Is it so hard to understand the visceral reaction that many people have when somebody claims to be superior to them? — baker

You say Jews just believe this and "it goes without saying." If anyone is looking for theological anti-Semitism look no further.

I am Jewish btw. I have never heard this idea -- that Jews are superior to gentiles -- uttered by anyone. It doesn't make sense and I don't really care to entertain it. If Jews are so superior why are they constantly getting humbled by other nations in the bible?

No, they believe they have a special relationship with God, the gentiles will suffer when they die, and God will eventually put the Jews in charge of the world. — frank

Yes there is a special relationship, but God watches over the entire world. Jews don't know the relations he has with other groups because Jews are just with other Jews. Jews only record their own experiences/revelations, meanwhile the Muslims believe that God spoke to Muhammad giving the Arabs their own special insights. This isn't unique to Judaism. The Hindus have a rich history of the Gods interacting with their people.

They do not believe the gentiles get worse afterlife. Gentiles only have the laws of noah to follow, meanwhile jews are saddled with 600 or so laws. the talmud says "the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come." it patently untrue that the gentiles get a worse afterlife for not being jews.

everyone has their own endtime prophecies. christians believe jesus will return. i'm not dealing with endtime prophecies today but if someone would like to enlighten us they're welcome to.

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people". — baker

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. — baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. — baker

They are universalistic religions who will push their beliefs and have caused considerable harm in doing so. Jews do not convert by the sword. Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Because Benkei and I were discussing Judaism and Benkei made the claim that Jews/Judaism was "subverted" to being a nation-people as opposed to merely a religion, like Christianity (unattached to any land). I made the case that the Jews *are* a nation-people. I stand by my claim.

In other words, when we speak of "jews" or "judaism" we are speaking of a nation-people.

Nobody is telling you what you must believe or how you must weigh the ethics of the situation.

Who's this "our" I wonder?

If one is inclined to think time spent ruling land identifies a people with it, I would think the fact no Israeli kings, or Jews in general, ruled in Israel since around 600 B.C.E., suggests there is no connection between Judaism and Palestine. As for the promise made by God in "our" Bible, it would seem God changed his mind when he allowed Babylon to conquer Israel, as so many others did. — Ciceronianus

It is authoritative for Jews and Christians.

It is not just the time spent ruling. The Torah, the meat and potatoes of Jewish religious canon, details the connection between the Hebrew people and the land of Israel. The events described in the Torah occur before this period. When the land changed hands away from the Israelites it was explained as loss of divine favor, often due to the Israelites own misbehavior. A common biblical motif.

You're confusing anti-zionist positions with anti-semitic positions. — Benkei

I am not. When crowds of protestors are screaming "gas the Jews" in Australia or when Jews are being told by police to stay away from these pro-Hamas marches that is a sign of anti-Semitism. When Jewish students are threatened on college campuses like Cornell that is anti-Semitism. There has been a massive upsurge of anti-Semitism in the US. It has become a big problem on college campuses. Statistics that track these incidents bear this out.

Yes, it was done by the hand of Pilate. No one is arguing that. Pilate is described as hesitant. All I'm saying is that there's solid biblical grounds for pointing the finger at the Jews. He was tried in front of a Sanhedrin, an ancient Jewish court.

Somewhere along the line, Christians got the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus = god = deicide. — BC

It is in their Bible. It wasn't until Vatican II in the 1960s that the Catholics officially repudiated the idea. But if one were to just pick up and read the NT the most straight-off answer is that the Jews were behind it.

"His blood is on us and our children" (Matthew 27) cry the blood-thirsty Jews during the crucifixion.

Saying the NT is anti-Semitic is a bit like saying Luther or Calvin's work is "anti-Christian." To be sure, their work has motivated a good deal of prejudice, oppression, and violence against Christians, but it's an internal schism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Once a Jew has accepted the divine revelation of Jesus Christ he has placed himself outside of Judaism. If religion were sport then he would be playing a very different sort of ballgame. We have religious schisms within Judaism at this time: See Hillel vs Shammai.

If the writers were born Jews then they were surely not anti-Semites in the modern sense, but their writing in critiquing the Pharisees so harshly (and imho sometimes unnecessarily) served as a springboard for anti-Semitism.

Well Jesus critiques the Pharisees (ancestors of the modern day Jews) in the New Testament and then the authors of the NT run with that and go a bit further so the NT ends up a fairly anti-Semitic document. Then there's Muslim anti-Semitism which has its own causes. Then there's "woke" anti-Semitism which regards Israel as an amorphous oppressor/occupier and glosses over Israeli/Jewish victims. There's different kinds and many reasons.

Culturally, Jews like to argue. They'll complain. They're a people whose tradition rests on constant argumentation and debate in contrast to other cultural traditions. They can be a stubborn people. Then there's the economic history where Jews were often the middle-men such as loaners and bankers making them unpopular.

TLDR: This is a complex question but IMHO if you really wish to understand anti-Semitism I recommend reading the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

It's also pretty cool how being "Jewish" was subverted to something like a nation-race. — Benkei

Hm. As opposed to what? The way I understand Judaism is that it has always been bound up in the land of Israel. Our Bible details centuries of Israelite kings ruling in Israel in antiquity (from around 1000 BC-600 BC). Even before that Moses is promised the land by God. What I'm saying is - a biblical view of the subject would lead me to believe that the Jews are a nation-people. Zionism just rolls with this idea. Can it be taken to an extreme? Yes, of course. There are of course racists on both sides who want the land to be entirely theirs and view the other people as inferior.

We usually have this difficulty of seeing someone or especially a country as both perpetrators and victims. For many, for some reason, it is very troubling when someone points out warcrimes or other dubious actions in an otherwise justified military action. This is because those who are typically pushing their own agenda will try to diminish the justification by pointing out the negative aspects. Yet the reality is what it is. — ssu

:100:

(A field synagogue on the front during the Continuation War in Syväri, actually very close to the German positions, who then were our brothers in arms. 4 Finnish-Jewish soldiers were given the Iron Cross, none of the accepted it.) — ssu

That is fascinating. I did not know that 4 Finnish Jews were offered the iron cross by Germany but rejected it. You learn something new everyday.

And in which religion murder wouldn't be a sin? Those religions with human sacrifices have dissappeared, and even they didn't that you can randomly murder anyone. You can have individuals, groups organizations and states that are murderous, not whole people. — ssu

I believe a people can be murderous, not inherently, but rather because their culture/what they are taught. According to Jewish tradition/theology the flood occurs because of the murderousness/bloodshed of humanity in the pre-flood era; in the Babylonian version it is because humanity makes too much noise and disturbs the Gods. Cultures have different ways of processing events.

Ty for the improved re-write. Certainly bombs smash children against walls as well (or walls against children.)

Would you rather have your baby shot to death or blown into little pieces by a bomb? Looking at it from the perspective that matters, it doesn't matter much. — Baden

True, it wouldn't matter much. As long as death is instantaneous. And bombs smash children against walls. The physical results are the same in case A and B.

Fortunately the Jewish religious zealots aren't so deadly towards Christians as the Muslim religious zealots are towards them in many other Middle Eastern countries. And it's now a bit ironic that the ultra-orthodox protested against their military service. — ssu

Jews are not a murderous people. Murder is the primeval sin in our religious texts; Judaism is also a much older religion than Islam. The ultra-orthodox have been disliked for years by their fellow Israeli Jews for a myriad of reasons.

Nazis were genocidal oppressors and Jews et al were the oppressed and mostly slaughtered by Nazis. I'm consistent, BC – no matter how bestial the oppressd (dispossed) become, IMO, the oppressor (dispossessor) is always worse. :mask: — 180 Proof

Yes, the Jews were oppressed and the Nazis were genocidal oppressors, as a group. On an individual/personal level things become more complicated. I remember reading Viktor Frankl's memoirs and he remarks how there were actually some "good" Nazis and also there were morally bankrupt Jews who ended up Holocaust victims. The more memoirs I read of holocaust survivors the more complex/obscuring the picture becomes from "good Jews, bad Nazis."

Don't get me wrong, "good innocent Jews, bad evil Nazis" is the general truth but on an individual level and on a true historical level the truth is much, much more disturbing. I don't know whether you've read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem or the memoirs of any of the Jewish police.

