Since the "holiday" shopping season has officially started, it seems like a discussion on the origins of "X-mas"- formerly known as Christmas- is appropiate.
As most of you probably already know, Christmas was originally a holiday that commemorated Jesus Christ's birth. Since then, it has been turned into a commercial holiday, that celebrates gift-giving, joy, peace, and other generic concepts. These themes aren't bad themselves, when celebrated in conjunction with the ultimate gift, which brought hope for joy and peace, but when Christ's birth is taken out of the picture, they are worthless.
Sometime after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity (which I personally think was a purely political move) the date for Christmas was chosen so as to coincide with a traditional pagan festival, in order to ensure its celebration. Many have used this to say that Christmas is just a pagan holiday, made up for "sinister" purposes, but the date of Christmas is really of no consequence- the celebration, and remembrance, is what counts.Over the course of the 20th century, various "civil rights" groups- especially the ACLU- have sued to remove all trace of Christianity from Christmas, and even to remove the Christmas from Christmas, if you get my meaning. They have replaced Christmas with X-mas at many public places- as if the word Christ is dangerous or bigoted. The have even removed Christmas trees, replacing them with "holiday trees" that do not have stars and angels on the treetops; everyone knows that they are really just Christmas trees by a different name. Anymore, "Happy Holidays" is the correct greeting, as if "Merry Christmas" is insulting. So let me get this straight: just because someone doesn't celebrate Christmas, they are going to be insulted by the mention of it?
Speaking of Happy Holidays, today's "separation of church and state" and diversity fanatics have asserted that all holidays celebrated during November and December are equal, which is obviously false, and demeaning to other religions. Hanukah, contrary to popular belief, is not Judaism's primary holiday- that would probably be, among a host of other festivals, Passover. Kwanza doesn't even celebrate anything that even our watered down version of Christmas doesn't; it was made just for "black pride."
I really can't understand the problem so many people seem to have with recognizing Christmas for what it is. If Christmas offends people so much, then why is its celebration such a big deal in America? People need to get over their hyped-up notions of sensitivity and political correctness.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Just one problem with using X for Christmas. It doesn't really replace the Christ part. In the Greek alphabet, the X was part of Christ and so putting X in X-mas doesn't really replace the Christ. People just think it does. And actually, most stores now use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because it's more politically correct.
Most Christians I've spoken to find the use of the X in rather bad taste. It's true that it doesn't actually replace the "Christ", but I've never heard that the reasoning behind it was that it was in the Greek spelling--I think that might just be coincidence. My grandfather was a priest and he used to say the X was a crude reference to the fact that Christ died on a cross. So I've always considered the use of "Xmas" to be rather offensive.
CEM
I've never heard of it referred to in a derrogatory way before, but as a Christian, I am elated that Christ was Crucified. I am saddened that He had to be, but elated that he did so for me.
How many people actually know that the "X" is supposed to be for Christ. If so, then why don't they spell in Greek. It must be because Christ is sooo long and hard to spell. The fact that stores use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas because it's more politically correct is the exact point. When will someone stand up to the nonsense that the left spews out?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Since when is there something wrong with Happy Holidays?
It's the same darn thing, except that it includes everyone. Maybe the inclusion bothers you, because your religion is based on EXCLUSION and genocide.
HUH?
"Exclusion and genocide"? Since when was Christianity founded on exclusion and genocide? Christianity was started when Christ died on the cross for our sins (all of us). How is that exclusive. Granted, many medieval so-called Christian leaders used Christianity as a pretext for murders, wars, and Inquisitions, but that does not prove that Christianity is based on exclusion and genocide.
P.S. Inclusion doesn't bother me, people beating around the bush to avoid hurting a hypothetical person's feelings bothers me.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
The practice of genocide is clearly documented in the christian scriptures. According to the holy texts of the christian religion, "the LORD" quite often commanded his followers to commit genocide. For example...
"Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:11-14)
"And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you." (Leviticus 26:7-9)
"So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. " (Joshua 6:20-21)
"And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 8:24)
"And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho." (Joshua 10:28)
"Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho." (Joshua 10:29-30)
"And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it: 10:32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah." (Joshua 10:31-32)
"Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining." (Joshua 10:33)
"And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it: And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish." (Joshua 10:34-35)
"And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein." (Joshua 10:36-37)
"And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it: And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king." (Joshua 10:38-39)
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." (Joshua 10:40-41)
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)
I know that modern christians like to hide behind the relatively peaceful message of the new testament, but let's not forget that there are two other aspects of the christian trinity, and at least one of them is painted by the scriptures as an extremely bloodthirsty being.
Those words are common enough in christian platitudes, but in reality your religion only applies this theology to those folks who have agree to exchange worship for this indulgence.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Being God, the creator of the universe, the maker of man, I think he has the right to decide what's right and wrong for his people and to take their lives, the lives which he made.
If you just want to look at the fact that there was a war that God told his people to start, than of course you're going to have a biased opinion, in order to understand the reasons for that war you need to look for the reason it started.
It's evident in life that war is necessary, people don't agree on things and sadly it results in some one either taking our life, our us defending our selves and taking theirs.
