Bible Class? I Guess Not
Religion is right in the middle of our controversy over health education in Mongtomery County, Maryland. Specifically, a small number of participants in a couple of religions have insisted that the public schools' secular teachings violate their religious beliefs. It may be that religion is serving as a cover for generic bigotry, or it may be true that these opinions are actually demanded by certain religions, I don't know. But the fact is, religion is being used to justify the anti-gay sentiments expressed by those who oppose the improvements to the health curriculum.
When I think about this, it seems to me that it should be possible to discuss religious topics in the classroom; in fact, it seems impossible to discuss something like history without bringing religion into it. I would strongly disapprove of substituting religion for science, say, in a biology class, or in sex-ed, for that matter, but I wouldn't think that means you have to ban the subject altogether. Like, if you had a class on the Bible, and you called it "The Bible 101" or something, that wouldn't bother me. There's lots of good stuff in that book, and in fact I'd enjoy a good Bible 101 class.
But of course it doesn't come out that way in real life. It's not like you'll get a discussion of the Bible as a historic reference, or study the evolving function of deity in the Old and New Testament, or learn about the history of the Hebrew people at the bridge between antiquity and modernity, or whatever.
No, what you end up with is: Sunday School. Preaching, praying, proselytizing.
So I am reluctantly changing my mind. I don't think it's possible to have a dispassionate public-school class on the Bible. I just don't think people can pull it off.
Out in Odessa, Texas, they recently started having a Bible class in the public schools. There's a lawsuit now. We'll see how it goes.
A teacher wrote a letter to the editor of the Odessa American which is very poignant and, I think, persuasive. It's a little long, but, you'll see, it's worth the time to follow her exposition:
Again, I gotta say, I'm glad we live where we do.
When I think about this, it seems to me that it should be possible to discuss religious topics in the classroom; in fact, it seems impossible to discuss something like history without bringing religion into it. I would strongly disapprove of substituting religion for science, say, in a biology class, or in sex-ed, for that matter, but I wouldn't think that means you have to ban the subject altogether. Like, if you had a class on the Bible, and you called it "The Bible 101" or something, that wouldn't bother me. There's lots of good stuff in that book, and in fact I'd enjoy a good Bible 101 class.
But of course it doesn't come out that way in real life. It's not like you'll get a discussion of the Bible as a historic reference, or study the evolving function of deity in the Old and New Testament, or learn about the history of the Hebrew people at the bridge between antiquity and modernity, or whatever.
No, what you end up with is: Sunday School. Preaching, praying, proselytizing.
So I am reluctantly changing my mind. I don't think it's possible to have a dispassionate public-school class on the Bible. I just don't think people can pull it off.
Out in Odessa, Texas, they recently started having a Bible class in the public schools. There's a lawsuit now. We'll see how it goes.
A teacher wrote a letter to the editor of the Odessa American which is very poignant and, I think, persuasive. It's a little long, but, you'll see, it's worth the time to follow her exposition:
I am writing as a parent, as a member of the Jewish community in the Permian Basin and, despite concerns about my job, as a teacher in this school district.
I have been respectful and professional in expressing my thoughts about selecting a Bible course in ECISD.
I reviewed the Bible curricula under consideration last spring, and then I spoke at the public forum.
Other members of our Jewish community reviewed the curricula and wrote letters to the school board, as well. And yet, when it came time for a final board decision, Randy Rives said publicly that he hadn’t heard from anyone in the Jewish community.
And most recently, I read in the Odessa American Butch Foreman’s disrespectful response to concerns about the Bible class: “If they don’t have children in the class, they can kiss my butt. They’re looking to impose their beliefs and their views on everybody, and we don’t put up with that crap out here.”
Enough is enough. These repeated public insults of my religion and our legitimate questions about the Bible curriculum are perfect examples of the very concerns I have about a biased presentation of the Bible in our schools.
After all, as some of us pointed out in our presentations to the board last spring, there is more than one version of the Bible. There’s even more than one Christian version.
Furthermore, there have been and are currently Jewish students in Odessa and Midland who are reduced to tears or fighting to defend themselves because of religious harassment.
No, they’re not in the Bible class right now. But does that make their experience any less real?
And make no mistake; just because it’s an elective doesn’t mean it won’t affect my child or others. If we offered an elective promoting white supremacy, it would certainly have an effect on all students, whether they took the class or not.
This is why I object to a Bible class in public school that suggests the supremacy of one religion over another.
