Jesus Week

[Elok]

Well, let's not get hung up on who started it...I seem to recall the historical diversions were "started" by you discussing the historical treatment Jews received at the hands of Calvinists, but no doubt you have your own example. I'm just saying that you can't judge faiths by actions when the actions contradict the faiths. I've never heard anyone with the gall to suggest that Christianity is for child molesters just because David Koresh humped little girls while spouting some made-up gibberish. If the religion does not indicate that "thou shalt drink the Kool-aid," and some members of that religion drink the Kool-aid...so what? The Orthodox of today and the Orthodox of yesterday have in common most aspects of their religion. What they do not have in common is a whole slew of historical circumstances, ranging from socioeconomic status to degree of education. If there is nothing in the religion itself to indicate it's the cause...

And before you start, there isn't. John Chrysostom was well-respected for his opinions; specifically, his opinions on the interpretation of scripture as it applied to daily life. Kind of like we Orthodox honor Augustine as a saint even though we disagree with his battier ideas, which were what led to some of the RCC's problems. Or like Henry Ford was a terrible antisemite but we can respect his ability to make a good car. I was not aware that people throughout the ages paid especial attention to the "damn those Jews" bits in Chrysostom, except for modern Jews sniffing out "a pervasive history of antisemitism." And no doubt there was, supportable by one very vague bit in the Gospel of Matthew and contradicted by everything else.

You've already supplied the reason why Calvinists did not exploit that tired gimmick like everybody else (and it was nothing to their credit): they had an indiscriminate scorn for others already. I don't think you realize just how deeply their theology segregates them. Are you familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism? They're abbreviated TULIP, but I forget what they stand for. I know the first and last are "Total depravity of man" and "Perseverance of the saints." The ones in between systematically eliminate every logical, individual choice-based interpretation. The Elect were not chosen for any special merit, they have merit only because they are chosen if they happen to show merit. and if they do not they are saved in spite of their lack of merit which just goes to show God's mercy, et cetera.

I don't know about historical conduct, but I do know that it's some sick stuff, and all the worst zealots, including Fred Phelps, seem to be huge fans of TULIP. I'm talking beyond creationists and clinic bombers, into the realm of "living in a compound plotting to blow up Government buildings" crazy. Phelps is hardly mainstream, but his stuff depends strongly on it; it's okay to hate Them because you were chosen and They weren't. And he's "Baptist," BTW.

Idunno. I haven't checked into the beliefs of all the nuts out there, but I know it's also responsible for, or at least deeply embedded in, the Christian Identity movement. You know, the guys who claim whites are the true Israel and Jews are mostly black or something. The ideology seems to attract megalomania like honey attracts bees. Something about the whole "it's okay, you're just instruments in a bigger scheme" argument, as made popular by Hitler and Stalin.

And I submit to you that, whether you have time for it or not, understanding why others do what they do is absolutely crucial. If you only react to their actions, you're well on your way to a mindless cycle of detached retribution.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Elok

Well, let's not get hung up on who started it...I seem to recall the historical diversions were "started" by you discussing the historical treatment Jews received at the hands of Calvinists, but no doubt you have your own example.

actually John T started it.

i'm just saying that you can't judge faiths by actions when the actions contradict the faiths. I've never heard anyone with the gall to suggest that Christianity is for child molesters just because David Koresh humped little girls while spouting some made-up gibberish. If the religion does not indicate that "thou shalt drink the Kool-aid," and some members of that religion drink the Kool-aid...so what?

Any faith can be interpreted in different ways, and theres no way for someone outside the faith tradition to judge which is more authentic. Thats the problem i have equally with rightist who claim Islam is intrinsically violent or antisemitic or whatever, and others who say Islam is a religion of peace. And who proceed to argue about which is the right interpretation of the Koran. Im not muslim so for ME there is NO right intrerpretation of the koran. Ergo i can ONLY judge religious communities by their actions, and can NOT judge faiths QUA faiths at all - unless they are faiths that are live options for ME and which I am wrestling with. And its just silly to say that antisemitism is no more mainstream to the christian churches historically than child molesting is.

The Orthodox of today and the Orthodox of yesterday have in common most aspects of their religion. What they do not have in common is a whole slew of historical circumstances, ranging from socioeconomic status to degree of education. If there is nothing in the religion itself to indicate it's the cause...

