The Pope, Israel PR And Christ Killed By Jews

Israel News Agency ^ | May 21, 2014 | Joel Leyden

[BonRad]

Cicero is correct.

[IsraelBeach]

The person who said to me that they would "not Jew me down" did not say this with ill intent either. I'm not saying that your father was a racist. But he could have used better terminology to articulate what he wanted to say.

We need to watch our words. They can cut deeper than a knife.

[Sherman Logan]

We need to watch our words. They can cut deeper than a knife.

Really?

Come back to me after you've actually been cut with a knife by someone with ill intent, then explain to me again how this young lady's poor choice of words cut deeper.

Are we to assign the same level of censorship to the terms gyp, go dutch, welsh on a bet, etc.? Is it horrible and racist and "cuts deeper than a knife" to recognize the general accuracy of the common sterotypes that Finns and Swedes are stolid and humorless, Scots are cheap, and Irishmen are often drunk? BTW, I carry the blood of all the groups I've mentioned here except the Finns and the Gypsies.

I have read some remarkably evil things said over the years by Jews about non-Jews. Should I extrapolate from these idiots to all Jews, as you seem to extrapolate from one non-malicious remark by an American to America in general?

Have you ever used the term "shiksa" to refer to a non-Jewish female? Are you familiar with the origin of this term? Do you consider someone using the term to be racist? Why or why not?

The Talmud has some highly unpleasant things to say about Christ and Christians. Should those passages be edited out because I'm offended? (I'm not, actually, just amused by some who can see only "offenses" committed against their group, not those their own group commits.)

To get back to "words cut deeper than a knife," what happened to "Sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

To my mind the words used by others have power to really hurt me only if I grant them that power. The only reason I can think of for doing so is to find a reason to continue to be racially or ethnically offended in a world, or at least a country, that is the most hospitable to Jews in probably their entire long history.

You seem to have a remarkably odd understanding of the relationship between the Pope and the text of the Bible. The Pope has no authority or power to "edit" the text of the Bible. The Pope, according to Catholics, derives his authority from the Bible, not the other way around.

Let us assume your demand for editing of the New Testament were to be acted on. Do you seriously think it would reduce anti-semitism? Don't you think it would tie in remarkably well with the theories of those who think Jews secretly control the world? Would a secret trade in black-market "real" Bibles develop? What would you propose as punishment for those who traffic in or possess such evil literature?

There is a good bit of anti-semitism in the world today. Remarkably little of it has roots in antagonism based on Christian belief. The vast majority is either Muslim or leftist in origin. Do you really think it makes sense to go after a minor and diminishing "cause" of anti-semitism when these other causes are major and growing?

[Zionist Conspirator]

The only problem with that is that the Pope would have to admit that the "divinely inspired 'new testament'" is wrong. Despite the Catholic Church's gutting of Genesis, I don't see this happening.

It is most unbecoming for one religion to ask another to alter its internal teachings . . . outside of an attempt at conversion. But for some crazy reason, proselytization is considered A Bad Thing while dictating internal changes in other people's religions is "social justice."

Instead of asking non-Jews to make a few changes to their religions, Jews should be teaching them the Noachide Laws--period.

PS--Classifying the statement "Jew you down" with mass murder seems a bit of a stretch.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Why a moron? The Vatican and others have denounced the killing of Christ by Jews in the past.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that "what happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, "We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism." Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting "interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people."

Please see my initial reply to you.

You don't seem to understand what all is involved in renouncing what has always been regarded as "holy writ." Even though it's not objectively, chrstians have always believed that it is.

One does not simply change millenia-old doctrine in this way (though, as I said, many chrstians do this with Genesis, because "we now know" so much more).

One need not be a chrstian or even sympathize with chrstians in order to see the problem with making such changes. To be fair, chrstians are equally unreasonable in making such demands of the moslems.

A religion is either true or it isn't. One doesn't make a false religion any truer by making a few internal changes. Why not promote the Noachide Laws among non-Jews? Wouldn't a world where non-Jews were Noachides be the safest possible world for Jews to live in?

Your argument is very utilitarian and very secular. You don't seem to understand the importance of religious claims, though please forgive me if I am wrong.