Posted on 04/16/2013 4:07:44 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
Poll shows anti-Jewish sentiment among youth in Poland's capital. 44% don't want a Jewish neighbor.
Anti-Semitism is high among teenagers in the Polish capital, according to an opinion survey conducted in the run-up to Friday's 70th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the AFP news agency reports.
The poll of students from 20 Warsaw high schools, published Tuesday, found that 44 percent of respondents said they would be unhappy to have a Jewish neighbor.
In the survey of 1,250 students commissioned by the Jewish Community of Warsaw, the Homo Homini polling institute also found that two in five said they would not like to have a Jewish classmate, and 61 percent said they would be upset if their partner turned out to be a Jew.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
We're also both non-Jews. Didn't know that, did you?
If similar statements with the roles reversed were made by a Christian theologian, you'd be brimming with righteous outrage. Things seem to change when the shoe is on the other foot.
No, it’s about double standards. Just as liberal political correctness creates a double standard where blacks get a free pass when they make blatantly racist statements towards whites (using past racism towards them as an excuse and a get out of jail free card), it seems that some people think that it’s OK for Jews to express hatred for certain ethnic groups and nations, more or less with the same set of excuses.
Okay...thanks for your opinion! :-)
Of course not. But first of all, do you agree that this charge of antisemitism based on the fact that a majority of Poles would rather live around fellow Poles is ridiculous?
How do you "know" that [Christianity] is the "true faith?
The fact that J-s (who seem to know a thing or two about God) are apparently fearful of spelling the word right would suffice, no? But seriously, I believe that the Resurrection of Christ is a true historical event. Why? Because the account of it in the gospels is believable. I believe the gospel the same how I believe any witness of a distant event: because I examine the account the witnesses present and find the witnesses reasonable and of good character, and I don't find a reasonable competing explanation. From that the divinity of Christ follows and therefore the divinely inspired nature of the Catholic Church. Of course there are secondary corroborations: the reasonability of the Christian worldview, the examples of holiness of our saints, the impact the teaching of the Church has in my life, etc. but the core is simply believing the witness of the Church to the Resurrection.
Nor is my faith unquestioning. I entertain the possibility that the scripture or the reason contradict the Church virtually every day on FR. I explain why it does not by fact and reason, not by "I am not going to discuss it". Likewise with atheists, of whom I know quite a few; I in fact wrote an article on reasonability of my faith, -- when I finish my website I'll post it here. I mostly direct my polemics to the Protestants because I consider Protestantism very damaging to Christendom, in a way a heresy is more damaging than simply a falsehood.
Which version of [Christianity] is true?
Why, none is completely false. They are all Catholicism Lite and so are partly right. In fact, the Jews and the Muslims got a few things right themselves. Catholicism is fully true because in us there is the fullness of Divine Revelation to Christ's Church. The endless arguments are the domain of diverse denominations who need to argue in order to retain their market differentiation. We don't have a similar problem.
How in the name of all that is reasonable can you ask mormons to question the Book of Mormon
Easy: no historical plausibility of any of their distinctive beliefs.
I understood that the people interviewed expressed negative attitudes towards Jews, not "non-Poles."
How do you "know" that [Christianity] is the "true faith
The fact that J-s (who seem to know a thing or two about God) are apparently fearful of spelling the word right would suffice, no? But seriously, I believe that the Resurrection of Christ is a true historical event. Why? Because the account of it in the gospels is believable. I believe the gospel the same how I believe any witness of a distant event: because I examine the account the witnesses present and find the witnesses reasonable and of good character, and I don't find a reasonable competing explanation. From that the divinity of Christ follows and therefore the divinely inspired nature of the Catholic Church. Of course there are secondary corroborations: the reasonability of the Christian worldview, the examples of holiness of our saints, the impact the teaching of the Church has in my life, etc. but the core is simply believing the witness of the Church to the Resurrection.