Thats why I didnt quote an an uneducated peasant, but a great and scholarly man.

And before you start, there isn't. John Chrysostom was well-respected for his opinions; specifically, his opinions on the interpretation of scripture as it applied to daily life. Kind of like we Orthodox honor Augustine as a saint even though we disagree with his battier ideas, which were what led to some of the RCC's problems. Or like Henry Ford was a terrible antisemite but we can respect his ability to make a good car. I was not aware that people throughout the ages paid especial attention to the "damn those Jews" bits in Chrysostom, except for modern Jews sniffing out "a pervasive history of antisemitism."

Ive seen people whove said that his antisemitic homilies WERE quoted through the ages, by antisemites, though
i did not see citations. I dont have the time to research this.


And no doubt there was, supportable by one very vague bit in the Gospel of Matthew and contradicted by everything else.

You've already supplied the reason why Calvinists did not exploit that tired gimmick like everybody else (and it was nothing to their credit): they had an indiscriminate scorn for others already.

actually, looking at the history the Dutch Republic, for example, I think their tolerance went beyond that. But I dont think it matters. If someone commits atrocities out of good intentions, theyre still atrocities. If they do a good deed out of poor intentions, its still a good deed. But then we're getting, I think to fundamental differences between Pauline ethics and rabbinic ethics.

I don't think you realize just how deeply their theology segregates them. Are you familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism? They're abbreviated TULIP, but I forget what they stand for. I know the first and last are "Total depravity of man" and "Perseverance of the saints." The ones in between systematically eliminate every logical, individual choice-based interpretation. The Elect were not chosen for any special merit, they have merit only because they are chosen if they happen to show merit. and if they do not they are saved in spite of their lack of merit which just goes to show God's mercy, et cetera.

Why should I care how isolated they are?

i don't know about historical conduct, but I do know that it's some sick stuff, and all the worst zealots, including Fred Phelps, seem to be huge fans of TULIP. I'm talking beyond creationists and clinic bombers, into the realm of "living in a compound plotting to blow up Government buildings" crazy. Phelps is hardly mainstream, but his stuff depends strongly on it; it's okay to hate Them because you were chosen and They weren't. And he's "Baptist," BTW.

Idunno. I haven't checked into the beliefs of all the nuts out there, but I know it's also responsible for, or at least deeply embedded in, the Christian Identity movement. You know, the guys who claim whites are the true Israel and Jews are mostly black or something. The ideology seems to attract megalomania like honey attracts bees. Something about the whole "it's okay, you're just instruments in a bigger scheme" argument, as made popular by Hitler and Stalin.

Now I think youre doing just what you accuse others of doing. When my shul was being renovated, we held services for almost a a year at the local Presbyterian church. They were friendly and hospitable, and we will be returning the favor this year. Yet the Presbys are a historically Calvinist church. You brush Calvinism in general with the actions of american fundies of various stripes, including the most extreme. Im sure, if i looked, i could find examples, from say, Serbia, or Russia, of some very bad things done by beleiving Orthodox, who would defend that their interpretation is right and not yours. Im sure I could find some Presbyterian minister who would argue that his (or her) version of Calvinism is more the right one than Fred Phelps', if Phelps is indeed a Calvinist.

And I submit to you that, whether you have time for it or not, understanding why others do what they do is absolutely crucial. If you only react to their actions, you're well on your way to a mindless cycle of detached retribution.

But im not arguing for retribution. Im not calling for the firebombing of Orthodox churches, or of Mosques. So i dont see what retribution has to do with it. What Im saying is that when you come to me, and want to dialogue, the dialogue has to start with your ACTIONS, and my actions. You can get merit with G-d for your faith, but Im not G-d.

I dont see why this is so hard. The Roman Catholic Church HAS acknowledged responsibility for antisemitism (even while saying that the new view is the "right" one) That serves as the basis for ongoing dialogue.

Lets go back to the start.