It doesn't matter if we don't want God to exist, or if we decide that he's not living up to our expectations, if he is God he will always be God, he decides what's right and wrong and he knows why he does things, he doesn't have to explain to us why he does, but the Bible tells us.
So if you just want to go looking for a history of violence without looking for the cause of that violence, than you're most likely going to think that it was either unnecessary or unjust.
As a Christian and as a person I hate violence, but I understand that sometimes it's necessary, because regardless of how much I want peace, I realize there are those out there that don't and will do what ever it takes to stop us from having it.
That results in us either fighting for our right at such, or just giving up and letting our children and the people we care about suffer because we didn't think it was necessary.
Not being attached to a religion, I think I am more open-minded than you.
And I find it sad that you refuse to accept the truth about the history of your religion, and instead take the easy way out.
lol. So yeah I'm just a closed minded person because I actually think maybe there was a reason for such things?
Tell me if you will, what do you think the world should be like?
Open my mind to your open minded fews?
Also I test everything that I believe, if something strikes my conscience as wrong then I search it out and if I don't find an answer than I keep searching.
If I find my answer and it seems unjust I don't just ignore it, the answers I find either build my faith or weaken it and the reason I believe what I do is because the answers I have found are not always what I'm looking for but define my faith even more and strengthen it.
If I didn't believe this with all of my heart than I would not put my life on it, I wouldn't want to live for something unreal.
Also it seems much more closed minded to me to assume that we are here for nothing, that everything just in a unmiraculous way came to be.
Plus I realize that regardless of what I believe the truth will always be there, if there is no God than there is no God, if there is a God than I'm going to live for him.
As long as I don't threaten some else's freedom I have every right to believe what I do.
If nothing divine exists than I have nothing to fear right?
A reason for genocide?
Great, let's condone genocide.
Are you asking me if there's a reason for genocide?
If so, I don't know when I condoned genocide, I said God has every right to decide what his people should and should not do, but I also said that you have to find out the reason such wars were fought, if it was for simply selfish reasons than yes it is wrong.
I was also trying to add that the Bible is a historical book just as it is the word of God.
But I only defend justice and freedom and the right to defend such things, if some one is threatening your right or some else's right at such, than you should defend yourself or other people.
Right so genocide ok as long as somebody decides it's God's will.
Uh huh.
lol wow Ok you just don't want to think about what I said at all, do you?
I was saying that it is not genocide if the wars are fought for a reason such as defending yourselves, defending freedom as a people, or to stop what those people were doing from spreading.
I would also like to point out that my reply was not to you but in response to Percivale and his comment.
You make me laugh.
Haha, well as you can see you make me laugh too.
Perhaps I am a simpleton, but I simply cannot imagine any situation where I would need to "defend" either myself or "freedom" from the infant children of my enemies.
That's okay. I think that engkatiemarie has represented my opinion fairly well in her exchange with you. Your point of view is indicative of the problems that arise from religious fanatacism, and arguably from religion in any sense.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
If your "conscience" doesn't see the act of murding the infant children of your enemies as "wrong," then I don't think you're looking hard enough.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Wow. Thanks for summing up for us in one sentence exactly what is wrong with the concept of religion. And, while that argument might work on other christians who are killing other christians but I think that you will find that to the two-thirds of the world that doesn't share your beliefs, such arguments are rather less than convincing.
The question proposed was whether or nor genocide was part of the foundation of christianity. I showed that according to the holy texts of christianity, it is. And, I really don't see the "bias" in pointing to the actual contents of the bible, and noting what those legends actually say.
I reject your notion that "war is necessary." No matter how inevitable a war may seem, it ultimately always boils down to the willingness of one human being to take the life of another. If even one human is capable of making the choice to put the lives all other humans before his own, then it is possible for us to all make that same choice. It isn't a very likely scenario at this point in our evolution as a society, I admit, but it is a possibility that is far more worthy of pursuit than any philosophy which glorifies violence and the death of one's enemies. Even christianity contains some glimmer of this hope...
"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same." (Luke 6:27-33)
...though that is a lesson that seems lost on the faithful of the church from its earliest days, and rarely proves to be more than just a platitude offered to excuse you from taking responsiblity for the wounds that you inflict upon others.
That sounds like a pretty convenient excuse, to me. I look around the world and I see LOTS of religions, and the great majority of them at least seem to think that they have some special understanding of the mind and motivations of the "gods" that they worship. You comments remind me of one of my favorite quotes...
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." ~ Susan B. Anthony
The simple fact is that no matter how fierce is your faith in your "god," you really don't have any more claim to the actualevidence that we can see of the worth of your religion as a philosophy and potential guide for human behavior is the results that your philosophy has produced on the pages of history. And frankly, I don't think that christianity (or any of the world's other major religion's for that matter) has done very well in that regard.
Please explain to me if you can what is "necessary" or "just" about the killing of "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." As much as I despise war, I can accept to a point that wars do happen and that killing your enemies is part of the package. But these passages don't just descrive a "war." They describe the genocide of entire peoples. I cannot accept the idea that there is ever a "good" reason for murdering (and there really is no kinder term for it) the infant children of your enemies. No matter what the adults of a society might have done to you or your forebearers, to intentionally slay infant children as part of a military campaign is as close to an objective evil as any moral judgment can be.
