History is a cloud out of which you can pull whatever narrative you like. — frank

And the Old Testament displays a certain narrative where the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled. I never said Nietzsche was wrong; only that his "slave morality" is typified in the Jesus of the gospels. Some people think Jesus epitomizes Judaism. I never said that Christians were or ought to be pacifists. Some narratives are good and needed, others are immature and lacking.

And the Old Testament displays a certain narrative where the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled. I never said Nietzsche was wrong; only that his "slave morality" is typified in the Jesus of the gospels. — BitconnectCarlos

You're right. If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. And yes, Jesus' message is definitely slave morality as well.

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. And yes, Jesus' message is definitely slave morality as well. — frank

But only if they are slaves to God. Not to just anyone. That's the point, and the difference between being slave to man and being slave to God.

That's the point, and the difference between being slave to man and being slave to God. — baker

Nietzsche's point was that slaves want something that's directly opposed to what warlords want.

So?

I mean if you only accept what you like then damn man, that's some straight prejudice right there. And tells me you're pretty much only down to see the world through your own perspective, fuck everyone else, fuck the fundamental condition of all life. — Vaskane

Which is so ironic, coming from someone with a position like yours.

But here's a quick summary of Nietzsche's views on the Jews from The Antichrist. Which Highlights the value of resentment within Judaism -- to say Nay to every former valuation that represented an ascending evolution of life.

All this says something about Nietzsche, but not necessarily about anyone or anything else.

Where as your argument is "you're not accepting their God argument and that's not fair! Which makes me feel atheism is the cause of anti-semitism."

That's not my argument. You won't even correctly capture what I'm saying.

You, Nietzsche, and much of mankind are doing this same thing, acting by the formula:

"You are whatever I say that you are.
You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.
You actions mean whatever I say that your actions mean.
You words mean whatever I say that your words mean.
I am the boss of you."

Pretty much every parent, kindergarden nurse, teacher, psychiatrist, social worker, boss, police officer, IRS agent, anyone with any bit of power over the other person does this.

I suppose that's "master morality": imposing one's own image of others upon those others, holding others responsible to this image, and punishing them if they don't.

I mean okay, then explain Christian anti-Semitism.

They are competing religions. Just like Christians are opposed to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion that isn't Christianity. Competing religions cannot peacefully coexist (other than in the sense of negative peace, where the parties involved simply don't have the material means for warfare). There is no profound reason for religions being intolerant of eachother. It simply comes from being different religions (regardless of what they actually propose to teach; for example, they can teach "non-violence" or "love thy enemy" but given the opportunity, they go on killing sprees just like everyone else, as long as material circumstances permit).

If you don't hear much about, say, Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. that has to do with those not being in such close geographic proximity to Christianity as Judaism. On the other hand, go to Asia and look at the arguments Christian missionaries have against the native religions there, and there's full-blown Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. We just don't hear much about that here in the West, ti doesn't exactly make it to the news.

For comparison, you could also try to look into various Asian supremacisms and the negative view they have of Christianity, European history, being white, being "Western" etc. It's tempting to ascribe that to the bad colonial history, of course. But Asian supremacisms are older than that, and go deeper.

If you look at the bigger picture, it offers a very different perspective on the matter.

Oh wait, it follows the same formula as Judaism ... Just like Anti-Semitism follows the same formula, which is highly Ironic that an anti-semite is what he hates.

So the Jews that favorably received Nietzschean theories about Judaism and anti-semitism were actually originally interested in finding ways to undermine anti-semites? As in, "Look at them, they hate us for nothing!" This actually makes sense.

There is a popular theory that people who hate others do so out of their own insecurity, weakness, because they feel threatened by them.

But, and this isn't mentioned very often, it's also possible that they hate (or more like, despise) others because they feel entitled to do so, because they feel entitled to what those others have.

Of course, it's more ego-friendly to think that those who hate one do so because of their own insecurity, weakness.
It's far less friendly to one's ego to think that one is being hated or despised because the haters feel entitled to do so.

fuck the fundamental condition of all life.