You're missing something very important. Chrstianity claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism and the Revelation at Sinai, but the simple fact is that the religion founded at Sinai does not provide or allow for any such "development." The Torah is clear that its commandments are binding in perpetuity. In fact, in both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 the Jews are warned that if they ever turn aside from The Torah that their Temple will be destroyed and they will be scattered throughout the world. Note: it explicity warns that these punishments are the consequences, not of "rejecting the messiah" (and there isn't even a commandment to "accept the messiah" since there will be no question of his authenticity when he does come). Yet chrstians for two thousand years have insisted that the Torah was "obviously" temporary and preparatory and that these punishments are for "rejecting the messiah."
Now let's use a little elementary logic here, shall we? Chrstianity claims to be authorized by the Torah. The Torah authorizes no such thing. Therefore, chrstianity's claim to be authorized by the Torah is false. Logically it should jettison its Jewish claims and go it alone as a totally independent religion (as an early heretic wanted it to do). Whether or not J*sus rose from the dead, the religion based on this alleged fact is not authorized by a Torah that plainly considers itself perpetual. THEREFORE, if it bases its claim on the Torah then all these alleged supernatural events would mean absolutely nothing, even if they did happen. They would be nothing more than another miracle tale by another false religion--and all religions have miracle tales, and it isn't even necessary to deny the historicity of these miracles. If chrstianity wants to base itself on nothing but the miracles of J*sus then it should never have claimed to be a "fulfillment" of the Torah. But since it has (and it is not), then it cannot be the true religion even if every single miracle attributed to J*sus actually happened. If you became convinced that Joseph Smith Jr. really did experience those revelations, would you pay any attention to them? Of course not. This is the same as that.
Nor is my faith unquestioning. I entertain the possibility that the scripture or the reason contradict the Church virtually every day on FR. I explain why it does not by fact and reason, not by "I am not going to discuss it". Likewise with atheists, of whom I know quite a few; I in fact wrote an article on reasonability of my faith, -- when I finish my website I'll post it here. I mostly direct my polemics to the Protestants because I consider Protestantism very damaging to Christendom, in a way a heresy is more damaging than simply a falsehood.
What about Protestantism do you object to the most? The belief of Fundamentalist Protestants that the Bible contains no errors of any kind on any subject (including those embarrassing first eleven chapters of Genesis)? Why does your "one true church" so fear the historical reality of events that logically don't seem to threaten it? Do they threaten it?
Which version of [Christianity] is true?
Why, none is completely false. They are all Catholicism Lite and so are partly right.
What is "Catholicism?" Roman and Eastern Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Oriental Orthodoxy (Non-Chalcaedonianism)? Non-Ephesianism (Nestorianism)? All these churches broke off of the ancient historical chrstian church, but who broke off from who? Each claims to be the authentic original and that the others broke off. Roman (and Eastern) Catholicism is not self-evidently the original, since each and every one of these bodies refer to themselves as "the holy Catholic Church." Roman/Eastern Catholicism is certainly the one with the greatest numbers, but Athanasius pointed out that you can't decide what is truth based merely on the size of the membership.
In fact, the Jews and the Muslims got a few things right themselves. Catholicism is fully true because in us there is the fullness of Divine Revelation to Christ's Church.
Don't tell me . . . this claim is "self-evidently true."
The endless arguments are the domain of diverse denominations who need to argue in order to retain their market differentiation. We don't have a similar problem.
Which means what precisely? The Catholic Church doesn't have to clarify its positions and teachings to those who are thinking of entering it? It just says "you know this is right, so just buy the total package?" Again, how does one know this?
How in the name of all that is reasonable can you ask mormons to question the Book of Mormon
Easy: no historical plausibility of any of their distinctive beliefs.
First, some beliefs of all religions are considered implausible by someone. And second, what does plausibility have to do with it? If mormon beliefs were plausible, would you actually be a mormon? There is no other issue (such as whether it is authorized by the Torah as all forms of chrstianity claim to be)?
Bible-thumping, Protestant, chrstian Blacks?
get a free pass when they make blatantly racist statements towards whites (using past racism towards them as an excuse and a get out of jail free card), it seems that some people think that it’s OK for Jews to express hatred for certain ethnic groups and nations, more or less with the same set of excuses.