I condemn anyone who uses such tactics. I'd condemn a Jew who intentionally murdered German civilians in WWII. Thankfully I don't know of any historical instances of Jews resorting to those tactics. On an individual level I think higher of a theoretical "humane" Nazi bomber who strives to play by the rules than the murderous Jew.

I'm the Jew but you apparently hate Nazis more than me. :chin:

Hey which is worse?

A group of armed Jews in 1944/45 who go from house to house murdering German civilians with guns and blunt weapons.

A German pilot in WWII who bombs an English armaments factory but intends to destroy only military targets.

I would tentatively say that the Jews are worse, on a personal level taking the incident isolated.

Christians have been traditionally well treated in Israel, but sadly there has been an uptick in anti-Christian activity lately. It seems to mostly come from the ultra-orthodox. Very sad, but many Jews are unlikely to be sympathetic due to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In any case maybe it'll work out for them.

“Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).

Because the Israeli cause isn't just, every action following it, is contaminated by that unjust cause. You cannot act ethically right in that case. In the case of the Palestinians, their cause is just but Hamas pursued it via unjust means. — Benkei

By "Israeli cause" you mean Israel's existence as a state, period? Is "Palestine" really for the Palestinians? Are they the original inhabitants? And the Jews are colonizers? Whose land is it really, Benkei?

So their actions are also unjust but they could, if they had used other means - for instance only attacking Israeli soldiers involved in the occupation - they would've been fully in their rights. — Benkei

This would be a huge step up from what happened on 10/7.

I get a sense that maybe you'll agree with my view that neither side can be expected to act in a completely rational manner here, after all the damage that has been done. Would you agree with that?

If so, what approach would you suggest going forward? — Tzeentch

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to.

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is? — Tzeentch

The moment Israel attained statehood it needed to defend itself in 1948. Without force there would be no state.

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine? — Tzeentch

Violence radicalizes, no doubt. But the Palestinians numbers have boomed. If Israel is trying to genocide them it has done a terrible job.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. That has been the case since the beginning. We can criticize the scale, but not the tool.And yes I have never denied the existence of ultranationalist elements. Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. — Benkei

Yes it is an ethnostate surrounded by Muslim nations. Just as the Muslims govern in a special way that promotes Islamic ideals, Israel perpetuates Jewish life and Jewish ideals. Israel absolutely values the lives of its own citizens above those of surrounding nations, but this hardly unique to Israel. We should keep in mind that Judaism is not a race. It is an ethnicity and a religion. You may not like the idea of a state with a religious/ethnic character but this is hardly unique to Israel.

I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. Or maybe I misunderstood you because the grammar. I've just never heard of the idea that Israel ought to be 100% Jewish and I don't see it in the Likud platform.

As to Hamas supporting a two state solution on paper... recent events make this irrelvant.

actual ethnic cleansing — Tzeentch

Ethnic cleansing. Genocide. One square inch of Israel on Muslim lands constitutes ethnic cleansing for a certain side. Excuse me if I sound jaded.

Since when has Hamas been in favor of a two state solution? In their charter they demand the annihilation of Israel. Where did Likud state that Israel should be entirely Jewish? This strikes me as a radical minority position.

What do you think "from the river to the sea" means? They wish to free it all from Israel. I think it's fairly straight forward.

"From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free"

It is a call for ethnic cleansing. The chanters do not wish to share the land; they wish to annex it all and subjugate the Jews under Muslim rule assuming there are any Jews still left alive. At best subjugation, at worst genocide.

When Israel expands its opponents call that ethnic cleansing, but the same standard is not applied when "Palestine" expands and Israel shrinks. The same people harping against the genocide of Palestinians eagerly support the genocide/subjugation of Israeli Jews with such chants.

One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! — frank

Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations?

I see where you're coming from, frank. It's a nice idea. Unfortunately granting the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship just isn't feasible if Israel is looking to survive as a democratic, Jewish state. There have been periods where Israel has tried treating them nice but it's hard when your very existence drives a certain element of palestinian society to homicidal rage.

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination. — Tzeentch

Hamas, and many Palestinians, consider the existence ofany Jewish state in "Palestine" to be "occupation" of Arab lands. So I guess it's just endless fighting until Israel ceases to exist.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway — Tzeentch

1400 dead is the most Jews killed since the Holocaust, and then to have protests erupt around the world with anti-Semitic slogans being shouted ("gas the Jews" in Sydney) and the major uptick in anti-Semitism over the past 5-10 years leaves some of us worried.