Given what Nietzsche seems to have meant by "affirmation of life", I simply think that he was wrong, operating out of some romantic ideal, failing to account for the existential boredom that results from hedonic pursuits.

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. — frank

Yeah, that's the 30,000 foot view. Big picture. But the OT isn't 100% like that. You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. Israelite strength is portrayed positively. Be strong. Be wealthy. Be knowledgeable. Be righteous. It's really Jesus who imho truly encapsulates and preaches servant morality. The themes are still present in the OT though.

Yeah, that's the 30,000 foot view. Big picture. But the OT isn't 100% like that. You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. Israelite strength is portrayed positively. Be strong. Be wealthy. Be knowledgeable. Be righteous. It's really Jesus who imho truly encapsulates and preaches servant morality. The themes are still present in the OT though. — BitconnectCarlos

You keep comparing the whole OT to the message of Jesus. There's much more to Christianity than the sayings of Jesus as depicted in the gospels.

Did you know some historians believe it's possible that both Homer's epic and the book of Exodus are memories of something that happened around 1170 BC?

You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. — BitconnectCarlos

David was a piece of shit. He impregnated another guy's wife and then sent him to the front line in battle to have him killed.

He excused his son when his son raped his sister.

Among many other things.

I never read him in overly positive light. I mean, he was a good king I suppose, but I'd agree with you. He was not a Jesus like figure. Although Jesus was supposedly from his paternal line, because he Bible says the messiah must be, but Jesus had no paternal lineage, being the son of God and all. I never understood that

Remembrance day is a thing in the UK, stemming from WW1 and folk like to stand still and quiet for 2 minutes, to 'remember the dead'. This year there were also scheduled marches calling for a cease fire in Gaza. The Home secretary, Suella Braverman, a non-white person, who has oversight of the police amongst other political duties, was calling these demonstrators 'hate marchers' and demanding that the police ban the march as it would conflict with the remembrance day observances. The police declined to do so, and her displeasure was publicly displayed.

So today, we have the edifying spectacle of Right-wing Nationalists on a "counter-demonstration" turning up to the remembrance cenotaphs, getting drunk, and chucking stuff at the police in supposed protection of the sacred remembers of the fallen and against the pro-Palestinian marchers, (who were elsewhere, a mile or so away), and therefore in favour of Israel, all while giving a modified (with a pointy finger) Nazi salute, because such gestures can get you arrested.

Thus is the doctrine that my enemies' enemy is my friend played out in all its manifold hypocrisy, based on the contrivance that those who mourn the dead are the enemies of those who protest the dying.

It all fits neatly together with the observation made somewhere very quietly, that Palestinians are also Semites.

Remembrance day is a thing in the UK, stemming from WW1 and folk like to stand still and quiet for 2 minutes, to 'remember the dead'. — unenlightened

Remembrance Day is meant to remember those who died in war, but I doubt it was meant to remember the enemy combatants, like the axis power soldiers who lost their lives in commitment to the destruction of Britain. That is, it is not just a day to lament death, regardless of who has died, but those who died in war defending Britain.

And so the day gets hijacked by those with a political message, contrary to the intent of the day, with the express message of a moral equivalence of these past wars with the Palestinian resistance, under the guise that all they mean to say is that death of any sort is a bad thing.

I'm opposed to chucking stuff at police, and do hope they, like their political opposites who often do the same, are properly charged.

An old post on Jewish antisemism vs Jewish antizionism ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544984 :mask:

I doubt it was meant to remember the enemy combatants, like the axis power soldiers who lost their lives in commitment to the destruction of Britain. That is, it is not just a day to lament death, regardless of who has died, but those who died in war defending Britain. — Hanover

Well My state owned radio featured a reading of "All quiet on the Western front", a German story of lament for the loss of one German youth, and another program about the dreadful failure of the armistice to bring peace in the long term to either Europe or worse to the Ottoman Empire, largely due to its inequity as between races and nations. I find the suggestion that one is or ought to be partisan about the dead a bit offensive, not personally, but to the long tradition of using the poppy as a symbol of the common colour of all our blood regardless of flag or skin. It seems that even in death we are a long way apart.