You mean like the "new testament" expresses contempt for Jews? That's still in there, isn't it? I don't recall any mass march by Jews to get the "new testament" changed.
Do you know what "Theonomic positivism" is? Theonomic positivism is the position that right and wrong are simply whatever G-d says they are, and there is no rationalist or secular standard by which G-d may be judged. That is basically the correct position (the one I adhere to) and the only alternative to moral philosophies that always end up having A-mighty G-d judged by human standards and then declared a big meanie, after which man allegedly is right to rebel against Him.
In other words, if G-d says something that isn't fair, that favors Jews over non-Jews, then that is what G-d says and neither I, you, nor anyone else have any right to squawk about it. You do understand that, right?
Do you believe in G-d at all? In which G-d? If you believe in the Jewish G-d (and so many anti-Semites illogically claim to do), then what business is it of yours that His sanctioned Divine legal system has positions that don't fit your own preconceived notions of what He "should" have said? That is my position . . . and I'm not even Jewish!
As a final observation, people who do their best to shoe-horn Israel or "the Jews" into leftist categories (such as comparing them to Blacks [Protestant] and Hispanics [Catholic]) tend to be anti-Semites.
Ping to Read tomorrow
From your article:
"We wanted to probe their attitudes towards Jews, since we're planning to prepare an educational program or social campaign in the future," spokeswoman Joanna Korzeniewska told AFP.
When asked about the J-s, the kids answered about the J-s. Similarly, when asked if they wanted Polish sausage for breakfast 70% of the J-s respond No. Not because they are Antipolonic but because they don't eat pork. Fersteen?
You're missing something very important. [Christianity] claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism and the Revelation at Sinai, but the simple fact is that the religion founded at Sinai does not provide or allow for any such "development."
What about Protestantism do you object to the most?
What is "Catholicism?"
Hah. Very good. THAT is what I object about Protestantism the most: the notion that the Bible should be read as a single legalistic space, Genesis to Revelation, as a set of prohibitions and authorizations. You discovered a new Protestant sect: Judaism. Rent some space, start a "church". soon, half the town will be at your door, waving hands in the air.
No, authentic Christianity, which is Catholicism, is like I described in my previous post: the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus as told in the Holy Gospels and explained by His Holy Church. Everything else: the interest in the Bible in general, the Old Testament in particular, and the delivery of the Law on Mount Sinai is attendant to that central belief. You cannot explain the Torah to me: I am in charge of explaining the Torah to you. I am Catholic, you are not.
Then, if you want to get legalistic I can: the Law of Moses was given the J-s just like when I deliver the law to my children: do not play outside the fence, do not eat worms, do not talk to strangers. The J-s still can follow these laws of they want to be J-s, even though, for two thousand years, they do not really have a reason to. Or they can violate them and follow Jesus Who made these laws done and gone, to the last jot and tittle, fulfilled and finished, alleluia, free at last. Then they will be Christians, and they should hurry.
Hah. Very good. THAT is what I object about Protestantism the most: the notion that the Bible should be read as a single legalistic space, Genesis to Revelation, as a set of prohibitions and authorizations. You discovered a new Protestant sect: Judaism. Rent some space, start a "church". soon, half the town will be at your door, waving hands in the air.
It was my understanding that Catholics object to the historicity of the events described in the Bible. Some of them, at any rate.
The Bible doesn't even include "Revelation" (or any other part of the "new testament"). The laws are contained only in the Torah, not the Prophets or Writings. Furthermore, most of the laws are contained in the Oral Torah and include the rulings of the Sages. This is the authentic holy oral tradition which chrstianity (the protestantism of its day) rejected. For Catholics/Orthodox/what-have-you to turn around and then bash Protestants for not accepting their pathetic imitations is the height of hypocrisy.
No, authentic Christianity, which is Catholicism, is like I described in my previous post: the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus as told in the Holy Gospels and explained by His Holy Church. Everything else: the interest in the Bible in general, the Old Testament in particular, and the delivery of the Law on Mount Sinai is attendant to that central belief.