It is easy to hate the violence that others direct at you, but you don't seem to have any hate at all for the violence that you direct at others. In fact, you seem to condone and even praise any act of violence which you think can be justified as part of the will of your "god."
You words are pure hypocrisy. If you are not willing to condemn the act of genocide, even though that act originated within your own faith, then you have no credibility to speak against the violence of others. If you are not willing to speak out against ALL acts of violence and genocide, regardless of their source, then you are part of the problem rather than the solution.
Religious fanatics really piss me off.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
I second that opinion, and agree with everything you have written here.
Thank you.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor do I need to.
I do hope that you can come to find salvation through Christ, but I'm not trying to persuade you to believe what I do.
I'm stating my opinion, and I want to offer possibly others and yourself a different side.
In reference to wars, I stated that the Bible as well as being the word of God is also a historical book telling us of wars that God intervened with, and wars that he did not.
If I just look at the fact there was a war where people died, of course I would think it was wrong, but I'm going to search for the cause of the war, the reasons for the war and the results of those wars, and from that decide what I will believe, and decide if I personally think it was wrong.
I believe also through self wittiness that peace is possible, but both sides have to be willing to share that peace.
I have no problem with trying to come to a resolution but often one side will not agree, and I'm going to defend myself and my loved ones.
I will say very admittedly that my inner desires don't want to agree with what I believe, because what I believe tells me to refuse those desires, being hate, greed, lust, selfishness.
I never said that my desires were such before I came to know the lord, but after, I believe through faith he changed my heart, and through Christ I am a new Creation.
I don't condone inflicted violence, I condone self defense and the actions associated with it.
If genocide did originate within my believe than I will have to search that out, and obviously I would not agree with it if that is the case.
I have said time and time again though, people can do something in the name of a certain group or religion or society, and not necessarily be living by the rules or guidelines for that group.
Also I believe Christ was the change, I still have some searching to do, there are always times where I question the Bible and that is when I look for the answers.
My faith is usually strengthened through the answers but there are still answers I'm still seeking.
I am not going to hurt any one unjustly, regardless of what anything tells me to.
You're right. You don't "need" to convince anyone of anything. But, since you have decided to respond in an obvious attempt to rebutt my coments, I think it is fair to expect that our back and forth discussing our respective points of view would include a bit more depth than an hit and run statement of your "opinion."
There is a famous adage about "opinions," which I will refrian from repeating here. But the simple fact is that just having an opinion doesn't mean that it is a very well informed opinion, or that it is an opinion that is objectively supported by the evidence at hand.
I think it is disingenous the way that you seem to casually downplay that according to the bible, these were not just "wars that God intervened with." Rather, the bible says that in these wars "the LORD" specifically commanded his followers to commit actions that today could only be described as genocidal in character, specifically commanding the death not only of warriors, but of the women and children (and for some reason even the animals) of the people "he" wished destroyed.
Since you avoided my question above, I will ask you again if you can please explain to me if you can what is "necessary" or "just" about the killing of "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Do you think that the killing of the infant children of your enemies is wrong, even if "the LORD" commands it, or do you not?
Are you suggesting that the "infant and suckling" children that were murdered in these campaigns at the command of "the LORD" were asked first if they wanted peace? And even if they were, do you really thing that "infant and suckling" children would be able to give an answer to such a question?
If a man points a gun at your family and you kill him, that's one thing. But if a man points a gun at your family and you kill him, and his wife, and their six-month-old child as well...then you're a monster, and not one whit more worthy of sympathy than the man who threatened you and yours.
I don't doubt that this represents a conflict for you. But, the simple fact is that the holy texts of the christian religion tells the story quite plainly that "the LORD" has at times commanded his followers to commit acts against their enemies that can only be described as genocidal. You may not like it, but its a core part of the theology of anyone who calls themself christian in any context which includes a recognition of the bible as a source of "divine" philosophical revelation.
That is certainly true, but to remain true to your statement, you really only have two options. You can either deny the validity of the biblical texts which claim that "the LORD" commanded his followers to do these things. Or you must accept that the deity you worship has in fact commanded his followers to commit genoncide in his name.
I can certainly see where the story of "Christ" represents a theological shift for modern christians. But, I honestly cannot comprehend the leap of logic that would cause you to claim that the commandments of "the LORD" of your religion are not representative of any theology dedicated to "his" worship. I mean, its not like we're talking about someone who knocks over a vase and say, "my bad." We're talking about the intentional mass murder of entire cultures...men, women, children and beasts.
Then I have a question for you. If you ever became convinced that "the LORD" had commanded you...specifically...to kill another human being, would you do it?
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Do not demonstrate how Christ was genocidal.
"The practice of genocide is clearly documented in the Christian scriptures."
A desire to criticize Christianity (notice the root word Christ) should be based on Christian teachings. If you wish to be anti-Semitic toward Jews then the examples you gave from the torah might have some bearing, but since the authors are long dead it seems like more bigoted racist rhetoric. How many of the acts or writings of your tribe are you responsible for that occurred before your birth?
" 'Christianity was started when Christ died on the cross for our sins (all of us).'
