ext_45084 ([identity profile] essius.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2012-03-10 07:28 pm (UTC)

First, you are ignoring my general point, which applies to all religions and political ideologies. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being identified as holding to a given system of belief? If you maintain that it is simply and solely by saying that you believe according to that system, then it's easy to see why you ignored my satirical remarks above—you have no response, and tacitly recognize that your position commits you to absurd consequences. You prefer to define religion in terms of professed belief, rather than lived belief. If this is wrong, and your criteria consist in something else, let's hear it. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being identified as holding to a given belief system?

Second, you are ignoring my specific point concerning the words of Christ himself—viz., in Mt. 7:22-24. Does the founder of a religion have any say as to who does and does not count as a true follower of that religion, or not?

Third, I have a hard time knowing what was going through the heads of professing Christians throughout history who have commit atrocious acts against the Jews, or why they adopted the hermeneutics of Scripture (on which I'll respond below) that they did. I don't know enough about the social context of medieval anti-semitism to make a judgment. If, in the end, Christ decides that these were true Christians who were simply acting, in this serious way, diametrically contrary to Christ's gospel, that is his call. If he decides that they were only professing Christians, that is his call. All I can say is that they were not acting in accord with the commandments to love the neighbor in the way Christ showed us by means of his holy life and self-sacrificial death—and that needs explanation. As I said above, if Christ is our teacher and our example, then we should love our neighbor unto death—our own death, not our neighbors'.

Fourth, in the passage from John 8, Jesus is referring to specific Jews—Jews who accused him of being demon-possessed and later tried to stone him. Jesus could have said these very same things, without the Abraham rhetoric that his interlocutors introduced, to any Jew or non-Jew. So to anti-semitism into this passage is pretty disingenuous. Ironically, in this very passage Jesus makes the point I've been making all along: "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples'" (Jn 8:31).

Fifth, how could an anti-semitic hermeneutic ever make logical, coherent sense of the Ephesians passage I cited earlier, let alone Paul's statement that God has called "both Jews and Greeks" (1 Cor 1:24) and admonishes the church, "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32)? Consider Paul's remarks in Romans 3:1-2: "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." Consider, especially, the whole of Romans 11, and in particular v. 18: "do not boast over those branches [i.e., the Jews]. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you"; and further: "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" (vv. 25-26a). All these passages would have to be ignored or wildly distorted. But in actual fact, the Christian gospel holds that no one is righteous—neither Jew nor Gentile (Rom 3), and in both Romans and Colossians, Paul refers to all non-Christians as enemies of God. There is no discrimination.

(continued below)

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting