(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Why do I even bother to look in christianity anymore? Half of what I see there literally makes me sick.

Edit. What disturbs me this morning in particular are (a) ignorant comments about homosexuality which never fails to upset me, and (b) willful ignorance regarding anti-Semitism.

For example, it's being discussed that Gibson has taken a scene out of his movie that shows a Jew lamenting that Jesus' blood will be on their heads forever. Comments such as, "But that's in the Bible, so it's historically true and COULDN'T POSSIBLY be anti-Semitic" are what has riled me.

Comments

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

OK--no, except to the degree that it is reactive to the scorn in which Judaism was held, in ancient times by the pagan thinkers and philosophers,particularly before Philo went to work, to make it "respectable."
However I do think that anti-semitism of many strands of pagan thought was the vehicle used by the early Church to establish, through invidious comparisons with Judaism, Christianity's uniqueness and, therefore, its superiority. Except for the presence of the REAL MESSIAH in it, and His original--as opposed to ascribed--sayings, I share Scott Neibarger's (yahvah's) belief that "Christianity" has NO inherent superiority over Judaism. I believe that Jesus's mission was primarily to the Jews, that the gentiles (us) are only involved in it indirectly, and that WE "queered" the message of Jesus, and "ruined" it for His people. And I say that as somebody who was raised Catholic and who still has tremendous residual affection and respect for Catholicism--which in temper and spirit I find to be much closer to Judaism than Protestantism. Protestantism as a religious culture I DESPISE. (So you can see I'm NOT insulting you, by calling your thinking "Jesuitical"--just saying you "equivocate" un peu, with the finer distinctions.)

Re: John's fictions

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Would it be anti-Semitic to believe Christianity is 'unique and therefore superior'? I'm supposing 'superior' here means something along the lines of 'more closely describes an objective religious truth.'

Re: John's fictions

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

Ah, Fundamentalism rears its little head! I suppose I'm too much of (egads!) a "post modernist" (and an admirer of Kierkegaard) to believe that there's ANY SUCH THING as an "objective religious truth." "Religious truth" isn't "objective"; it's "subjective" (and, therefore, of infinitely greater value; I think YOUR thought has been infected by modernist veneration for so-called "scientific truth" to the point you're unable to understand that SCIENCE IS AS MUCH A FIELD OF SUPERSTITION AS MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICISM WAS!)
It's amazing how many Fundos there are at LiveJournal--makes me think that John Updike was right, in that satiric novel he wrote a decade ago (about the geek who aspired to use his computer, to communicate with God), that there's an incredible correspondence between "computer geekery" and Fundamentalism!

Re: John's fictions

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

I think you're inferring an awful lot into my comments.

You're the one who introduced the judgement of superior, I am merely trying to understand what you mean by it.