Those words are common enough in christian platitudes, but in reality your religion only applies this theology to those folks who have agree to exchange worship for this indulgence. "
Yes, if you continue to insist on hating then the teachings, and salvation brought by Christ are not going to benefit you at all even if you worship full time, except that you live among a more tolerant society that you reject.
Perhaps attempting to tar a religion with crimes that came from the religion preceding it, and occurred thousands of years ago if at all seems like good sport to you. It seems like an attempt to hate for trivial reasons to me. Would it be less valid to look at which state religion has produced the most copious genocides where witnesses still live to testify?
Is it or is it not true that all of the major modern sects of the christian religion include the Old Testament (in some form) amongst their collections of cannonical holy texts?
It is or is it not true that all of the major modern sects of the the christian religion worship the being referred to in the Old Testament as "the LORD" as the "godhead" of their religion?
Is it or is it not true that all of the major modern sects of the christian religion consider the "Christ" referred to in the New Testament to be acting as an intermediary of forgiveness between mankind and the being referred to in the Old Testament as "the LORD?"
I level exactly the same criticisms against the jewish religion for the contents of their bible that I level against the christian religion for theirs. Your attempt to paint me as a "bigoted racist," however, fails on two main points. For one, I am not criticizing anyone on the basis of their race (which is a scientifically fallacious concept, anyway). In fact, I am not criticizing anyone based on similar perception of inherent characteristics. Your ad hominem is nothing more than a desperate and childish attempt to distract from the fact that what we are discussing are the elemental foundations of a philosophy that continues only through the voluntary adherence of individual humans to its doctrines.
And despite your diversionary ascription of these acts to "long dead authors," in fact we can see the defenders of this philosophy acting in the here and now, and in this very thread of discussion. In fact, just a few comments above we have the example of one of your fellow christians defending any act of genocide as "just," so long as it is believed that "god" tells you to do it.
If you are accusing me of "hating" teachings that include the glorification of the mass murder of innocents at the command of your "god," then I am guilty as charged. It is unfortunate (for your argument) that you simply can't have it both ways. An inclusive philosophy does not set conditions on who can and cannot be included beneath its mantle. By placing the requirement of worship as an obstacle to the "salvation" you say is offered, your religion is by definition and an exclusive philosophy.
And, pardon me if I just don't see the religious benefits that you suggest I enjoy despite my refusal to take a knee before your imaginary friend in the sky. From my perspective, it seems that the freedoms that I enjoy come largely from the fact that our modern society has learned (to some extent) that peace and prosperity is only possible when one acts to keep the fanatical aims of religion in check.
As Thomas Jefferson once pointed out, "I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them." And also that, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
"Is it or is it not true that all of the major modern sects...?"
The answer to all three questions you begin with would depend on the threshold you establish for 'major' and 'modern' which qualifiers are missing from your original statements. In the interest of discussion I agree with all three, though they have nothing to do with genocide as a Christian teaching.
---
The racism would be against the Jewish race for characterizing the record of their ancient wars as genocide. They were a distinct tribe that excluded other tribes, so racism is also a part of Jewish tradition. I am afraid ALL of your examples do not include activities that qualify as genocide. None of the examples were committed by any Christians that did not exist at the time in question. When I say "You are a racist" I am attacking YOU. If I say "If you wish to be anti-Semitic toward Jews then the examples you gave from the torah might have some bearing, but since the authors are long dead it seems like more bigoted racist rhetoric." I am referring to your RHETORIC. Racism or bigotry is inherent in any question of genocide since this refers to a separate group being exterminated. Christianity is not racial in any way, since ALL people are welcome. Your distraction of the question by claiming ‘Ad hominem’ attacks is plainly just an attempt to avoid this question:
How many of the acts or writings of your tribe are you responsible for that occurred before your birth?
Since you are accusing Christ, and those who follow him on this basis I understand why you would not want to disqualify your reasoning with an honest answer.
---
"By placing the requirement of worship as an obstacle to the "salvation" you say is offered, your religion is by definition and an exclusive philosophy."
How can a free choice 'exclude' anyone? You brought 'worship' into the question. Love is how Christ puts it, and I said "Hate" disqualifies you as a follower of the philosophy. I honestly don't even know what worship means to you, or why it would be a requirement of Christianity. Love your Neighbor, Love God (the truth if no superstition is your preference), and Love your enemies you can accuse Christ of all you want. Accuse him of turning the other cheek, or Repenting from falsehood toward the truth. OK with me. Worship? Provide a Quote, but make it from Christ or don't bother accusing Christians.
---
"In fact, just a few comments above we have the example of one of your fellow Christians defending any act of genocide as "just," so long as it is believed that "god" tells you to do it."
Lying about what is said seems to be a habit with you. Try quoting a full sentence, rather than isolated words buried in your slant. His statements could be seen as hypocritical from a follower of Christ, but do not in any way represent ‘defending an act of genocide.’
You are again personalizing the generalization you made. I have no reason to disagree with you if you get specific about facts. It is when you try to accuse innocents by tenuous association that I find fault.
Accepting the potential vagary of the terms "major" and "modern," but noting your agreement to these premises anyway, I must then ask you that if the contents of the bible and especially the express commandments of the character named by those texts as "the LORD" do not represent in your opinion a "christian teaching," then what does? You seem unwilling to accept any resource, even those that originate from sources generally accepted by the vast majority of christians as authoritative and valid, and that being the case I find it difficult to give any real credit to your opinions.
