|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:43 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism. Actually, there are multiple definitions of paganism. It's a pretty common debate as to whether or not the definition of the term should include combining the definitions or just a more solid revision. The reasoning behind it is to look at one of the definitions as mutually exclusive to the other leaves or lumps in religions which aren't "Pagan". Hinduism, Satanism (which depending on what you call Satanism isn't even a religion), and a few others do not fall under paganism based on the definition in use. To illustrate my point (and you'll get various additional answer from individual pagans): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paganConcerning the ongoing debate about the definition of "pagan" (yes, it's yahoo!, but it's to illustrate how debatable all the possible definition of pagan are): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081027185754AASpWUgFood for thought: pagan originally meant something like "country dweller". Does that mean we should say all rural dwellers are therefore pagan? Of course the question's absurdity is to point one definition does not mean it's applicable to all situations. Wikipedia actually has some pretty good criteria as to what is considered pagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeopaganYou'll notice in there Eastern religions aren't included in their list of Neopagan.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:34 am
In Medias Res IV http://messiahtruth.org/anti.html Annnnd here's your anti-semitism. :sigh: If indignance could kill... This is ridiculous. Defamation...really? Thats a very bold statement considering the author hasnt proven the events false. I demand you back this article up that YOU cited as YOUR argument or withdraw it. What you've presented here is a textbook Texas Sharpshooters fallacy, you wouldve been better to make the argument yourself than rely on this, especially seeing as I now expect you to defend it. Have you even read it? Okay lets look at just a few examples of the NT's 'anti-semitism' rolleyes Almost all the passages taken from the Gospels are about the Pharisees and while I could be wrong I dont think that disparaging a nations rulers = racism against an entire people. Im only going to post those compiled from the Gospel of Mark for starters (because its the shortest) although feel free to raise the other ones if you think im being unfair and missing any important points raised from the other Gospels. Quote: 3:6 The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus 7:6-13 Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments 8:15 Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees 10:2-5 The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted 14:55-65 The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death 15:1-15 The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified Now, these are just samples of a mans testimony as to what happened so as I said above we would first have to prove all of these false before we could even begin crying defamtion. However, if we look at your original assertion calling the NT anti semitic we can see that this is clearly not the case. Reductio ad absurdiumIs documenting Nazi warcrimes an example of bigotry against Germans? Is reporting on a terrorist attack carried out by Islamic extremists an example of Islamophobia? Is publishing a newspaper article about the WBC pickiting the funeral of an aids victim really not just bigotry against Christians? Oh and what about showing dead Palestinian children, mangled by Israeli airstrikes, is that just more anti semitism at work? The truth is of course that this is just someone giving their account of what happened that most Christians accept as the truth. It is however just a testimony, a report on what happened and it only becomes anti semitic when its misused, typically as the basis of a fallacious argument against Jews by ignorant forms of Christianity (such as that practiced by the Boers for example or the KKK) although ironically in this case its being used by you. To give a good comparison as to just how fallacious it is using this article in support of your assertion would be to make a comparison with the OT. Effectively what youre doing would be like taking all of gods vitriolic rants against the wikckedness depravity and harlotry of Israel from Kings, Chronicles and out of the mouths of the prophets Hosea and Isaiah and using them alone to paint god as an anti semitic Jew hating monster. What you would be missing out on is all the examples of gods love for his people such as him rescuing them from Egypt, showing mercy upon them when they forsake him in the desert and then showing ever more more mercy every single time they abadon him and worship Baal and the gods of other peoples etc etc... You've taken gods condemnation of the Jews in the NT whilst omitting his grace towards them, in the form of his free offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, salvation that they historically have not been able to obtain through adherence to the law (due to inability). Lets have a look at what Paul says about the Jews shall we Romans 2 9-10 Quote: 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile Romans 3 9-11 Quote: 9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. Now you and your source only quoted accounts of things that transpired. If you really want Christianitys view on Jews you need to look at verses like these...that actually give assertions as to the nature of Jews rather than just reporting on single incidents. Its clear that Jews are just like Gentiles, both stained with sin but both offered slavation through gods grace. God shows no partiality and as such neither should we.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:35 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism. Yes, follow the ethnocentric, racist definition used in the language that justified mass conversion and the crusades. Really understanding of you. Remember my posts in the "definition of Paganism" thread? Why propagate this definition that serves to put *everything* in terms of the Abrahamic faith tradition, as if to venerate that above everything else, as it was once used to do? That connotation still exists in that definition, so it's absurd that Pagans would still use it! It's absurd and offensive to Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern faiths in to one category as "not Abrahamic".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:39 pm
PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism. Yes, follow the ethnocentric, racist definition used in the language that justified mass conversion and the crusades. Really understanding of you. Remember my posts in the "definition of Paganism" thread? Why propagate this definition that serves to put *everything* in terms of the Abrahamic faith tradition, as if to venerate that above everything else, as it was once used to do? That connotation still exists in that definition, so it's absurd that Pagans would still use it! It's absurd and offensive to Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern faiths in to one category as "not Abrahamic". Take it up with the people who write entries in the dictionary. But of course, there are Hindus, Taoists and Buddhists who DO agree with this definition, therefore you need to step down from your soapbox because you do not speak for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:49 pm
PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism. Yes, follow the ethnocentric, racist definition used in the language that justified mass conversion and the crusades. Really understanding of you. Remember my posts in the "definition of Paganism" thread? Why propagate this definition that serves to put *everything* in terms of the Abrahamic faith tradition, as if to venerate that above everything else, as it was once used to do? That connotation still exists in that definition, so it's absurd that Pagans would still use it! It's absurd and offensive to Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern faiths in to one category as "not Abrahamic".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:09 pm
Well, technically Christians are also Jews, because the new testament clearly states that everything in the old testament and the Hebrew bible is true and valid. Therefore, I don't see how this is a very special denomination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:23 pm
almisami Well, technically Christians are also Jews, because the new testament clearly states that everything in the old testament and the Hebrew bible is true and valid. Therefore, I don't see how this is a very special denomination. Um no. Christians are GENTILES which are NON-JEWS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 pm
almisami Well, technically Christians are also Jews, because the new testament clearly states that everything in the old testament and the Hebrew bible is true and valid. Therefore, I don't see how this is a very special denomination. Christian =/= Jew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:30 pm
Shadows-shine almisami Well, technically Christians are also Jews, because the new testament clearly states that everything in the old testament and the Hebrew bible is true and valid. Therefore, I don't see how this is a very special denomination. Christian =/= Jew To bring the argument full circle: Unless we're talking about Messianic Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:28 pm
In Medias Res IV Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine.. The Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were semitic, so were many of those in the mosaic literature who worshiped Golden calf's and angered God, they weren't exactly appraised. I'd say it's more then a stretch to call any of them anti-semitic, but if you want to we can. We can call the Jews anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those Jews who believed the messiah had come and we can switch that around and call the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those who did not believe the messiah had come. Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel. There were many more Jewish sects then just the Pharisees, those who were looking for the messiah at that particular time and those who found him (their opinion) were only some, like you said. That doesn't negate the fact that they were Semites. Semite =/ Jewish Arabs are semitic. Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:32 am
xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine almisami Well, technically Christians are also Jews, because the new testament clearly states that everything in the old testament and the Hebrew bible is true and valid. Therefore, I don't see how this is a very special denomination. Christian =/= Jew To bring the argument full circle: Unless we're talking about Messianic Jews. I don't even consider Messianic Jews actual Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:25 pm
xLady Tsukiyox PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism. Yes, follow the ethnocentric, racist definition used in the language that justified mass conversion and the crusades. Really understanding of you. Remember my posts in the "definition of Paganism" thread? Why propagate this definition that serves to put *everything* in terms of the Abrahamic faith tradition, as if to venerate that above everything else, as it was once used to do? That connotation still exists in that definition, so it's absurd that Pagans would still use it! It's absurd and offensive to Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern faiths in to one category as "not Abrahamic". Take it up with the people who write entries in the dictionary. But of course, there are Hindus, Taoists and Buddhists who DO agree with this definition, therefore you need to step down from your soapbox because you do not speak for them. Good luck finding those folks. The word, especially when used in that way, reflects it's pejorative origins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