Why does the "resurrection" of J*sus negate the fact that the Torah says its commandments are eternal? Why doesn't the Torah say that it was only temporary until the "messiah" came to "fulfill" it?
Why do all you people assume that chrstianity is "obviously" true? That's the one thing that unites all the chrstian sects, from the most ancient to the most modern, despite their fanatical hatred of each other. You can't ignore that the Torah (which came first) does claim to be eternal and does not allow for any such religion as chrstianity in the future. Or do you prefer to ignore this fact again?
You cannot explain the Torah to me: I am in charge of explaining the Torah to you.
Now you're just being ridiculous. A Jewish child knows more about the Torah than you will ever know. You're "knowledge" of the Torah is identical to that of the most fundamentalist Baptist: that "it all points to J*sus!!!" I doubt if you've ever even read the entire thing in translation.
The Written Torah contains only a string of consonants and nothing more. The Oral Torah contains the vowels, the punctuation, and the trope. The Written Torah is the keyhole, the Oral Torah is the key, and only the Jews have the key. And incidentally, every single chrstian translation of the Torah in existence assumes that the Oral Torah knows how to vocalize and punctuate that string of consonants. Obviously Oral Torah is also the only authentic interpretation of the Written Torah.
I am Catholic, you are not.
Whatever happened to "once Catholic, always Catholic? I guess that doesn't apply to the unpardonable sin of "Biblical literalism." Now c'mon . . . you don't want a "literalist" like me in your church, do you?
Then, if you want to get legalistic I can: the Law of Moses was given the J-s just like when I deliver the law to my children: do not play outside the fence, do not eat worms, do not talk to strangers. The J-s still can follow these laws of they want to be J-s, even though, for two thousand years, they do not really have a reason to. Or they can violate them and follow Jesus Who made these laws done and gone, to the last jot and tittle, fulfilled and finished, alleluia, free at last. Then they will be Christians, and they should hurry.
That's what the "new testament" says. It is not what the Torah says. G-d gave Israel the Torah on Mt. Sinai and warned them to never depart from it either to the right or to the left. Your implicit insistence that the "resurrection" of J*sus automatically "makes it obvious" that the Torah was only temporary and a "pedagogue" leading to chrstianity is an example of the logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent." Did you ever study logic or argumentation?
Once again, all the claims of chrstianity fail to take into consideration that the Torah claims to be eternal and does not provide for chrstianity. Therefore chrstianity is false, whether J*sus rose from the dead or not. You ever read the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy?
Appreciate the post, but I am running late today and will get to it in detail tomorrow.
Certainly, if I did not answer a specific question that remains in your mind, or you think deserves to be answered specifically, in my previous post, please point that out and I will be glad to elaborate. Due to the pressure of time, and also for ease of understanding, my post was trying to give you the necessary framework rather than go point by point. I believe I gave you that framework, but I will give a response to this post also, God willing, tomorrow.
Judaism and Christianity are different religions with different worldviews.
One of the prerequisites to be Christian (other than ‘culturally’) is the ‘a priori’ acceptance of the New Testament. Christians have internecine wars over their own differing traditions about what the New Testament means or intends, and they’re all right. Each one does contraindicate the other.
most of the laws are contained in the Oral Torah and include the rulings of the Sages. This is the authentic holy oral tradition which [Christianity] (the protestantism of its day) rejected
Yes. Christ did two things: (1) liberate Christians from the legalistic attituide to any law, regardless of whether the law, on some new level is upheld in Christianity and (2) repeat and often strengthen the natural-law core at the heart of the J-wish legalisms. So, Christianity obviously keeps the Ten Commandments (excluding the meaningless after the Incarnation prohibition against pictures of Christ and his saints), and moreover, Christ expanded the Ten commandments bringing it to the level even of thought.
For Catholics/Orthodox/what-have-you to turn around and then bash Protestants for not accepting their pathetic imitations is the height of hypocrisy.