How is that "racist?" "Racism" is the belief that one "race" is superior to another. There is nothing "racist" about pointing to a group's own semi-historical sources and discussing whether or not the actions of that group were genocidal. The Nazi's attempted genocide on the Jews. That doesn't make me a "racist" against German-Aryans. It is simply a recognition of the fact that there was an ideologically based group that engaged in genocide. It is an evaluation of the facts as they are presented, and nothing more. I must also say that your tactic of attempting to obscure the issue and derail the conversation by calling me a "racist" is both childish and transparent.
Not surprisingly, you have once again completely missed the point. It doesn't matter who committed these acts of genocide. It matters who (according to the story) commanded those acts to be committed. The character referred to as "the LORD" in the old testament is a character common to both the jewish and christian traditions. If you doubt it, just go and look in any of the cannonical versions of the christian bible, my friend. I think you will find that they contain each of the passages which I noted above. If "the LORD" commanded his people to commit genocide, and that same "the LORD" is subject of worship in your religion, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me to ask how you can reconcile that worship in light of the actions that the holy texts of your religion ascribe to your "godhead."
I think you must have a pretty weird definition of genocide. According to the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and specifically the U.N.'s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is definde as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Verses that describe the servants of "the LORD" acting to "utterly destroyed all that breathed," and to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass," seem to fall plainly within that definition.
A passive aggressive ad hominem is still an ad hominem. You obviously are hoping that I will balk before your implication of racism in my opinion. I am however quite prepared to defend my position, and to rebutt your childish accusations.
First of all, genocide is not specifically a racial term (see above). And secondly, I don't think that "convert, or else" is a genuine message of welcome.
Your question is based on a disingenuous premise. It attempts to draw a inaccurate parallel between an inherent relationship (i.e. membership in a "tribe") and a voluntary adherence (i.e. membership in an "ideology"). It is not rational to attribute the crimes of a parent to a child, since the child has no control over the fact that he is biologically related to his parents. However, when one voluntarily ascribes to an ideology, then it makes perfect sense to ascribe the tenets of that ideology to the adherent. I would be more forgiving if in fact you seemed at all willing to simply say that if in fact "the LORD" in your bible commanded the genocides that are attributed to him in the bible, that you would consider those commands immoral.
Thus, how many acts or writings of my "tribe" am I responsible for? The answer is none. Why? Because not only I had no part in those acts, but futher I actively repudiate and condemn any acts so committed that are contrary to my own ethical and moral beliefs. I belong to no sects. I ascribe to no ideologies. And in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
Your depiction of my position is inaccurate. I am not "accusing Christ," or even (if you really want to get technical) "the LORD" of anything, since I am skeptical of objective existence of either of these figures as described by the christian scriptures. I am however accusing the followers of christianity with worshipping a character that in their own holy texts is described as promoting genocide.
The choices of christianity are not genuinely free. All of these choices are offered with a simultaneous threat, the "or else" to which I referred above. "Accept Jesus, or else you go to hell." That isn't a free choice, and it represents a philosophy that inherently excludes anyone who refuses to bow a knee to the genodidal character that sits at the head of the christian pantheon. In the old testament, the choice was even worse.
"And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. " (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
You love to toss around these accusations of "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism," when in fact all I am doing is standing up against the "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism" that has been promulgated by the religion of christianity for centuries. How is it hateful to look at an act of genocide and say, "hey, that's wrong!" How is it bigoted to look at a book that tells its followers to kill me and say, "hey, I'm not going to let you do that to me, or to anyone else?" How is it "racist" to point to an ideology and to judge it based on its own stated source of authority?
Again, your ignorance of the very religion you so rabidly defend is remarkable.
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)
I also have to point out that even your exalted "savior" is not above the use of violence in order to advance the cause of "his" religion. Take for example the story of Jesus and the Moneychangers...
"And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." (John 2:13-17)
If we refrain from the cherry-picking that would be necessary in order to support the biblical interpretation you wish us to accept, and even if we confine ourselves to the passages of the new testament, it is apparent that violence and war (especially against non-believers) are a perfectly acceptable part of christian theology. In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus singles out a professional killer--a Roman Centurion--and says that "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus commands his diciples, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." In Romans 13:4, Paul explains that the ministers of "god" "beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
And, despite your predictable dismissial of my atheistic bias, none of this is unique to the interpretations of non-believers such as myself. In fact, I borrowed each of the references above from this, pro-christian website entitled Should Christians Fight?
I have completely had it with your incessanct attempts to call me a liar, when the truth is quite plain for all to see. The comment in question was made specifically in response to a list of genocidal actions described in the bible and defending those actions on the premise that "Being God, the creator of the universe, the maker of man, I think he has the right to decide what's right and wrong for his people and to take their lives, the lives which he made." I can only at this point assume that you are so blinded by your faith that you lack either the capacity or the willingness to deal honestly with these issues. Any time you are confronted with some fact that you are unable to reconcile with your rose-colored, half-informed re-invention of what it means to be a "christian."