You might think one religion IS better than another, but public school is not the place to teach this.
Unfortunately, the Bible curriculum currently being offered does do this. It is not just a class about the history of the Bible, or the history of the Bible in literature. I have read some of the curriculum, and I invite everyone to do the same.
While the writers claim it is not biased, it may be hard to recognize the bias if you have been raised in the particular tradition it teaches.
But the two students in the course who were quoted in the newspaper recently said it clearly. Although one person claimed the curriculum is unbiased, she went on to say, “However, I can see people being upset with it being “only Christian-based.” And another man, in claiming that our ancestors came to American to have Christian religious freedom, seems to have missed two points. First, his ancestors might have been seeking freedom to worship a Christian faith; mine were seeking freedom to follow their own Jewish faith. Second, it is important to remember that our country’s founders wanted to escape the religious tyranny of their country’s government. They set up some safeguards, including the First Amendment, to prevent such tyranny from happening all over again.
Harassment of Jewish children is a fact in our school system. In this atmosphere of religious intolerance, there is no such thing as a “harmless” Bible class that promotes only one Christian perspective.
This atmosphere of religious intolerance is both fostered and legitimized by Foreman’s remarks. My experience as a parent, a Jew, and a teacher in this district is not “crap.” My daughter’s tears are not “crap.” My effort to educate Odessa about the experiences of our children is not “imposing my view on you.”
I am not the only teacher or community member who objects to this particular Bible course. But few will speak out for fear of retribution.
Our founding fathers most likely argued about how to form this new country, but I don’t think fear and intimidation is what any of them had in mind for religious freedom. How long are we going to let this continue?
Yes, we can study aspects of Bible in public school; but this course currently being taught is not the way to do it. There are other options to consider.
I ask this community and the school board to consider carefully what values you want to teach the children in our community and the best way to guide them. Every action you take — or don’t take — teaches something, even if only by example.
If, as I strongly believe, the Christian majority in our community believes in religious tolerance, I urge people to speak up and speak out against the current Bible curriculum and Foreman’s intolerant remarks.
Lisa Roth
Odessa
One religion shouldn’t eclipse others
Again, I gotta say, I'm glad we live where we do.
posted by JimK at 2:36 PM
47 Comments:
"it seems impossible to discuss something like history without bringing religion into it"
You've got this right, Jim. It's also impossible to discuss sociology, politics, geography, world affairs, add on. Hard to see why later you retreat from this enlightened position because of the fear that someone might feel bad if they learn their religious beliefs are a minority one. Because of this, we leave kids ignorant and at a disadvantage for understanding the world around them?
Even more ridiculous is the position of the Texas teacher. Even though the course is optional, she's opposed because she doesn't want any kids to have a positive view of Christianity?
Anon, you're a fucking idiot and I don't know why these guys put up with you, except you make them look wonderful by comparison.
"First, his ancestors might have been seeking freedom to worship a Christian faith; mine were seeking freedom to follow their own Jewish faith."
And how does a voluntary class on the Bible prevent anyone from following any other faith?
"Second, it is important to remember that our country’s founders wanted to escape the religious tyranny of their country’s government. They set up some safeguards, including the First Amendment, to prevent such tyranny from happening all over again."
Again, how does a voluntary elective class on the Bible represent tyranny?
"Harassment of Jewish children is a fact in our school system."
How does the study of a book which is basically a history of the Jewish nation from its founding by Abraham when he purchased Sarah's grave site until right before the pagans from Rome destroyed it, result in the harassment of Jewish children? Most of the characters, especially the protagonists, are Jewish.
Anonymous said "How does the study of a book which is basically a history of the Jewish nation... result in the harassment of Jewish children?".
It results in it because the New Testament is used by Christians to condemn Jews as Christ-killers condemned to eternal torture.
Note the demonization of the jews in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.".
And in John 8:42-45
"Jesus said unto them [the Jews], If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
Christianity demonizes all non-christians, the bible says they deserve to be eternally tortured regardless of what exemplary lives they might lead. That's how it results in the harrassment of Jewish children.
"Christianity demonizes all non-christians, the bible says they deserve to be eternally tortured regardless of what exemplary lives they might lead. That's how it results in the harrassment of Jewish children."
What Christianity says is that those who don't believe in Jesus will not know God. Where does it say that Christians should persecute non-believers? On the contrary, Jesus told his followers to invite all men, Jew and Gentile to join in. His last commandment to his folowers was to go throughout the world and "make disciples of all nations". Hardly constitutes harassment.
