D starts off by juxtaposing the two most common forms of non-jewish reaction to jews: the philo-Semitic (the jews are generally good) and the anti-Semitic (the jews are generally bad). His example of the philo-Semitic camp (most Evangelical Christians [well in the US anyway]) is reasonable, but his example of the anti-Semitic camp (the Protocols of Zion proponents) is highly misleading. This is unfortunate as D remarks that "'we should first know something about'" the jews before we form an opinion: I would point out that D unfortunately has not followed his own creed here as it is plain as day that he knows very little about opponents of the jews (historically or currently) or even the jews in some instances.
I am sure D would disagree upon reading my comments here, but it is worth understanding that although the Protocols of Zion are the most famous anti-jewish text in this day and age: their believers were never the majority of anti-Semites as far as I can ascertain but rather a very vocal minority (rather like pagans in the Third Reich). Unfortunately some authors on the Protocols; who are often jewish, have propounded a large number of myths surrounding their reception and the belief in them beyond the early years of their mass publication in the West (i.e. from 1917 to the mid-1920s).
Be that as it may be: D's example of the anti-Semitic camp is poorly chosen as it represents only one strand (and not even a major one) of anti-jewish thought and certainly doesn't in any way equate to the widespread and unusual belief systems of Evangelical Christians regarding jewishness. A better example that D could have used would have been the anti-Semitic groups of the 1880s and 1890s in France and Germany, which; although less useful rhetorically speaking, would more accurately describe anti-jewish thought in both its historic and modern contexts in much the same way that the Evangelical Christian example does (perhaps more so than D is aware).
I am somewhat surprised at D's comment that the West "'enjoys'" the" 'benefits'" of a "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" regardless of one's present beliefs, which is a tautology as it simply reasserts the premise without giving the required clarity as to why this is the case. Disproving such an assertion is simple enough as it merely requires a thought experiment.
To wit: if; as D posits, the West has acquired" 'benefits'" from its "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" then surely it has equally acquired "'benefits'" from various genocidal actions that it has undertaken round the world, which therefore means that the "'anti-Imperialist'"arguments of "'national liberation'" used by Marxists and leftists in their various different shades of crimson are correct. In essence: you can't have your cake and eat it. All or none must be true: unless we do as Nietzsche exclaimed and get back to the core of the issues concerned.
The core of the issue is; of course, biology and its necessary concomitant when trying to understand any biological group: sub-species (better known as race). I don't propose to point out at length the need to understand history as an exponential and evolving series of individual and group conflicts, but rather to simply observe that the "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" that D wishes to ascribe such positive values to and derive benefit from has equally been applied to very different peoples with very different effects. Need I remind D of the huge gulf that separate say the Church of Rome from the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the apparent lack of value the Copts have derived from their "'Judeo-Christian heritage' "in comparison to the West?
After all if it is the "'values'" and "'spirituality'" that make the man: then surely we are dealing with the long-debunked theory of the Tabula Rasa (the "'Blank Slate'") here (which essentially posits a pseudo-Lamarckian view of human biology and the resultant veiled denial of Mendelian genetics)? I don't wish to ascribe views; that D may not hold, to him, but I would question whether D has fully understood the necessary implications of his arguments; whether he views them as rhetorical or factual, in a wider context.
Thus the objective constant; per the scientific method, cannot be the "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" of the West that D puts forward, but rather it has to be an objective constant that does differ and does dispassionately alter the socio-cultural expression of a given idea and we have just such an objective constant in biological groups also known as races.
D also incorrectly asserts that the "'basis'" of "'civil law'" is Christian (actually Roman and Greek), our customs (a seriously mixed bag often with non-Christian roots) and that everything we know has grown out of this "'Judeo-Christian'" background. I'd agree with the latter point to an extent, but again D is unfortunately guilty of overstating his case (and in a sense misrepresenting it by doing so) as he doesn't clarify that it is only a part of the background.
If" 'Judeo-Christian'"; a term I personally object to, ideas have played a large background part to things then so have earlier non-Christian ones as well as later secular ones by virtue of the same logic. Need I remind D that the Italian Renaissance has not without reason been styled as the re-emergence of paganism in Europe as it resulted from the rediscovery of pagan art and intellectuals, of which stories are still told (for example the artists who paid to be lowered into Nero's palace so they could study and paint the luxurious frescos).
In essence: you cannot ascribe single causative status to the so-called "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" as it is but one of many worldviews that necessarily have impacted the values and ideas that D holds dear if we choose to look at history in terms of ideas, philosophies and intellectual fashions/fetishes. It is also noteworthy that in ascribing to a "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" a causative power then D is subscribing to the position that an abstract idea; as what on earth is the "'Judeo-Christian heritage'" specifically (it could literally be almost anything), causes an objective fact (the power of the West) to occur. That is rather like suggesting that because the Prophet Mohammed was the Chosen of Allah then the mountain must therefore have sprouted legs and gone to Mohammed in spite of the objective fact that we know mountains cannot move anywhere on their own.
D then makes the statement that if we should have an opinion about the jews then we should know something about with which I generally occur given that I believe that if one deals with the reality of the jew then the world will applaud anti-Semites; like me, but if we don't deal with that reality and make the jew a cruel and inhuman monster then the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semites like me. That said while it is clear to me that D has read some literature on the jews: I would question the factual nature of a lot of his assertions about both Judaism and jews.