Why should I not take it personally when it is me, personally that you attack? Are you so detached from reality that you don't see that statements like "Lying about what is said seems to be a habit with you," are a personal attack? Stop acting like a petulant child and think about what you say.
I have been very specific in my accusations, and the evidence for those accusations remains unchallenged by anything that you have said. Rather than to respond directly to those accusation, you (as usual) have chosen to attempt to draw the conversation away from the facts and into a personal flame war. All that this does is prove that your beliefs are inadequate to stand up to the close scrutiny I have directed at them.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
“I must then ask you that if the contents of the bible and especially the express commandments of the character named by those texts as "the LORD" do not represent in your opinion a "christian teaching," then what does?”
The teachings of Jesus Christ. I thought I made that very clear, sorry if I didn’t.
---
“It is not rational to attribute the crimes of a parent to a child, since the child has no control over the fact that he is biologically related to his parents.”
Did you read enough to see who Jesus’ Dad is in this story?
---
“I would be more forgiving if in fact you seemed at all willing to simply say that if in fact "the LORD" in your bible commanded the genocides that are attributed to him in the bible, that you would consider those commands immoral.”
Sure, no problem. Killing is imoral even on a much smaller scale.
---
“Verses that describe the servants of "the LORD" acting to "utterly destroyed all that breathed," and to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass," seem to fall plainly within that definition.”
Of course they do. The quotes from the book of Josha are the ones that actually attempt to justify the acts I would call genocide by ascribing them to God. That book was written about 13 to 1500 years before Christ, thus he is entirely blameless. Some of the battles described are unlikely to have even occurred, and the authors are only about as likely as you or I to have had anything like a direct word from anyone allmighty. Here is some related study for those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua
---
“Thus, how many acts or writings of my "tribe" am I responsible for? The answer is none. Why? Because not only I had no part in those acts, but futher I actively repudiate and condemn any acts so committed that are contrary to my own ethical and moral beliefs.”
I am happy to hear it. Now how do you then ascribe to Jesus things he did not say, or support? He did in fact actually say things which diametrically oppose the behavior you accuse he and his followers of supporting. The MAJORITY of MODERN Christians do not support genocide. You know this, so your argument is disingenuous. To what end?
---
“You love to toss around these accusations of "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism," when in fact all I am doing is standing up against the "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism" that has been promulgated by the religion of christianity for centuries.”
If you limited yourself to ‘standing up against the "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism" ‘ that is stil far too plentiful today we would be allies. When you accuse over one billion people of supporting genocide because of some 3500 year old writing I am forced to oppose the ‘ "hate" and "bigotry" and "racism" ‘ that you are guilty of. When can we quit hating, and begin to forgive and make progress? Does everyone have to ‘bow’ to your beliefs first?
---
I like the quotes you chose:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
I do worship the truth, and would encourage you and everyone else to also. It does address half of the question, but what do you define as worship?
---
“If we refrain from the cherry-picking that would be necessary in order to support the biblical interpretation you wish us to accept,”
I think it is interesting that you believe this is an all or none proposition. If I saw it in that light I would share some of your misgivings. Each person views the truth differently. If you argue that the bible is not absolutely the literal truth I will join you. The weird part is you do not think this, yet insist that others should. Very odd IMHO.
---
“I have completely had it with your incessanct attempts to call me a liar, when the truth is quite plain for all to see.”
“Any time you are confronted with some fact that you are unable to reconcile with your rose-colored, half-informed re-invention of what it means to be a "christian." “
“Why should I not take it personally when it is me, personally that you attack? Are you so detached from reality that you don't see that statements like "Lying about what is said seems to be a habit with you," are a personal attack? Stop acting like a petulant child and think about what you say.”
“Rather than to respond directly to those accusation, you (as usual) have chosen to attempt to draw the conversation away from the facts and into a personal flame war. All that this does is prove that your beliefs are inadequate to stand up to the close scrutiny I have directed at them.”
That rant seems to be a unified whole. I see what you are saying is I should only defend my beliefs as YOU define them. Aditionally I should accept being accused of genocide by YOU, yet I am a child by pointing out your false statements, or in this case misquotes. That must be a nice world you imagine for yourself. Are you the God of it, and thus are free to dictate to those of us you created?
...thanks to all the opportunities you give me to practice rolling them.
Then as I have shown, these teachings include the worship of a being that according to christian theology has commanded "his" followers to commit acts that can only be described as genocidal.
What do you think I have accused the character named Jesus of doing, exactly? If you read closely, it should be obvious that I have assigned the responsiblity of the genocides commanded by "the LORD" in the Old Testament to only a very narrow list of actors..."the LORD" and the people who acted upon "his" commandments. All that I have laid at the feet of modern christians is the responsibility for thier own actions, which include the worship of a being that their own holy texts describe as a being that has at times commanded his followers to act in ways that can only be described as genocidal.
Then, by presenting yourself as a "christian," you place yourself in an morally untenable position, since that term includes a definitional assumption that you worship the "god" of Abraham, to whom these genocidal commandments are attributed by essentially all religiously authoritative christian sources.