Randi above quotes John 8:42 as follows:
"Jesus said unto them [the Jews],"
Actually, verse 42 does not contain the term "the Jews". It was put there as explanation from whatever source he was using because the verse is taken out of context. The passage begins at verse 31 which states:
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him,"
The rest of the passage relates a conversation between Jesus and these disciples where he explained to them that they were as sinful as all other men.
The sinfulness of man is a Christian doctrine.
The Thessalonian passage is also taken out of context. The passage is Paul, a Jew, talking with some Jews about other Jews. At the time, Jews who believed in Jesus were being persecuted by Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem. This was not a paranoid delusion but a fact. Paul had been employed by them as a particularly zealous persecutor of believers in Jesus before having a vision and, thus, he knew what he was talking about.
The whole thing was an internal matter among Jews about whether a Jew who had developed a large following among Jews was the Jewish Messiah. Paul, having been a leader on both sides, was in a special position to discuss the matter.
If you're going to say that the New Testament message is that all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus and should be persecuted, you would have to be consistent and say Jesus and Mary and his disciples and Paul were responsible for the prophets who were killed by earlier generations of Jews, as recounted in the existing scripture of the day. Were the Torah and prophets also anti-semitic documents? Of course not.
Truth is, the message of the Bible is that the Jewish people were chosen by God to reveal himself to mankind. Good or bad, they simply represent all mankind.
Nearly $200 million in abstinence-education funding — and the mental health of American teenagers — hangs in the balance.
New research, to be published Thursday in the American Journal of Sociology, suggests premarital sex doesn't harm the mental health of teens, except those 15 or younger, whose relationships tend to be less committed, USA Today reported today.
"For this study to state that teens 15 and younger tend to be less committed in sexual relationships demonstrates its incredible disconnect from reality," said Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action.
"Research shows us that young girls are much more likely to be pressured into sex by much older boys than older teen girls. The term 'statutory rape' is more apropos for 14-year-olds having sex than the term 'committed.'"
According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 63 percent of sexually experienced 12- to 19-year-olds wish they had waited longer before having sexual intercourse.
"Is this statement not a direct result of an emotional response?" Klepacki asked.
Meanwhile, Congress seems ready to drop two programs that fund abstinence education.
"There's lots of good stuff in that book, and in fact I'd enjoy a good Bible 101 class."
Hey, let me know if you want me to sign you up for one.
When I was an active Social Studies teacher in MCPS (before my retirement) we offered a course in "Comparative Religions" in the high school curriculum. It was a very popular course for students of all faiths. I know in the eyes of some of the anonymi who regularly bloviate here, that is apostasy but it was definitely in line with MCPS policy of respecting all faiths and those who practiced them. Whatever else it was, it was not cooercive or demeaning for those students who chose to make up their own minds about what they believed.
Thanks for that, Anon, I hold out hope that people can actually do that. Maybe just not in Odessa, Texas, in 2007.
JimK
No, anonymous, you've got it wrong. The passage where Jesus speaks to the Jews begins at verse 12. Jesus is seperating the Jews who believe in him (Christians) from the Jews who do not (those of the Jewish religion). Jesus was not refering to the Jews/Christians who believed in him when he said "ye are of the Devil", he was refering to the Jews who didn't believe in them and making it clear that he does not approve of them.
Anonymous said "If you're going to say that the New Testament message is that all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus and should be persecuted, you would have to be consistent and say Jesus and Mary and his disciples and Paul were responsible for the prophets who were killed by earlier generations of Jews, as recounted in the existing scripture of the day. Were the Torah and prophets also anti-semitic documents? Of course not."
That's nonsensical. Just because the New Testament condemns the Jews doesn't in any way make Mary, Jesus and his disciples, and Paul responsible for what went on in the old Testament, that was before people knew of Jesus and had the opportunity to believe in him.
You've got to remember that the bible was written by different men at different times to meet their own political purposes. The new and old testaments obviously don't belong together and the new is not a continuation of the old, its a bastardized adaptation which is inconsistent with the old testament in many ways. The New Testament is what we in the computer industry call a Kluge, something slapped together on top of an exisiting system in a crude fashion that makes it evident it was never intended to be integrated with the original.
The old testament of course wasn't ant-semetic because it was written by jews for jewish political purposes. The new testament was written by Christians for their political purposes which included discrediting the Jewish religion. That's why we see these two passages from "Jesus" and Paul, the two religions were in competition and Christians in the time of the New Testament wrote it to convince the masses of which side they should be on.
