His People 
Israel.
    
I continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem ...

May the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continue to richly bless you Jem and
fill you with all G-dly knowledge and wisdom.

With heart-felt Love,

Gerry 
    

    re .52
    
    Thanks for the elaboration--I see I was mistaken in thinking
    I was being called one of the "howlers"!
    
    The Talmudic quotes are interesting--as you know, moral
    philosophy is an area I'm intersted in, and I'd like to know
    more of the Talmudic view of this help/hurt/ignore issue.
    Is there a reference you can give?
    
    		-John Bishop

	RE: .53 -- Thanks for the clarification, Jem.  I suspected as much.

	RE: .54 -- I'd like to underline what Gerry has said with, perhaps, a
"musing" of my own.  This isn't so much a statement, as it is a question that
I'd be interested in some response to.  The thought goes something like this:

	If anything, Christians should be held *more* accountable for their
actions, because declaring oneself a Christian *is* identifying oneself with a
specific creed and/or philosophy.  On the other hand, a person can be a Jew *by
birth*, but not believe in basic Jewish principals.  They might not, therefore,
feel inclined to be accountable *to* those principles.

	A person declaring themselves to be a Christian, though, is saying "This
is my choice; it is not an accident of birth.  And if I choose to apply the
name 'Christian' to myself, then I am also implicitly linking my actions and
attitudes to others who choose the same name."

	In other words, being a Jew and not abiding by the commandments would
seem to be a logical possibility; calling oneself a Christian and not living by
the standards that define a Christian is a contradiction in terms.

	F

Re: .56
>	In other words, being a Jew and not abiding by the commandments would
>seem to be a logical possibility; calling oneself a Christian and not living by
>the standards that define a Christian is a contradiction in terms.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I like being corrected), a Jew who violates a
commandment is a "sinner". The commandments wouldn't have been given to
us if people were not inclined to break them. If all Jewish sinners had
to stop being Jewish there'd be none left. It's safe to project this statement
to Christians, Moslems, Hindus, ...

Dave

    G'day Gerry,
    
    Re .48
    
>As I said Sunil, for any to look down on you, or to judge you in the name of
>Christianity is a grave wrong. But an integral part of the Christian faith is
>accepting Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. The Christian Bible quotes Jesus as
>saying that there is no other way to G-d than through Him. You have a perfect
>right to choose your beliefs, as I do, but neither of us has a right to change
>the doctrine of another mans faith. But in exercising our right to free speech
>and freedom of worship we have a right to speak freely of our beliefs even in
>the hope of winning another over. This cuts both ways Sunil, it is your right
>just as it is mine. 
    
    Well now we are getting down to the bone of contention mate.  Okay
    let's look at the bit that says >as I do, but neither of us has a right
    to change the doctrine of another mans faith and the bit about free
    speech and freedom of worship.
    
    Changing the doctrine of another man's faith well look at note number
    174 in your conference need I say any more.  Free speech does not mean
    that you label people who follow a faith as being Wife burner, idol
    worshipers, infant sacrificers, involved in prostitution etc.
    
    By doing so you de-humanise us and show us to be the scum of the earth. 
    To attribute these things to others because a bogus Encyclopedia or
    Missionary said so is a lies.  To use lies to show other peoples
    religions as being false say's a lot more about the people and religion
    than it does of those you are trying to show as being false.
    
    When I look at the things that are being said about Hindus it's not
    that different to what I was told about Jews (Christ killer, devil
    worshippers etc.).  It's very well of the Christians (or so called) to
    label everyone as being againest G-d's will because we do not believe
    in Christ.  We are the people who have to have a size 12 Dr Martins
    boot land on our body or worse.
    
    It isn't just a matter of religion but of colour, race etc. we are
    looked upon as being not human.  I feel that you don't understand what
    the results are of the Churchs hell fire and brimstone sermons messages
    put into the hearts of some people.  Pure hate at worse and damn lies
    in books which go on to fuel this mindless hate machine.
    
>the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    
    It's easy to say this and I believe you are sincere others are not.  I
    can tell you a few stories about how I saw Jews being potrayed by some
    Christians.
    
>  I'm sure Sunil that you would never worship the common enemy of all 
>  mankind.
    
    Yes you are right.  Devil no I don't recall having such a figure in the
    Vedas somehow but I can understand what you are refering to.
    
    Coming to the present moment I see that Germany is again going through
    the usual Jew bashing.  Now it's extented to the Non-whites as well
    they have started burning their houses and beating them up, killing a
    few here and there.  Guess what the Government it seems is unable to do
    anything about, the police arrive too late etc.  What's new not much as far
    as I am concerned.  Yes I am being a bit cynical.
    