Once again you are attempting to modify my position from its actual stance into one that you feel you can more easily defend against, since I did not ascribe the genocidal commandments from Joshua, et. al. to that character. But, I will point out a few mitigating facts that your response fails to consider. The first is that as a Rabbi, the character called Jesus was necessarily well versed in the cannonical texts of the Hebrew Tanakh, which in fact includes the material which christian sources name as the Book of Joshua. The Book of Joshua is part of the Neviim...a collection of texts from the Tanakh to which the character refers when he speaks of "the Prophets."
Thus, when the character called Jesus instructs his followers to worship his "Father" (which in this context specifically refers to the "god" of Abraham), the chracter does so with full knowledge of these attributed events. And futher, the character named Jesus specifically recognizes the authority of these texts more than once in the New Testament. In fact, the character named Jesus specifically calls those who do not believe in the veracity of "the Prophets" to be "fools."
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." (Luke 24:25)
Once again, it seems that you are at odds with your own pronouncements. You claim to follow the teachings of "Christ," but when scrutinized we find that your beliefs do not actually conform with the statements that cannonical christian sources attribute to that figure. In order to follow the specific teachings of Jesus, then you must also accept the validity of the Neviim.
Ah, but he did support those acts, and in fact specifically and repeatedly refers back to the complete validity of the Neviim numerous times throughout the New Testament (in addition to the verse quoted from Luke above, see Matthew 5:15, 7:12, 11:13, and 22:40, and Luke 16:16, 16:29-31 and 22:44).
It seems to me that "the MAJORITY of MODERN Christians" don't really give very much thought as to what the theology of their religion actually entails. Others (like you) also seem very attached to the monicker of "chrisitian," but define that term inconsistently with the actual etymology behind that term. One of the drives behind my comments is the desire to point out this inconsistency, and to get the people who call themselves "christians" to actually think about what it means to associate oneself with that term.
Unfortunately, when you engage in the worship of a figure that condones and in fact commands its followers to commit genocidal actions, you are supporting the practice of genocide. The apathy of lazy minds have always been a fertile field in which to sew the seeds of tyranny. As for when "we" can quite hating, I would suggest that it can begin just as soon as you acknowledge the fact that the religion you support promotes these attitudes, and then you actively take a stand against those elements the the theology to which you claim to adhere. If you aren't willing to even acknowledge that these elements exist in the theology you promote, then I frankly don't believe that you are prepared to honestly move forward in the manner you suggest.
I really think you need to invest in a dictionary. The term "worship" as used in the context of a religion refers to the "reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power." I also have to contend that while you claiim to whorship "the truth," you seem very reluctant to accept "the truth" regarding the actual theological tenets of the religion that is known to the world as "christianity."
It wouldn't seem odd at all, if you were to actually think about it. People have different perspectives on "the truth" to be sure, but this is more of a question of a lack of intellectual honesty about a movement that exists in a far greater context than just your personal (and often inconsistent) perspective. As we have discussed previously, your reference to yourself as a "christian" really isn't consistent with the way that "the MAJORITY of MODERN Christians" would use that word. The "religion of chillbill" isn't so bad, but it is in fact is quite different than the religion of christianity based on any commonly used definition of that term. If you want to defend your personal perspective, that's fine, but you seem far too willing to presume that your own extremely radical interpretation of the term "christian" acutally applies to the religion of christianity as a whole. This simply is not the case.
Acutally, I have said almost nothing about your beliefs as an idividual. I am speaking of the religion of christianity, which is difined a bit more objectively by the world than your over-inflated sense of self-important mangling of the term. For "the MAJORITY of MODERN Christians"...
"A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and prophesied in the Old Testament." (LINK)
The beliefs that you describe are pantheistic, not monotheistic. This is not unheard of in christian history, but it is certainly a position that only a very small minority of sects have embraced. But even amonst those sects, the vast majority ascribe to the validity (though not necessarily the literal inerrency) of both the Old and New Testaments.
I would call you a liar, but I have learned from experience that you are rather just not a very close reader. I have at no point in this discussion accused you of genocide. I have stated only that if you claim to be a christian, then you must by definition worship the "god" of Abraham, and that the cannonical texts of the religion of christianity consistently attribute acts to that character which can only be described as genocidal. What I am questioning is the ethical and moral inconsistency between the claim that christians do not support genocide, and the fact that they worship a character that their own holy texts describe as commanding his followers to commit genocide. If you don't see the connundrum in that, then your beliefs are even less thoroughly thought out than I have previously considered.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
"Then, by presenting yourself as a "christian," you place yourself in an morally untenable position, since that term includes a definitional assumption that you worship the "god" of Abraham, to whom these genocidal commandments are attributed by essentially all religiously authoritative christian sources."
Neither you nor I nor anyone I know is a member, or believer in this genocide cult you wish to call Christianity. You might want to consider this statement:
"Then, by presenting yourself as a "Atheist," you place yourself in an morally untenable position, since that term includes a definitional assumption that you have the same morality as Stalin, to whom these genocidal acts are attributed by essentially all authoritative sources."
Since you might not want guilt by association to define YOUR BELIEFS. Maybe you should refrain from making the same judgements about others.
---
"It seems to me that "the MAJORITY of MODERN Christians" don't really give very much thought as to what the theology of their religion actually entails."