Anonymous said "Truth is, the message of the Bible is that the Jewish people were chosen by God to reveal himself to mankind. Good or bad, they simply represent all mankind.".
Nonsense. The bible is rife with passages where the Jewish god shows his total disdain for non-Jewish peoples. In Exodus god hardens Pharoah's heart and states he did it specifically so he can show off his miracles, how powerful he is, and that the Jews are seperate from the evil Egyptians. Later "god" instructs the jews to carry out a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in which they kill millions of not just soldiers, but women, children and babies. The Jews of the Old testament certainly do not represent all of mankind - they and their god hate and kill all others whom they consider their sworn enemies.
The old testament Jews represent no one but themselves - their "god" demands it.
And anonymous, I am a she, not a he.
"When I was an active Social Studies teacher in MCPS (before my retirement) we offered a course in "Comparative Religions" in the high school curriculum. It was a very popular course for students of all faiths. I know in the eyes of some of the anonymi who regularly bloviate here, that is apostasy but it was definitely in line with MCPS policy of respecting all faiths and those who practiced them."
As an anonymi who "bloviates" here, I think those types of classes are great. If compared objectively, however, Christianity will usually be, hands-down, the most logical and appealing. This is what makes humanists so nervous about these courses.
You might be interested to know that this is a required course at most Catholic high schools. Alumni from those schools also speak highly of the course.
"Whatever else it was, it was not cooercive or demeaning for those students who chose to make up their own minds about what they believed."
There is no indication that the Texas classes are "cooercive or demeaning" either.
"No, anonymous, you've got it wrong. The passage where Jesus speaks to the Jews begins at verse 12."
Randi, I just re-read the passage from 12 and, actually, you're right that he wasn't referring to the Jews who believed in him. My apologies.
He starts by talking to the Pharisees and then starts having a conversation with other Jews who supported the Pharisees and attacked him. During the course of the conversation, "many" come to side with Jesus.
You are making too much, however, out of the term "Jews" in this context. It was describing a group that was having a conversation with him. Jesus was just as Jewish as they were and he was arguing using the Jewish scripture as his reference. He was telling these guys they didn't understand scripture at all. It was Jew arguing with Jew and there is no reason to award victory to Pharisees and say Jesus was anti-Jewish.
"Jesus is seperating the Jews who believe in him (Christians) from the Jews who do not (those of the Jewish religion)."
Actually, it was mutual, baby. They were seperating themselves from him. They actually started attacking him first.
"Jesus was not refering to the Jews/Christians who believed in him when he said "ye are of the Devil", he was refering to the Jews who didn't believe in them and making it clear that he does not approve of them."
None of this makes him anti-semitic. They were first "making it clear" they didn't approve of him and they said he had a "demon". The Pharisees said this about him on other occasions. Since he was Jewish, does this make the Pharisees anti-semitic?
The whole thing was a Jewish debate and the big problem they had with him was that he pointed out that they didn't understand JEWISH scripture.
"You've got to remember that the bible was written by different men at different times to meet their own political purposes. The new and old testaments obviously don't belong together and the new is not a continuation of the old, its a bastardized adaptation which is inconsistent with the old testament in many ways."
Too late to elaborate but both these statements are incorrect.
Maybe tomorrow.
humanists so nervous about these courses.
On the contrary, humanists welcome comparative religion classes. Such classes show that ALL religions are based on ancient myths, magical creatures, and unprovable beliefs.
"On the contrary, humanists welcome comparative religion classes. Such classes show that ALL religions are based on ancient myths, magical creatures, and unprovable beliefs."
Not all these classes do that. Some are objective and simply teach what the various religions believe. Those are the kind that are worthwhile. There is no need for making judgments on the beliefs. They can speak for themselves.
Anonymous follows his pattern of choosing to say whatever real bloggers here will find most annoying (and to boot, continuing to call Randi "he"). Anonymous is a parody of himself, not a real person, interested only in argument (and insult) for the sake of argument. No one could reasonably take all the positions he does. We call this "oppositionalism." The question to be asked is this: "Is such oppositionalism genetic, environmental, or is it a lifestyle choice?"
"Anonymous follows his pattern of choosing to say whatever real bloggers here will find most annoying"
Any examples, Robert?
"Anonymous follows his pattern of choosing to say whatever real bloggers here will find most annoying"
Any examples, Robert?"