JohnT started by asking how a JEW would react, theologically, to the crucifixion. He suggested that the history of persecution and exile, would make Jews angry at G-d. While i have quibbles with JohnT view of history, he is RIGHT that dealing with that history is a key question for Judaism. But what WE deal with, what we need to reconcile with whatever view of G-d and his relationship with us we have, is the history of what people DID - NOT what people believed. So a group of odd folks decided the whole world was depraved, and then despite that, treated us well, and invented religious tolerance, and conquered the spice islands, and fought a civil war in England, and made Thanksgiving with the indians, and hung quakers, and then their descendents became nice and abolitionists and liberals, while a group of folks who were their abolitionist ancestors sworn enemies adopted some of their views on depravity, is a puzzling story, to be sure, but no more odd than some of the many paganisms we've dealt with. I dont care that Oliver Cromwell believed in the depravity of man than that Cyrus the Great believed in Ahura Mazda. Its not something i bother G-d about. What WAS done, ever since Constantine by people who claimed to believe in love, and who sometimes did it BECAUSE of their "loving" beliefs" is more my concern. Ad matai - How long, lord, how long?

[Elok]

I'm afraid you're not following me. I have class soon, so allow me to illustrate my biggest concern with an example which has happened many, many times throughout history:

Say there are two cultures, Culture A and Culture B. Culture A is relatively advanced, sedentary, and prosperous, while Culture B is poor, semi-nomadic, and ignorant. Culture A, for whatever reason, decides to move in on Culture B's land. Because, quite honestly, Culture B is hardly using it. Like most primitive peoples, they're just hunting and gathering across the landscape in tiny numbers. That same land, properly cultivated, could support hundreds of currently-starving poor people from Culture A. They may also have some religious opinions about the land in question, or some bad blood with Culture B. So they move in and colonize the land. Culture B reacts with irritation at this sudden influx of foreigners who look down on them as savages.

They react at first by complaining, but as Culture A continues to occupy their land and a few bad apples start taking advantage of them, they lose patience and start fighting physically. Nomadic peoples are usually much more hardened to a harsh existence than sedentary ones, plus their pride is offended by these strangers who plainly think themselves superior.

So their reaction is initially relatively mild by their standards, but still quite shocking to Culture A, which can honestly say that most of them never did anything to merit such treatment. Outraged, they respond by cracking down on the dirty savages of Culture B, who respond with something still more harsh. This trend continues on and on and on. Culture B are usually the more brutal of the two, because Culture A, with their technological and economic advantages, can more easily afford to be merciful.

Fast forward years, decades, centuries even. Now the individual from Culture B is fairly integrated into Culture A, but he still periodically kills Culture A members because they killed his cousin Fred, who killed their brother Todd, who killed his uncle Roger, and so on. Each side is judging the other by their past actions, and can precisely list what's gone on for the whole time. At any point you can stop them and they will give a long litany of grievances, most or all of them correct. And, until one side thinks to look at it from the other's point of view, tries to understand why what was done was done, it'll stay this way for a long, long time.

Whoops, class time. Do you get my drift?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm afraid you're not following me. I have class soon, so allow me to illustrate my biggest concern with an example which has happened many, many times throughout history:

Say there are two cultures, Culture A and Culture B. Culture A is relatively advanced, sedentary, and prosperous, while Culture B is poor, semi-nomadic, and ignorant. Culture A, for whatever reason, decides to move in on Culture B's land. Because, quite honestly, Culture B is hardly using it. Like most primitive peoples, they're just hunting and gathering across the landscape in tiny numbers. That same land, properly cultivated, could support hundreds of currently-starving poor people from Culture A. They may also have some religious opinions about the land in question, or some bad blood with Culture B. So they move in and colonize the land. Culture B reacts with irritation at this sudden influx of foreigners who look down on them as savages.

They react at first by complaining, but as Culture A continues to occupy their land and a few bad apples start taking advantage of them, they lose patience and start fighting physically. Nomadic peoples are usually much more hardened to a harsh existence than sedentary ones, plus their pride is offended by these strangers who plainly think themselves superior.

So their reaction is initially relatively mild by their standards, but still quite shocking to Culture A, which can honestly say that most of them never did anything to merit such treatment. Outraged, they respond by cracking down on the dirty savages of Culture B, who respond with something still more harsh. This trend continues on and on and on. Culture B are usually the more brutal of the two, because Culture A, with their technological and economic advantages, can more easily afford to be merciful.