There is no symmetry. The Christian world is not a line from past to present but a ray from the center, and the center is the Incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. So obviously the Jewish Old Testament is seen as pre-history of Christ and today we live in the post-history of the first Coming of Christ. J-daism is then a separate proto-religion now wholly consumed in Christianity and owing its independent of Christ existence to human inertia. Protestantism and other heresies as merely blimps on that glorious ray of history from the Incarnation to the Second Coming. They will either correct themselves or they will wither away, but they do not represent anything as cosmic as the Incarnation, the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why does the [Resurrection of Jesus] negate the fact that the Torah says its commandments are eternal? Why doesn't the Torah say that it was only temporary until the "messiah" came to "fulfill" it?
First, Christianity does not reject every law. For example, the passages of Deuteronomy 13 regarding false prophets are very much the commandment of God today; no one rejects the foundational passages of God in relation to man -- including the promise of victory over death and Satan wrought by Christ by his sacrifice. What is roundly rejected is (I repeat) the legalistic attitude about Divine Law and the dietetic and ritualistic law of the Torah given specifically the Jews anyway. Here are the operative passages:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity. (Galatians 5:6)...there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. [14] But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. [15] And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common. (Acts 10:13-15).
...it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. (Acts 15:28-29)
In the last passage especially you can see the Catholic Church speaking in the name of God and sorting out diverse commandments of the Old Testament age in application to the Age of the Church.
A Jewish child knows more about the Torah than you will ever know.
Here I need to clarify my previous post. I did not intend to claim that I in my personal scholarship exceed any J-w in the knowledge of the Old Testament. Obviously there are levels of both textual knowledge and systematic theological training not attained by most,-- or perhaps all, -- Catholics. I meant a different thing: that an illiterate Mexican grandmother (forget me, a sinner) has the depth of the understanding of the Old Testament not by virtue of any learning but by virtue of being Catholic and being holy. You count the prohibitions and authorizations; she knows what it means because the Spirit of God in her Church taught her.
you don't want a "literalist" like me in your church, do you?
Of course I do. I want you all to be saved and come to the knowledge of God.
Whatever happened to "once Catholic, always Catholic"?
Everyone validly baptized (even outside of the visible Catholic Church) is indelibly Catholic by baptism and is lead by God to salvation. But he can resist God even to the point of apostasy and then be lost, for God is not going to save anyone against his will. Such a man is in a different situation than one never baptized who often is prevented by coming to the Church due to a cultural or ethnic bias.
Your implicit insistence that the [Resurrection of Jesus] automatically "makes it obvious" that the Torah was only temporary and a "pedagogue" leading to [Christianity] is an example of the logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent." Did you ever study logic or argumentation?
Once again, all the claims of [Christianity] fail to take into consideration that the Torah claims to be eternal and does not provide for [Christianity]. Therefore [Christianity] is false, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.
Jesus did rise from the dead, despite those who believed in the Torah "not providing" for Him succeeding in killing Him. So therefore, if one accepts the fact of His resurrection, -- which is a matter not of blind faith but examination of historical evidence, -- then he knows that either the Torah is false or those reading the Torah so devotedly do not understand it. Indeed, the Church He set up to lead us likewise to resurrection understands the Torah and proclaims it inerrant. They, -- I, -- can teach you what is in the Torah.
Yes, absolutely. They are in a complex relation one to the other, not reducible to Christianity being a development of, or a successor to, or a denial of, -- Judaism.
Christians have internecine wars over their own differing traditions about what the New Testament means or intends, and they’re all right.
No, they cannot be all right, although they all, so long as they are basically Christian got something right. To you, -- I presume you are not Christian, -- these disagreements may seem silly or intractable, and of course you would be right calling them irrelevant as to you, they are.
I have been reading every one.
You both literately represent 2 two sides of my life growing up, my Jewish and Catholic sides.
You both make very well thought out an intentioned arguments and we all are better for this discussions and conversations.
They bring us closer to G-d!
Thank you for the kind words.
I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the fact that this article has appeared on the Free Republic at all.