Robert gave you an example, namely referring to Randi as a he all the time. Need more examples? Asking for more examples of your own annoying speech is annoying. Do your own damn research.
Andrea- not anon
I wonder if Anon is johnny or wyatt? Admit it, come on.
"Robert gave you an example, namely referring to Randi as a he all the time. Need more examples? Asking for more examples of your own annoying speech is annoying. Do your own damn research."
Damn it all. There is a philosophical difference about what gender Randi is. TTF says it's however you feel, in which case we'd go with whatever he says. The rest of the world defines gender as your chromosal make-up which you are born with and can't change. Why does anyone have to let TTF define terms by their own caprice.
Is that all Robert means?
Anon, I'll step in here. There's no "philosophical" anything about it. If Randi says she's a female, you will address her as a female. If you make a mistake, you apologize. If you call Randi "he" or "him" again, I'll simply delete your comment, no matter what "philosophical" point you think you are making with your rudeness.
And by the way, nobody defines gender in terms of "chromosomal makeup." You've never seen your own chromosomes, you have no idea how they're made up.
JimK
Thank you Jim.
Anonymous reminds me of Matt Barber at CWA and Peter LaBarbera, formerly of CWA, now of the Illinois Family Institute (Peter got a job as an ED!) and Americans for Truth (his own website. I've heard Peter's done all sorts of things in his "research" on the "gay lifestyle."
But both of those gnetlemen publish under their own names.
Anonymous reminds most of a country cousin of Sisyphus, the parodic blogger at blogs2brownback.wordpress.com
I wonder if "Oppositional-Defiant Disorder" is still in the DSM.
rrjr
"And by the way, nobody defines gender in terms of "chromosomal makeup.""
I'm nobody.
Who are you?
Are you nobody too?
Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia entry on "female":
"Female(♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells).
Most mammals, including humans, are genetically determined as such by the XY sex-determination system where males have an XY (as opposed to XX) sex chromosome. During reproduction, a male can give either an X sperm or a Y sperm, while a female can only give an X egg. A Y sperm and an X egg produce a boy, while an X sperm and an X egg produce a girl."
Anonymous said "None of this makes him anti-semitic. They were first "making it clear" they didn't approve of him and they said he had a "demon". The Pharisees said this about him on other occasions. Since he was Jewish, does this make the Pharisees anti-semitic?".
Yes, it does make him anti-semetic. He was claiming to be the son of god, he said "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." The Jews rejected that idea, that's why they said he had a demon. He said
"ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." and "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil".
He was saying, if you do not accept Jesus (people of the Jewish religion do not accept jesus therefore he was saying if you are a jew) you seek to kill me and you are of the devil.
Technically Jesus was not a Jew, he was a Christian because he believed in Christ. However for the sake of argument let's say he was a Jew. In this case, no the Pharisees are not anti-semetic for rejecting Jesus. The rejected someone who happened to be a Jew, not somone BECAUSE he was a Jew. They rejected him because he was delusional, not because he was Jewish. Its just like the hate crimes law - if you assault someone who happens to be gay you are not guilty of a hate-crime but if you assault him BECAUSE he's gay you are.
We see the same thing with Paul he said " ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men".
If he was condemning people who just happened to be Jewish, instead of refering specifically to "the Jews" he'd have said "those people" or "those who killed Jesus". Because he was assigning blame to Jews in general he distinguished those who killed Jesus as Jews.
We can see this again with Pope Paul VI preaching Passion Sunday in 1965. In his sermon he said;
"Jews were predestined to receive the Messia and had been waiting for him for thousands of years. When Christ comes the Jews not only did not recognise him, they oppose him, slander him and finally kill him.
Again, you can see, he refers not to "people" who coincidentally happen to be Jews, but to "Jews" in general.
Its easy to see how Jewish children are going to feel harrassed by the teaching of Christianity in schools.
Anonymous, you will notice that that Wikipedia page on the concept "Female" does not use the word "gender," except more than halfway down, when it refers to "A common symbol used to represent the female gender." You are confusing sex and gender.
Worse, you are making a fool of yourself. What is so hard about accepting someone's preference for how they wish to be addressed? If I say my name is Jim, do you call me Joe, just because according to some book I look like a Joe? You want to justify your rudeness, and ... everybody sees it for what it is.
I'd move on if I were you.
JimK
"He was saying, if you do not accept Jesus (people of the Jewish religion do not accept jesus therefore he was saying if you are a jew) you seek to kill me and you are of the devil.