After an orthodox; if misguided, evangelical exegesis on the origin of the jews D makes a categorical error when he asserts that" 'to be a Jew came to be one who followed the Law of Moses'" as that leaves out the meaning of the "'Chosen People'"; i.e. that that status is handed down from father to son; if you will, not from a confession of religious faith. The jews were already; at this time, associating jewishness not with confession of faith, but with being descended from the Israelites that Moses allegedly brought out of Egypt (600,000 if one believes the Gemara). I am this surprised to find that D leaves out any mention of the Prophets Nehemiah and Ezra; for example, who preach that exact doctrine to the Israelites and note that while he cites a passage from Genesis he does not cite others that contradict his assertion of a confession of faith being sufficient. The only example I can immediately recall from the Tanakh where a confession of faith is thought to be sufficient to be regarded as a jew; of a sort, is Ruth the Moabitess who is something of an exception to the rule and is probably part of the origin; or at least the rabbinic justification, for jewishness being governed by the maternal line in all instances except for the Kohanim and Levites (where it is the paternal line that matters) from at least the era of the academies (but probably far earlier).
This lack of recognition of the biological nature of jewishness at this early juncture means that the remainder of D's presentation on the history of the jewish kingdoms in Palestine and the sects at the time of Jesus is flawed. He further compounds his error by claiming that "'Judaism is what makes a Jew, at least historically'" which is; I am afraid, not correct as while Judaism has served as the tool which has kept the jewish community together: the jewish sense of mission; even in this early period, and of having a unique and separate identity is obvious from even a brief reading of the academic literature on the subject.
A pointed case is the Hellenizing; i.e. secular, jews; a representative example being Philo of Alexandria: who while not exactly orthodox worshippers of Hashem sought to reconcile Greek and Latin philosophy with Judaism as it then existed. One wonders how D is to explain that if Judaism was the whole of the jewish experience at this early juncture: then how does explain the explicitly jewish individuals; like Herod Agrippa II, who acted in the jewish communities interests in Rome, but were not even slightly interested in Judaism?
Simply put: I am afraid D cannot do so within his outlined ideological position but rather uses an over-generalization to Christianise; for lack of a better term, Judaism and to make it more like later Christianity than later Judaism. One can quite easily see from D's comments that he is using Saint Paul's conception of the meaning of "'gentile'"rather than the one common to Judaism at the time. This is probably merely an accidental expression of D's own beliefs than anything malicious or deliberately misleading, but it never-the-less is dangerously lacking in context and does significantly mislead the reader.
D fails to highlight; due to this fundamental error, for example the well-known links between the Essenes and the Zealots: nor does he highlight that both groups started life as extremist variants within the Pharisees. The Essenes choosing a life of seclusion and abstinence following the "'Teacher of Righteousness'" in; what is sometimes argued as, an early form of monasticism. The Zealots fundamentally believed the same thing as the Essenes, but differed in the belief that they were the hand of Yahweh and could bring about the coming of the jewish Messiah by fighting the Romans tooth and nail as well as purifying Israel of those members who collaborated with the original; in jewish eyes, "'evil empire'".
The difference between the two is perhaps best understood by putting it in the context of modern Judaism: those religious jews who are also Zionists believe that by recreating a jewish state in Palestine they can hasten the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Zealots) and those religious jews who are anti-Zionists who believe that recreating a jewish state in Palestine does not hasten; and in fact prevents, the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Essenes). Neither doubt each other's fundamental religious beliefs, but rather their disagreement is about how to get to the desired state (the Messianic times when the jews rule the world).
Once again the lack of understanding on D's part that Judaism both at this time and later followed a biological definition of what a jew was comes to the fore. As he fails to note that none of the four parties he mentions; the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots, all believed that membership of Israel was inherited not confessed and that their primary objection was not that non-jews were in Palestine, but that they were subordinated; as the Chosen of Yahweh, to a gentile power (the" 'Rome and Persia'" of the Mishnah). As well as that the definition of a gentile was such that one could not truly convert and usually became a "'God Fearer' "(a concept from which the Noahide Laws derive whence a gentile unconditionally dedicates themselves to the service of jews as Yahweh's "'Chosen nation'") or at very best a" 'jewish soul born into an impure gentile body'" (meaning one is a lower class of jew, not a member of Israel as such and at a hereditary disadvantage in marital, social and religious terms etc).
D's comments that Judaism is a legalistic religion; with which one can only agree as Arnold Toynbee did when he called it a "'dead'" religion of ritual and form alone (which follows; for example, Voltaire's mischievous critique of Judaism), and that "'most'" of the Judaism of today has roots; in this particular epoch, in the ideas of the Pharisees is correct. However D then moves into a very confused discussion of Judaism and jewish identity when he tries to justify his claim that Judaism; as a confession of faith, makes the jew.
D doesn't tell us why; after acknowledging that religious and non-religious jews exist within the same identity with a shared historical narrative and assumptions, "'religious faith'" is the single causative factor of this shared identity; which some politically left-wing elements have sought to conflate with the biological concept of the nation through the medium of the term "'national identity'", but rather makes the odd claim that "'despite religious faith, they [the jews] exhibit all of the other characteristics of all Jews.'"
This is yet another tautology as it doesn't explain why; after splitting the jews into religious and secular (which is a gross oversimplification any way you look at it), that jews may still be understood as a religious community with non-religious jews exhibiting religious "'characteristics'". The proverbial "'elephant in the room'" here is that Judaism defines jewishness biologically and therefore the"'other characteristics'" of this "'religious group'" are; in fact, the characteristics of the jewish biological group. There is simply no way around that, but D refuses to mention it although it is clear to me that he understands; but does not wish to or cannot accept, that this is indeed the case.
Tags: what is a clairsentient fruit juice fruit and vegetable diet iguana med iguana green 2cor 5 19 reconciling the revelati the seven gifts of holy spirit