Fast forward years, decades, centuries even. Now the individual from Culture B is fairly integrated into Culture A, but he still periodically kills Culture A members because they killed his cousin Fred, who killed their brother Todd, who killed his uncle Roger, and so on. Each side is judging the other by their past actions, and can precisely list what's gone on for the whole time. At any point you can stop them and they will give a long litany of grievances, most or all of them correct. And, until one side thinks to look at it from the other's point of view, tries to understand why what was done was done, it'll stay this way for a long, long time.

Whoops, class time. Do you get my drift?

What youve listed mainly involves an understanding of material circumstances and historical context, not a detailed understanding of religious doctrines.

I dont see what it has to do with our discussion Calvinists, etc.

If its a reference to the current situation in the middle east, its not an accurate charecterization of whats going on at all.


Perhaps its a charecterization of the settlement of North America. Thats one of my current interests, but I cant say at this point I know enough about the history of the native americans to charecterize if what youre saying is accurate.

[Elok]

I was referring partly to the ME, partly to America, partly to whatever happens whenever more and less advanced civilizations collide. I generalized it (hastily, due to time constraints) in order to avoid seeming like a direct assault.

The thing that always gets me about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, I've never heard anyone mention "the compensation we gave to the scattered Arabs populating the area" or "we did ask if they were cool with us moving a couple of million people in next door, they gave it a thumbs-up." I suspect that the reason I don't hear such things mentioned is that they never happened.

I avoided asking till now because whenever this conversation starts, people start screaming about how the suicide bombers killed all five of their great-aunts and people were just trying to earn a living and so on. Provided I mention it near a Jew, that is. If I mention it to an Arab, they comment bitterly that nobody gives a rat's rear what happens to the Arabs so long as the Jews are all settled in.

And the fact of the matter is, I don't care "what's happening now." Or what happened in 1974 with the twenty-third broken peace accord and some mercenary army from Unpronounceable Name, Lebanon which committed atrocities against whoever. What it boils down to is a story not much different from our treatment of the Natives here, it seems. What matters is what happened then and how it's being allowed to dominate what's happening now through the proxy of a whole mess of intervening circumstances nobody without a grudge can keep straight.

The Jews settled the land without consulting their new neighbors or compensating them for the land occupied (if you did, you really should mention it more, as it's extremely relevant). Said neighbors, being ignorant and poor, reacted the way ignorant and poor people always do, with increasing vehemence. What's happened since then is basically just a long record of which cranky sibling hit which, at what intervals, and how hard.

And it's brewed up by the same attitude you're championing. It's all about what happened to US. Forget bigger context, competing or clashing value systems. Or universal human frailty. It's all measured by what they did to my people, my set, and when. That's the measure of good and bad. It doesn't matter if it's Israelis and Zionism, or us honkies and Manifest Destiny, or the Brits and whatever crap they touted as an excuse for pushing in on whatever people. Details of what don't matter half as much as why.

I'm focusing mostly on your Judeocentrism, now. As opposed to, you know, judging things based on a universally human perspective rather than just you Hatfields and them no good McCoys. This was fairly tangental to our main discussion, I admit. I just felt that in one respect, your attitude is positively toxic, not "just another alternative." It had to come out.

WRT Calvinism, I wasn't being a hypocrite. We're talking about judging belief systems here, and I assume you meant judging them AS belief systems. Belief qua belief, as Agathon and such would say. If a hateful behavior appears persistently within a tradition, it's possible that said behavior was a result of something innate to that tradition itself...or that it's just a long-running trend infused in the belief system but in no respect intrinsic to it. We Orthodox have a long tradition of eating cracked wheat at funerals, but that's not intrinsic to the religion. It's just some crap that grew to be a custom for whatever reasons.

In the case of antisemitism, well, as Jews have wryly observed, almost everyone for the past two millenia has beaten the crap out of the Jews. This was in many cases tied to religious justification, but that can run pretty thin at times, so it can also be linked to anything up to and including "looking funny." The fact is, the Jews were vulnerable to ubiquitous, preexisting xenophobia, largely because of their status as a nationless people; the crap about killing Jesus or whatever is just convenient ammunition in case you can't think of a conspiracy theory involving bankers and the media.

With the Calvinists, OTOH, it seems to me that the horrible things mentioned are directly tied to their core beliefs. That predestination crap is two inches south of nihilism, and where it hasn't flared up as such I think it's because the social problems that triggered their nastier neighbors haven't come into play in those circumstances.