    By the way the New Right wing groups are saying that nothing happened
    50 years ago.  Jews were never killed they were asked to leave as they
    will be when they come into power,  that equally applies to all
    foreigners.
    
    Gerry I hope that you can understand me a lot better and why I feel so
    strongly about things.  Being assulted and seeing things in this world
    that are ugly is painful for all we live in two different worlds to
    some extent.  I can say that some of do not enjoy the same freedoms as
    others do for the simple reason their is always a group or people who
    are willing to take them away.   Anti-semitism and is not too different
    to what I as a Hindu and an Indian have experienced, I understand the
    Jewish people to a large extent.
    
    
    Sunil

  
Hello Sunil,
    
re .58  
    
>>  Well now we are getting down to the bone of contention mate.  Okay
>>  let's look at the bit that says >as I do, but neither of us has a right
>>  to change the doctrine of another mans faith and the bit about free
>>  speech and freedom of worship.
    
>>  Changing the doctrine of another man's faith well look at note number
>>  174 in your conference need I say any more.  Free speech does not mean
>>  that you label people who follow a faith as being Wife burner, idol
>>  worshipers, infant sacrificers, involved in prostitution etc.
    
>>  By doing so you de-humanise us and show us to be the scum of the earth. 
>>  To attribute these things to others because a bogus Encyclopedia or
>>  Missionary said so is a lies.  To use lies to show other peoples
>>  religions as being false say's a lot more about the people and religion
>>  than it does of those you are trying to show as being false.

Being a Christian does not mean that we don't make mistakes or have mistaken 
views of what another believes. But this is true of Jews and Hindus and indeed
common to all mankind. I did not follow what was going on in that note you 
mentioned at the time but I have gone over there and quickly glance over it's
131 replies.

You stated there Sunil that the practice Sutee was not an integral part of 
the Hindu faith or practice but originated in an Indian state that was warring
with the Moguls. The Kings of these warrior people, rather than having their 
wives anf families dishonoured but being raped by the Mogul invaders would 
submit their loved ones to the flames. But you also said that because of greed
some people still practice Sutee so that they will not have to provide for 
widdows etc. I hope Sunil that my understanding is fairly correct. I am also
aware that your people suffered terrible persecutions and Genocide, I believe
you quoted some 10's of millions being killed by the Moguls and British.

What this shows me Sunil is that Christianity is not the only faith that has
skeletons in the closet, so to speak. Greed and Pride can cause people to do
horrific things in the name of a faith, things which true practicioners of 
that faith would never consider doing.

Some more History Sunil...

Roman History (early Christian persecution):

In the first three or so centuries of the Christian era, ten major persecutions
were poured out on the Christian church. Among other things Christians were
eaten by lions, savaged by wild dogs, used as human torches to light up the 
Roman arenas and burned alive, had all their property confiscated etc etc. 
To avoid such persecution all they had to do was to go into the Roman pantheon
(meaning many gods) and sprinkle a little inscense on the alter of the Roman
emporer god. Thousands upon thousands died in these purges with people treated
as you said Sunil "scum of the Earth" many of these Christians were descendants
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Sectors of the Jewish community at the time were
guilty by complancy or at times by direct complicity.


Spanish History (Christian persecution of Jews):

In 1492, a horrific persecution occurred in Spain, where the Roman Catholic
church set up the inquisitions against the Jewish people living in that land.
The Jewish people were very skilled and very well educated and very well 
regarded by the rulers of Spain. These Jewish people were also very productive
in supplying much wealth to the Spanish Coffers. The so called Christian Church
leaders in that land got very jealous of these well educated and prosperous 
Jews an sought ways to bring about their down fall. Church monks and priests
led mobs into Jewish areas of Spanish cities and tried to forcefully convert
these people with a motto something like convert or be killed. Many went to 
their deaths rather that forsake their faith. Some of the wealthier Jews 
converted to this so called Christianity and became ever more influiencial in
state and church affairs. This was even a greater threat to the greed of the 
Spanish Church. I believe all Hell (literally) broke loose when some of the
Jewish converts (I think called conversados) were discovered celebrating a
Jewish Passover Seder. Following this thousands were put to death by burning
them alive in what was called Auto-da-fe, meaning acts of faith. This 
persecution culminated in the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jewish 
people from Spain and the confiscation of their property. It was all of this 
stolen money that helped to subsidise Christopher Columbus' voyage of discovery
to the Americas.