But my main point was to expose the irony of the likes of Tommy Robinson defending Israel. and the dreadful fact of the British government encouraging him.

They need Jesus to look sui generis. — schopenhauer1

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein.

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein. — BitconnectCarlos

So, I've already sufficiently answered your question regarding this. I would say reference the the whole post again, do some more research on historical Jesus studies that isn't just quoting the New Testament verbatim. That's like watching Fox News and calling it good for an accurate portrayal of current events.

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings.

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings. — BitconnectCarlos

I quoted the most anti-Pharisee passage and showed that there were similar (self-critical) texts in the Talmud. Then I pointed to the fact that there were no fixed ideas at the time, because they were pioneering them. There may have been some chain of oral tradition that went back to that time, but certainly not all views and all understandings were going to be kept. Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. This looks like Pharisee style interpretations of law. In regards to washing hands before eating, it could be an extant understanding of washing of the hands. Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. Either way, the New Testament has an idealized version of him, but certain ideas can be perhaps interpreted in the Pharisee style way he went about justifying his interpretations. Hillel had a more lenient view of Mosaic practice. Everything recorded in the Talmud by Hillel himself (which isn't much actually) doesn't mean that was the whole of the corpus. The Talmud is playing long distance telephone. You can have some religious a priori notions that the rabbis of the 200s-600s perfectly kept the records of the rabbis Pharisees from the 00s, but I would balk at such overconfidence because of prior religious commitments or because of some bias.

Oh and you brought up Rabbi Gamliel. In Acts, if there is anything of truth in that Pauline reinterpretation of events, Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. There could be some sympathy there, or an echo that the group had some Pharisee origin (albeit went off on a tangent with the influence of John the Baptist apocalyptic Essenic ideas).

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

I never read him in overly positive light. I mean, he was a good king I suppose, but I'd agree with you. He was not a Jesus like figure. Although Jesus was supposedly from his paternal line, because he Bible says the messiah must be, but Jesus had no paternal lineage, being the son of God and all. I never understood that — Hanover

David was the ultimate survivalist and very politically savvy. But yes one doesn't need to look too far to see his faults. The Jesus of the gospels is a very strange figure who is represented differently across different gospels. Regarding lineage, Mark provides a genealogy from David to Joseph who was the husband of Mary. I don't believe there's any mention of the virgin birth. Mark is generally considered the oldest gospel. Jesus also clearly denies divinity in Mark 10:17.

The Devil That Never Dies by Daniel Goldhagen is a comprehensive summary of this very topic.

Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. — schopenhauer1

He also said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore man is lord even of the sabbath." He seemingly claims to know God's intention behind giving man the Sabbath in the Genesis account. Jesus certainly engages in biblical interpretation; it just seems when he does this he'll assume high degrees of certainty/knowledge. The gospels note how he speaks with authority unlike the rabbis/pharisees of the time. So it seems Jesus would be against what we would call restrictive Sabbath rules.

Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. — schopenhauer1

The handwashing episode highlights Jesus's take on defilement which as far as I can tell is unique to him and not the position taken by the writers of e.g. Leviticus, but an interesting one nonetheless.

"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

So eating shellfish (or eating with unwashed hands) will not defile but e.g. thinking dirty thoughts will. See Mark 7:14.

Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for sharing. I did not know that about Gamliel.

biblical interpretation; it just seems when he does this he'll assume high degrees of certainty/knowledge. The gospels note how he speaks with authority unlike the rabbis/pharisees of the time. — BitconnectCarlos

Did you just start reading the gospels a week ago?

do you have anything to contribute?

do you have anything to contribute? — BitconnectCarlos

I was actually curious. Keep it to yourself if you must.