It is my opinion that true antisemitism exists to some extent everywhere and probably more so in Europe than in the US. On this I agree with Zionist Conspirator. However, alongside with the reasonable abhorrence of antisemitism that we all share, there is a uniquely leftist project that seeks to utilize the feelings against antisemitism in order to condemn religious conviction of any kind. The goal of that leftwing project is to marginalize and slander anyone of strong faith. So, a survey about normal and salutary national and religious self-preference of the youth of one nation, herself quite longsuffering, is slanderously proclaimed antisemitic. Similarly an honest and objective presentation of the Christian normative view on the Jewish religion would probably be termed antisemitic on any “mainstream” venue. That is a shame. The purpose of the Free Republic is to see through such stratagems of the left and defeat them; not providing them an echoing chamber.
Secondly, indeed there is a view among some Christians that Christianity is but extension of Judaism. This is especially strong among Fundamentalist Protestants. This view is not shared by normative Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, nor oder-vintage Protestantism. On this, despite very different vantage points, Zionist Conspirator and I would agree also: that American Jews might be left with a false impression that American Christians taken as a whole subscribe to some kind of Judaism Lite. Often it can be seen in Jewish attitudes toward Catholics subdivided, in heir mind between modern Vatican II Catholics and traditionalist medieval antisemitic Catholics. The reality is that only a very small percentage of American Protestants and virtually no informed Catholic, no matter how philosemitic they are, would hold the view that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity. Much heartache would be spared by Jews and Christians alike if they had come to terms with this fact: Christianity, with all its internal divisions, seeks to convert the entire world, including the Jews, to the Blessed Name of Jesus our Savior and Lord. We are two religions that should not merge nor can we merge, for we are in a very fundamental sense based on the denial of the other.
The good news is that no one on either side wishes ill to the other. We share many common theological points with the Jews, parts of the Holy Scripture, and we know how to live together in peace. It is for that reason upsetting that the slander of antisemitism, a movement typically secular and as sinful as any racism, — is once and again attached to Christians who take their faith seriously. Much greater danger to our society is secular indifferentism propagandized by the left, in significant part through “antisemitism” slander.
It is my opinion that true antisemitism exists to some extent everywhere and probably more so in Europe than in the US. On this I agree with Zionist Conspirator. However, alongside with the reasonable abhorrence of antisemitism that we all share, there is a uniquely leftist project that seeks to utilize the feelings against antisemitism in order to condemn religious conviction of any kind. The goal of that leftwing project is to marginalize and slander anyone of strong faith. So, a survey about normal and salutary national and religious self-preference of the youth of one nation, herself quite longsuffering, is slanderously proclaimed antisemitic. Similarly an honest and objective presentation of the Christian normative view on the Jewish religion would probably be termed antisemitic on any “mainstream” venue. That is a shame. The purpose of the Free Republic is to see through such stratagems of the left and defeat them; not providing them an echoing chamber.
I also oppose the use of the "antisemitism" label to attack people of genuine religious belief. How you managed to read that into this article is beyond me. I posted it because Jews today should certainly prefer to live in the Holy Land rather than in Europe.
Secondly, indeed there is a view among some Christians that Christianity is but extension of Judaism. This is especially strong among Fundamentalist Protestants. This view is not shared by normative Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, nor oder-vintage Protestantism. On this, despite very different vantage points, Zionist Conspirator and I would agree also: that American Jews might be left with a false impression that American Christians taken as a whole subscribe to some kind of Judaism Lite. Often it can be seen in Jewish attitudes toward Catholics subdivided, in heir mind between modern Vatican II Catholics and traditionalist medieval antisemitic Catholics. The reality is that only a very small percentage of American Protestants and virtually no informed Catholic, no matter how philosemitic they are, would hold the view that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity. Much heartache would be spared by Jews and Christians alike if they had come to terms with this fact: Christianity, with all its internal divisions, seeks to convert the entire world, including the Jews, to the Blessed Name of Jesus our Savior and Lord. We are two religions that should not merge nor can we merge, for we are in a very fundamental sense based on the denial of the other.
I also do not advocate any kind of Judaeo-chrstian syncretism. In fact, I'm 100% against it and have always maintained chrstians so drawn to Judaism and Jewish customs should forswear chrstianity altogether for Noachism.