Irish History:

Throughout our history we Irish have also been persecuted, hunted down like 
wild animals, killed (in many various ways) and driven off our lands or been 
discriminated against starved to death etc etc. Today if I travel to or through
Britian I can be stopped and questioned as if I were a criminal, and I could be
held for up to a week in prision without charge and without my family knowing
where I was. All this because others do horrible acts of violence in the name 
of the Irish people. We have had the likes of Cromwell come to the 'heathen 
Irish' and sing Hymns of praise to G-d as his troops sabred us to death. We 
have has our little babies cast up in the air only to be caught on the loving 
arms of bayonettes. During the Irish famine, while millions have died of 
hunger and disease the powers that be were exporting food from our country. 
During this period attempts were made by some so called Christians to give 
food to people if they would change from being Roman Catholic to being 
Protestant. People starved and let their families starve rather than 
convert.

German History:

Millions of European Jews, men women and little children were gassed, burned to
death, shot, guillotened to death and more. 30 millions of Russians died in 
the same war as well as many millions of other people. We are all familiar with
the horrible extent of what happened during this period of history so I won't
elaborate further.


Question:

What should my response to this catalogue of horror be as a Christian ?

Answer:

I must love my enemies and bless those who curse me and do good to those who 
hurt me.

What is meant (or should be meant) by Christians when they use the word 
"love" 


Please suffer me to quote from the Christian Bible from the writings of Paul
(Saul of Tarsus) to the Christian Church at Corinth in Greece; again this is
not an effort to bible thump so please don't take offence.


        Though I speak with the tongues of men and of Angels, but have 
        not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
         And thought I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
        mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so 
         that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

        And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I
         give up my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me
        nothing.

        Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not
         parade itself, is not puffed up;
        does not behave rudely, does not seek it's own, is not provoked,
         thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in
        all truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things
         Love never fails.

      My bible also tells me that perfect love drives out all fear.

I must love the L-rd my G-d with all my heart and all my soul and all my 
strength and I must love my neighbour as I love myself.

G-d said to Abraham that He (G-d) would bless all those who blessed him
(the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and that He (G-d) would curse
all those who cursed the children of Israel.

This has happened to all who have ever blessed or cursed the children of 
Israel. Countries or nations have either been blessed or cursed by G-d for
their treatment of His chosen People.

My love for the descendants of Israel is not selfishly based on wanting to be
blessed or of fear of being cursed but because G-d has a special love for them
I want to also have this special love for them. Because G-d loves all his 
creation man who is made in G-d's own image, then I will also be obedient and
love all mankind also. G-d desires obedience and not sacrifice.

Sunil, since I became a Christian, I have learned to love those who did wrong to
me or my people. I do still have up days and down days but more and more G-d is
having His way with my life as I allow Him access to more and more areas which I
had selfishly tried to hide from Him. His perfect love is driving out all my 
fears. As I submit to Him and lean on Him He lifts me up on eagles wings.

Oh Sunil, I can *so* understand your hurts and the hurts of others. I too 
have felt similar hurts and I can empathise with you. But, I feel that it is 
very important that none of us allow a root of bitterness to grow in our lives
because it will defile us and even those around us and even our children and 
their children's children. Again I say to you and to all who partake in this 
conference that I love you all as fellow creatures of G-d, made in His own 
image.

May the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob richly bless you Sunil and lead all of
us into the fullness of all His G-dly love, knowledge, and wisdom.

In heart-felt love,

Gerry

    
    re .57
    
    >The commandments wouldn't have been given to us if people were not 
    >inclined to break them. If all Jewish sinners had to stop being 
    >Jewish there'd be none left. 
    
    Say what?
    
    Are you saying (in the first sentence) that all people, or Christians,
    or Jews are inclined to break the commandments? Is this your belief or
    are you paraphrasing something here? Is it your contention that G-d
    gave the commandments to creatures that he created without the ability
    to follow them? Didn't I read that man was created in G-d's image?
    Didn't Jesus say that the works I do ... and greater works shall you
    also do?
    
    Do I read the second sentence correctly and are you saying that all Jews
    are sinners? If so thats a kinda tacky thing to propose in BAGELS. 
    
    /doug

    Re .60
   
    >Are you saying (in the first sentence) that all people, or Christians,
    >or Jews are inclined to break the commandments? Is this your belief or
    >are you paraphrasing something here? Is it your contention that G-d
    >gave the commandments to creatures that he created without the ability
    >to follow them?
    