Technically Jesus was not a Jew, he was a Christian because he believed in Christ. However for the sake of argument let's say he was a Jew. In this case, no the Pharisees are not anti-semetic for rejecting Jesus. The rejected someone who happened to be a Jew, not somone BECAUSE he was a Jew. They rejected him because he was delusional, not because he was Jewish. Its just like the hate crimes law - if you assault someone who happens to be gay you are not guilty of a hate-crime but if you assault him BECAUSE he's gay you are."
You say the determining factor of whether one is Jewish or not is whether they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So, to you, if Jesus says he is Messiah, then he is anti-semitic. Yet Jesus believed the entire canon of Hebrew scripture. There is no Hebrew scripture that says Jesus is not the Messiah. He didn't denounce them because they were Jews, he denounced them because they were wrong and weren't in agreement with Jewish scripture.
Let me ask you this:
You have repeatedly criticized the religion of the Jews here in the harshest terms. You accuse this religion of all kinds of travesty. Does that make you anti-semitic?
andrea- not anon
"Christianity will be the most logical and appealing" so speaks an anon who claims objectivity.
teaching a positive view of Christianity is different from "preaching" a positive view of Christianity. We recognize that our anons have no idea of the difference. Their comments on this class make that obvious.
Andrea- not anon
Yes, a Jew does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah(and "messianic jews" are not Jews) but being someone who does believe Jesus is the Messiah has nothing to do with anti-semitism. By the way,it is correct my bible doesn't say Jesus wasn't the Messiah- he doesn't exist at all in my Bible. The absence of something does not constitute a positive- you cannot infer for Jews that because our Bible doesn't deny Jesus was the Messiah-that therefore, it means he is. Fine for Christians- not for Jews.
This is exactly why a Bible class would be a problem
Anonymous said "You say the determining factor of whether one is Jewish or not is whether they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So, to you, if Jesus says he is Messiah, then he is anti-semitic.".
Well, for starters, Jesus is a fictional character. Ancient writers made up what he supposedly said. So the person who wrote claiming to be Jesus was not anti-semetic because he said this fictional character was the messiah, he was anti-semetic because he "quoted" Jesus saying that anyone who doesn't believe in him must want to kill him and is of the devil.
Anonymous said "Yet Jesus believed the entire canon of Hebrew scripture. There is no Hebrew scripture that says Jesus is not the Messiah.
Of course there's no hebrew scripture saying Jesus wasn't the messiah, it was written before the time of the Jesus story so the writers had no knowledge of the claim that a Jesus character was a messiah - they couldn't refute a story they never heard.
Anonymous said "He didn't denounce them because they were Jews, he denounced them because they were wrong and weren't in agreement with Jewish scripture."
"Jesus" said ""ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." and "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil". "He" denounced those who didn't believe in him and seeing as its Jews who don't believe in Jesus he was denouncing the Jews. And no, they weren't wrong about Jewish scripture, the Jewish scripture was the Old Testament and there is no mention in it of Jesus being the messiah. They were perfectly true to the scripture in rejecting Jesus.
Anonymous asked "Where does it say that Christians should persecute non-believers?"
Deuteronomy 13: 6-10
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
Anonymous said "If compared objectively, however, Christianity will usually be, hands-down, the most logical and appealing".
LOL, you must be joking. God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are all one but still seperate and distinct?! God tortures and kills his innocent son so he can overlook other's wrongdoings?! God kills his innocent self to appease himself?! If god wanted to overlook people's wrongdoings all he had to do was do it, he didn't need to torture and kill an innocent to do so. And what kind of sense does that make?! If a mother of two said "Julie was so terrible that I tortured and killed angelic little Joey" we'd all think she was crazy and evil - why should we think any differently of the Christian god?
"Yes, a Jew does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah(and "messianic jews" are not Jews)"
Why not, Andrea? Why can't a Jew read and believe in all the scriptures and conclude that Jesus fulfills the prophecies about the Messiah and still be Jewish? Why is belief in Jesus a deal-breaker? Why does he define Judaism?
"but being someone who does believe Jesus is the Messiah has nothing to do with anti-semitism."
Thanks for acknowledging this obvious truth.
"By the way,it is correct my bible doesn't say Jesus wasn't the Messiah- he doesn't exist at all in my Bible. The absence of something does not constitute a positive- you cannot infer for Jews that because our Bible doesn't deny Jesus was the Messiah-that therefore, it means he is."