Brother if you don't follow a religion it is not your religion. The set of twisted theology you have created to support the genocide of Jesus is not followed by anyone including its inventor, YOU.
---
"I have stated only that if you claim to be a christian, then you must by definition worship the "god" of Abraham, and that the cannonical texts of the religion of christianity consistently attribute acts to that character which can only be described as genocidal."
Show a link to the definition, or I will continue to use the one I place on myself. My definition is different from yours. You think God is unbelievable, ALL Christians think he is obvious and inevitable. Face the facts You are talking about a God that does not exist, and we are talking about one that does. Your God can be given traits, and have words put in his mouth by men, ours created men, the universe and is beyond definition by every book in existence. Ancient Jewish writings were held in the esteem you place on them by Pharisees, not by Christ. Jesus Loved his enemies, and the ancient Hebrews took an eye for an eye. Trying to say that I am bound by your misunderstanding is just so wrong headed...............
Good Night Persivale.
...so I will respond to your comments, below.
p.
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
..
Are you a victim of 'EXCLUSION' from Christianity?
Or are Christians trying to shove it down your throat?
Seems contradictory maybe you can provide some clarification.
Provide the example of a Christian genocide if you aren't just blowing smoke.
I'll assume this message is for me. Sorry, the thread is getting a bit confusing.
The Crusades, for one.
Christians had significant contributions and support for Hitler's reign and genocide during WWII.
Rwanda, April 1994: 937,000 people (primarily Tutsi)
If you aren't aware of the genocidal history of Christianity, you really ought to do a little educational research. Read the Bible, for instance.
The Crusades were a territorial war between religions. Not a genocide. The object was the 'holy land' not the killing of a race, or cultural group. I don't doubt that the Catholic Church wanted the new religion of Islam to fail, but the wars had a specific goal. This is the best example you give, but the term applies equally to both sides.
"The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group."
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043
---
"Christians had significant contributions and support for Hitler's reign and genocide during WWII."
"your religion is based on EXCLUSION and genocide."
I'm not sure how the events that happened between 60 and 70 years ago can be called something a 2,000 year old religion is based on.
"Read the Bible, for instance."
This example of genocide occured between two groups that shared the same books that I believe you refer to. Interestingly Hitler was an ethnic Jew by his own definition, and Christians that defended or harbored Jews and Gypsys (as such the ones that actually followed Christian teachings) were a significant part of the victims. Atheist states are the champions of genocide this century, although this one was perpatrated by a majority Christian culture. The people that put a stop to it were also Christian, with the exception of the Soviets. It is closer to true that this was between racist GERMANS or ARYANS against Jews.
---
"Rwanda, April 1994: 937,000 people (primarily Tutsi)"
Hutus killing Tutsis is a bit of a reach as well.
Are you saying that one side or the other was more Christian?
Did the Christian teachings inflame violence somehow?
If this is an example supporting your case you need to illustrate how it has any bearing. At least there is some connection in the first two.
Exclusion?
I'm tired of arguing **
I will not rescind what I say, but I'm not going to try and show you reality any long. I admit that it was pathetic I even tried.
This world is so sad; it makes me want to cry.
**Edited by Fallon.
when you are asked to support what you say.
"I admit that it was pathetic I even tried."
You didn't try very hard.
I've edited your post to remove the TOS violation. I know arguing gets frustrating, especially when one is on a totally different side than the other, but such remarks do little for the integrity of the thing. Keep it polite, ya'll.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
-----
According to United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and specifically the U.N.'s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide...
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Actually, it was both. Like most significant events in history, the Crusades represented a complex concurrence of political, social and economic factors. It is undoubtedly true that the control of territory was a major motivation for the wealthy elite that were losing economic and political influence to the Islamic Turkish and Arabic forces. But, the way that the Crusades were presented to the common people and subsequently prosecuted most definitely meets the definition above.
That is simply not true. And, I think that both purposes can be clearly demonstrated by reviewing the speech delivered by Pope Urban II to the Council of Clermont in 1095 declaring the First Crusade...
For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!
It seems plain to me that this declaration represents more than just a grab for territory. The Crusades were prosecuted specifically on a religious premise, and that premise specifically included a broad sweeping and clearly stated intention to utterly destroy a people based on their cultural, racial and religious identity.
That there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides is a fair criticism. If you can find someone who wants to defend the genocidal actions of the Islamic Turkish and Arabic side of these conflicts, I for one will be happy to wag my finger at them as well. But, this discussion has developed specifically in the context of a denial of the existence of religious based genocides perpetrated by the followers of christianity, and pointing to the other bad kid in the sand box and saying, "well, he did it too" doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing defense.
I suppose it depends on whether or not the events of 60 and 70 years ago are indicative of a trend that is consistently evident throughout the history of the religion in question.
That's a sticky one, to be sure. One of the best quips that I've heard regarding the question of christianity's involvement in the Holocaust comes from Hans Kung, (a noted, if somewhat controversial catholic theologian). He said that, "Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..." (LINK)
It is certainly impossible to credibly deny that the christian church has a pervasive history of anti-semitism, going back to its earliest days. This is a fact that, suprisingly, even the catholic church itself has recognized and made at least some attempt in recent years to correct. This document from the Vatican specifically serves as an apology to the Jewish people for the