    I believe you have misread or misunderstood.
    
    >>The commandments wouldn't have been given to us if people were not 
    >>inclined to break them. 
    
    .57 specifically says "inclined". G-d certainly created people with the
    ability of following His commandments, but He also endowed them with
    the freedom of choice not to follow them. He also created inclinations
    and drives and desires which do not always lend themselves to making it
    easy to follow His commandments. It would be absolutely meaningless
    were His commandments impossible to either follow or not follow. 
    
    "Thou shalt never die" would be an absurd commandment.
    "Whatever thou throwest up must come down" would be equally absurd.
    
    >>If all Jewish sinners had to stop being 
    >>Jewish there'd be none left. 
    
    >Do I read the second sentence correctly and are you saying that all Jews
    >are sinners? If so thats a kinda tacky thing to propose in BAGELS. 
    
    NO! That is not what he said at all. Noone is perfect, noone. Even the
    most righteous saints at times transgress certain commandments, both
    knowingly and unknowingly. This is what being human is all about. What
    separates a saint from a sinner is the reaction taken after having
    sinned. The former will have grave remorse and do repentance, the
    latter will not even be bothered by it.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Cb.
    
    
    /doug

    

    
    RE .61
    
    What you said here makes more sense to me then what I (mis)-read in the
    prior note. I think the reason for my confusion was that you didn't
    include a number of Christian assumptions such as your comment in .61
    that reads "... He also endowed them with the freedom of choice ... ."
    once these assumptions are made clear your note reads better. I didn't
    make these assumptions because Bagels is the Jewish notesfile and these
    assumptions aren't Jewish.
    
    Thanks for the prompt reply.
    
    /doug
    

.62

>    make these assumptions because Bagels is the Jewish notesfile and these
>    assumptions aren't Jewish.


Huh?  Of course these are Jewish assumptions.  Or did you mean that you weren't
sure if they could be assumed in Jewish theology?  Another assumption one can
make is that the commandments are given to cover things that really need
covering.  For instance, we are commanded not to bear false witness because we
might otherwise do so.  If we didn't have an inclination to lie when it was
convenient, we wouldn't need to be so commanded.

.57

I think that a point could be made that being a Jew and denying the validity
of the system of commandments is a logical possiblity, because a Jew is something
that you are by birth.  However, because ALL Christians are technically converts
(that is they must BECOME Christians rather than being born that way), one might
argue that a Christian who denies the validity of the Christian theology isn't
a Christian.  However, that does not mean that in either religion a person who
occasionally violates the standards of their faith, whether accidentally, through
laxness or intentionally, would become a non-member.

Gav

Another example of the antisemitism of the Catholic Curch.
As you certainly will know already,some days ago a mafia explosive charge 
killed Giovanni Falcone,a judge in Italy who was doing a very good and 
effective job against mafia.
During his funeral ceremonies,in the main Church in Palermo,the Cardinal 
Pappalardo,the most important religious authority in Sicily,speaking of the 
mafia men said that they were part of the ...Synagogue of Satan...
Nobody except Jews found it necessary to protest against this use of the word 
Synagogue,which is the Curch for Jews,in this context.
I personally don't believe that Pappalardo really wanted to offense Jews or to 
make any reference to them;but this make things even worse.It shows how deeply 
is antisemitism gone in the mind and in the heart of the Catholic world (by the 
way,you can find this phrase in the infamous "Protocols of the Sion's Sages" a 
well know antisemitic book).
That's why I believe that any actions done to clarify as much as possible the 
roles and responsabilities of some high Catholic hierarchies during and after 
the II world war can help not only history and justice,but mainly can help the 
Catholic Curch to remove from their minds and heart all the remains of the 
antisemistism (if they want - but do they want?)
Donatella

Just catching up on notes after some vacation followed by catching up 
with work.

Doug, I must say that I agree with Gavriel and Cb. very much in the 
notes about G-d giving His commandments to people inclined to sin.
All of us humans are at least somewhat inclined to sin, that is why
we need the law to show us what is right.  Stumbling a little bit
doesn't undo one's belief in G-d, or for Christians, in Jesus, but
it does mean that one needs to repent and seek forgiveness from G-d,
and from whomever one has wronged.

I was reading, in Mark Strassfeld's book about Jewish Holidays, about
Shavuot and the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, and there were a couple
of passages that relate to this dicussion.  Perhaps I can find them &
put them in here, though I guess this meanders a bit from the topic of
anti-sematism.

Leslie