I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, I would agree. Part of the confusion is that some of us are using it in a more religious sense and others aren't. Evil in a religious sense is an interesting concept and has been written about extensively, but evil in just a normal, secular context is often used synonymously with "bad" which can be confusing. Honestly, in a non-religious context I'd just scrap the term entirely - a main point of language ought to be clarity, especially in philosophical discussion.

Okay. I prefer the precision of it. — 180 Proof

Alright, and that speaks to your psychology. I'd venture to say that most people don't quite share your intense predilection towards philosophical precision. Personally, under a non-theistic worldview I would find impassioned speeches and mass movements much, much more appealing - they appeal to the whole of the human as opposed to just the rational mind.

EDIT: Oh, and mass movements do tend to get things done and execute on plans as opposed to philosophers who are not the most active group out there.

I understand, but they're still complicit in the suffering and mental anguish of a neuroatypical person.

I just don't think regimes that do really bad things can be just labeled "good" (FDR goes well beyond the inevitably of doing some bad things as head of state because of lack of political capital) — Saphsin

I understand, and my intention going to this topic was never to specifically advocate for FDR or to defend him against all criticism. In any case, I don't disagree with anything you've said here philosophically but maybe our discussion could go in a more historical direction going back to an earlier claim:

FDR supported Mussolini and worked with racist-Southern Democrats to block anti-lynching laws. — Saphsin

FDR admired Italy's social programs and he may have admired Mussolini personally (any material you bring in here is welcome, I'm unsure as to FDR's exact attitude towards Mussolini), but this was between '33-'36 at which point Italy invaded Abyssinia and relations soured. I don't see anything wrong with FDR engaging with Italy in this period, and had FDR somehow been successful in swaying Italy over the Allies that would have saved us a lot of trouble.

On the anti-lynching bill, FDR personally regarded lynching as murder but according to his own words he needed the political support of southern democrats and pushing through the anti-lynching bill would have sabotaged his political capital with that group. If FDR is accurately representing the scenario that I can envision scenarios where he decision here is justified.

Sounds like "evil" is a case-by-case, "in the eye of the beholder," "I know it when I see it" prospect for you, BC, and not an applicable principle with explicit criteria? — 180 Proof

I'll engage with what you said earlier:

• In a religious context, of discourse, evil denotes disobeying (i.e. to willfully sin – rebel – against) "god".

• In a nonreligious / secular context, or discourse, evil amounts to ... indifference to, or inflicting, gratuitous harm that culminates in destroying moral agency. — 180 Proof

I mostly agree with your religious definition. We could dive a little further into different types of evil and it's nature but by and large what you're saying here is reasonable.

In a non-religious context we should probably just stop using the word "evil" since it's a confusing, religiously-grounded word and instead use descriptors like "bad" or "very bad." Regardless, I don't see any reason to prefer your definition over any number of other definitions assuming both are coherent.

So, in fact, "evil" can reach a point that an oppressive regime cannot be said to be "counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere". — 180 Proof

of course.

Your example of the FDR admininstration is that on-balance the worst one could say about the regime during WW2 is that it was 'very bad but not evil'. — 180 Proof

no, i would never describe the fdr regime during ww2 as "very bad, but not evil" because it's a terrible description. as long as you're not a nazi or pro-axis the fdr regime is a good during WWII. one can say that specific policies implemented by fdr were bad/oppressive, but the bigger picture is clear.

I guess if I were forced to answer, I would say FDR is less evil than Stalin, but I also don't find it a productive question. — Saphsin

the two aren't remotely in the same ballpark.

Stalin did so much evil that he's completely unredeemable. Stalin's hand was forced once the Germans attacked in '41 so it's not even like he made a heroic decision to fight at that point - he had to.

I was thinking more along the lines of FDR's decision to place Japanese-Americans into internment camps. That was clearly a bad decision and oppressive, but it would be unfair to stop historical analysis there and label the FDR administration as evil.

No, I don't believe that because oppressive policies in one area can be counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere. We also need to be on watch that the definition of evil isn't constantly being cheapened as this removes our ability to combat real evil.