You still fail to deal with the issue that the "miracles" of J*sus being 100% historically real still does not serve as a sufficient foundation for a religion that claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism. If it is not authorized by the Torah, this particular claim is disproved, and this discredits the entire religion. And continual repetition of chrstian claims, again, proves absolutely nothing except chrstian assumptions.
It is for that reason upsetting that the slander of antisemitism, a movement typically secular and as sinful as any racism, — is once and again attached to Christians who take their faith seriously. Much greater danger to our society is secular indifferentism propagandized by the left, in significant part through “antisemitism” slander.
I simply don't know why you have chosen to be offended by this article. Where do you get the idea that it is a leftist hatchet job? Is this another assumption?
I know; this is why I was surprised seeing you posting this.
I simply don't know why you have chosen to be offended by this article. Where do you get the idea that it is a leftist hatchet job? Is this another assumption?
Not an assumption. The article begins: Anti-Semitism is high among teenagers in the Polish capital, according to an opinion survey
You write in the trailer: If [Christianity] really is "the one true religion," then why was it universally anti-Jewish
As I explained in my first substantive post on this thread directed to you,
Antisemitism is a sin; they better not be. Slandering people of sin they did not commit as a sin also.
Is it clearer now? Do you understand the difference between substantive accusation and slander?
You still fail to deal with the issue that the "miracles" of [Jesus] being 100% historically real still does not serve as a sufficient foundation for a religion that claims to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism.
I believe I have dealt with it:
Jesus did rise from the dead, despite those who believed in the Torah "not providing" for Him succeeding in killing Him. So therefore, if one accepts the fact of His resurrection, -- which is a matter not of blind faith but examination of historical evidence, -- then he knows that either the Torah is false or those reading the Torah so devotedly do not understand it.
The myth here is understanding of "fulfillment" in terms of non-contradiction and continuation. This is not how normative Christianity understands its relation to Judaism, except maybe Pastor Hagee and a few other Christian judaizers. Here is a passage that reflects the Christian view on Judaism:
[16] Then Paul rising up, and with his hand bespeaking silence, said: Ye men of Israel, and you that fear God, give ear. [17] The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers...[...]
[26] Men, brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you fear God, to you the word of this salvation is sent. [27] For they that inhabited Jerusalem, and the rulers thereof, not knowing him, nor the voices of the prophets, which are read every sabbath, judging him have fulfilled them. [28] And finding no cause of death in him, they desired of Pilate, that they might kill him. [29] And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, taking him down from the tree, they laid him in a sepulchre. [30] But God raised him up from the dead the third day: [31] Who was seen for many days, by them who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who to this present are his witnesses to the people.
[...]
[37] But he whom God hath raised from the dead, saw no corruption. [38] Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. [39] In him every one that believeth, is justified. [40] Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken in the prophets:
[41] Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which you will not believe, if any man shall tell it you. [42] And as they went out, they desired them, that on the next sabbath, they would speak unto them these words. [43] And when the synagogue was broken up, many of the Jews, and of the strangers who served God, followed Paul and Barnabas: who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. [44] But the next sabbath day, the whole city almost came together, to hear the word of God. [45] And the Jews seeing the multitudes, were filled with envy, and contradicted those things which were said by Paul, blaspheming.
[46] Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. [47] For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles; that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. [48] And the Gentiles hearing it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed. [49] And the word of the Lord was published throughout the whole country.
(Acts 13; read entire chapter here: www.drbo.org)
As you can see, the fulfillment of Judaism is seen not as literal adherence to the letter of the Torah (the Church easily rejected much of it shortly after Paul gave his sermon), but as material abandonment of God by children of Abraham, and rise of Israel Spiritual which is the Church;
Observe, too, that Christianity is not anti-Jewish, as you claimed, according to its fundamental Holy Books, except in the sense that it certainly preaches to the Jews who persist rejecting True Religion and True God. But one does not preach to whom one does not love. That whole "anti-Jewish" baloney is a bigoted intentionally obtuse slander from beginning to end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.