Oh, I agree. I don't think that was the point being made. The point was that when Jesus said he was the Messiah, he wasn't being anti-semitic. Obviously, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he would have to fulfill the prophecies.
There is actually an interesting exchange currently taking place between religions. Jacob Neusner, a Jewish scholar, wrote a book in 1993 called "A Rabbi Talks to Jesus", where he examines the claims of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew to be the Messiah and shows why modern Jews don't generally believe it. The Pope has a new book coming out where he spends twenty pages specifically addressing Neusner's arguments. I'm not either Jewish or Catholic but think the exchange would make a fascinating study in one of these Bible classes.
"Well, for starters, Jesus is a fictional character."
Thanks for atarting with that. It's much easier to argue with someone who discredits themselves right off the bat.
"Ancient writers made up what he supposedly said."
Some scholars say these things. Ever look at their basis for saying this? They have none.
"So the person who wrote claiming to be Jesus was not anti-semetic because he said this fictional character was the messiah, he was anti-semetic because he "quoted" Jesus saying that anyone who doesn't believe in him must want to kill him and is of the devil."
First of all, in one of your earlier hateful ramblings, you claimed that hostility to Jewish religious beliefs is anti-semitism and that belief that Jesus is the Messiah is contrary to Jewish religious beliefs.
Secondly, what he said about non-believers applied to all non-believers not just those Jews who didn't believe in him.
Finally, he didn't say that anyone who didn't believe in him must want to kill him and be of the devil. He said this to a specific group of people who were attacking him because he did things like relieve suffering on the Sabbath.
"And no, they weren't wrong about Jewish scripture, the Jewish scripture was the Old Testament and there is no mention in it of Jesus being the messiah. They were perfectly true to the scripture in rejecting Jesus."
Jesus fulfilled prophecy of the Old Testament. The prophecies were about him.
Beyond that, however, he showed many other things to them about scripture that they didn't recognize.
"LOL, you must be joking."
If you're so sure Christianity is illogical and unappealing, why do you oppose teaching an informational class about what it says?
My two cents, FWIW...
Butch Foreman's comment was crass, unprofessional and unbecoming an elected public official.
It would appear that the fears from the local jewish community are indeed warranted. It is a pity that the Bible cannot be taught without the heavy-handed sectarian prejudices of the local populace. There is much to be learned from a secular knowledge of the Bible in better understanding the history, art, etc. of Western Civilization.
Religion as an elective is a wonderful idea in theory, but the practice of it becomes quite problematic when local groups think they don't have to be genuinely respectful of the faith of others.
Andrea- not anon
Anon- because you obviously know little about Judaism and have an opinion about it- doesn't make it correct. Certainly a Jew could decide that Jesus was the Messiah- and then that person would have accepted Christianity,along with their acceptance of your part of the Bible. The belief that our Bible has prophecies to Jesus is also incorrect in Jewish belief. As far as we are concerned, nothing in our Bible speaks about Jesus and he fulfilled nothing for us. The use of "OT" is very much a Christian thing as well- although Jews sometimes have used the term for explanatory reasons- nothing Old and New for us. These are Christian beliefs- and a Jew who accepted them would be accepting Christianity. The various forms of conversion may not be fulfilled but acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is a dealbreaker in Judaism. I am not sure you can grasp this since obviously you have been indoctrinated in a belief system that considers everyone else'e religion so much less valid than your own and that our religious beliefs can only be validated by accepting yours. I don't care if you don't pray with your head covered and wearing a prayer shawl or if your most important prayer is not stating the oneness of God or that you believe that Jesus died for your sins. I can accept that for you as being perfectly right without having any interest in telling you otherwise. That is also part of Judaism's difference.
If you're so sure Christianity is illogical and unappealing, why do you oppose teaching an informational class about what it says?
No commenters on this thread are opposed to teaching a class about Christianity. People are opposed to teaching a class that is only about Christianity. A comparative religion class that includes the world's major religions -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and since it's the third most popular belief system after Christianity and Islam (according to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), maybe even a little agnosticism/atheism -- would be a welcome addition to any public school curriculum.
"Anon- because you obviously know little about Judaism and have an opinion about it- doesn't make it correct. Certainly a Jew could decide that Jesus was the Messiah- and then that person would have accepted Christianity,along with their acceptance of your part of the Bible. The belief that our Bible has prophecies to Jesus is also incorrect in Jewish belief. As far as we are concerned, nothing in our Bible speaks about Jesus and he fulfilled nothing for us. The use of "OT" is very much a Christian thing as well- although Jews sometimes have used the term for explanatory reasons- nothing Old and New for us. These are Christian beliefs- and a Jew who accepted them would be accepting Christianity. The various forms of conversion may not be fulfilled but acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is a dealbreaker in Judaism."
Oh, I understand that most Jews think that today but, again, I don't understand why. I could understand if someone just considered it and decided Jesus wasn't the Messiah. I just don't understand why another Jew couldn't consider it and decide Jesus is the Messiah and still be considered Jewish. Does something Jesus taught contradict scriptures? Not that I know of.
Have you ever considered he prophecies concerning the Messiah and whether Jesus fulfilled them?
"No commenters on this thread are opposed to teaching a class about Christianity. People are opposed to teaching a class that is only about Christianity. A comparative religion class that includes the world's major religions -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism"
Well, remember, a comparative class could be skewed as well. And a comparative class could be edifying as an elective but a class on Judeo-Christianity would seem to be more necessary because of the impact on our society and its essentiality in understanding it. Really, though, the problem some people will have is that a truly objective lesson comparing religions will favor Christianity.
That tells you something there.
"Really, though, the problem some people will have is that a truly objective lesson comparing religions will favor Christianity.
That tells you something there."
It sure does tell us something there. It tells us that you are so biased you can only see ONE possible outcome from a Comparative Religion class and then imagine that people will have a problem with such a class because of that outcome. Can you find a comment from anyone here other than yourself that has expressed a problem with a Comparative Religion class?
"It tells us that you are so biased you can only see ONE possible outcome from a Comparative Religion class"
And you have a different opinion.
So what?
So the only person who claims that "some people" might not want there to be a Comparative Religion class in public school is you.
Anonymous said ""Ancient writers made up what he supposedly said."
Some scholars say these things. Ever look at their basis for saying this? They have none.".
Anonymous, unlike other biblical characters there are no sources verifying the historicity of Jesus apart from the bible. Well known historians of the time recorded other biblical characters but made no mention of Jesus who supposedly was this famous figure. That's because Jesus is fictional, if he had been real the bible independent historians of the day would have made some mention of him - they didn't.
Anonymous said "you claimed that hostility to Jewish religious beliefs is anti-semitism and that belief that Jesus is the Messiah is contrary to Jewish religious beliefs.".
The belief that Jesus is the messiah isn't in itself hostile to Jewish religious beliefs. And I never said that hostility to jewish beliefs is anti-semitism, I said Paul's indiscriminantly blaiming all Jews for killing Jesus was anti-semitism and "Jesus's" saying those Jews who didn't believe in him must desire to kill him and jews are of the devil is anti-semitism.
Anonymous said "Secondly, what he said about non-believers applied to all non-believers not just those Jews who didn't believe in him.".
No, John 8 makes it clear he was speaking only to the Jews, both those who believed in him (the christians) and those who didn't (the Jews). And Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16 specifically singles out the Jews as not pleasing god.
Anonymous said "Finally, [Jesus] didn't say that anyone who didn't believe in him must want to kill him and be of the devil. He said this to a specific group of people who were attacking him because he did things like relieve suffering on the Sabbath.".
Yes he did say that. Go back and read John 8 again. He said "If God were your Father, ye would love me...Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" and "ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." The Jews in John 8 criticized Jesus for claiming he was the messiah, none of them mentioned his working on the sabath.
Anonymous said "Jesus fulfilled prophecy of the Old Testament. The prophecies were about him.".
Nonsense. If this were the case there'd be no Jews, only Christians. While it would have been a simple matter for the authors of the New Testament to tailor it to the old Testament and they did do so to a degree it still doesn't fit well, hence it is a kluge (a clumsy addition that doesn't integrate well making it clear it was never intended to be part of the original) as I said. The old testament said there would be many false prophets and they would know them by the fact that their prophecies didn't come true. The Jesus fiction was in essence a false prophet, "his" prophecies were made up after the fact or didn't come true at all, for example that he would return soon.
Anonymous said "If you're so sure Christianity is illogical and unappealing, why do you oppose teaching an informational class about what it says?".
I oppose the exclusive teaching of Christianity. I'm all for comparitive religion classes. Studies show that those exposed to comparitive religion classes tend to see the folly of all religions and discard religion all together.
Post a Comment
<< Home