I resent being called anti – semitic when I am not, as evidenced by the following statements:

The fact that Christ’s death on the Cross was predestined does not mean that the Jewish leadership of his day did not conspire to bring it about.

Nor does it mean that the Jews at the time were not persuaded (at least, some of them – emphasis:fd) that crucifying Jesus would be a good idea

The point was that the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ, when, in fact, they did; and I was quite clear on the point that, even though only a few Christians might ‘hate’ Jews for it, they were wrong, too.

This is not about ethnicity. That is why very few Christians of any kind “blame” Jews for the death of Christ — Roman Catholics certainly do not.

Finally, neither of those passages was used to justify the persecution of Jews: It’s here (properly interpreted)

Just sayin’, schmeckele

I was saying that this passage from the Bible has been used for over a thousand years as an excuse to discriminate and kill the Jewish people, and that by defending the notion that the Jews of today are even remotely responsible for the death of Christ, you should not act so shocked when people point out that you’re an anti-semetic douchebag.

Just sayin’.

You will, however, fit in here very nicely.

The Sanhedrin violated their own laws in trying him.

Yes, the Romans crucified him but the Jews OF THAT DAY condemned him, and then said that his blood would be up them and their generations.

Just saying.

Oh, and I support Israel. In terms of forgetting slavery, why would blacks want to do that? It isn’t the sunniest chapter in US History, but remembering does remind us all, like the Holocaust to never let such things happen again.

Of course, this is over simplifying it, but as I see it, many groups here were marginalized and some were denied government protection
which they were entitled to under the first amendment.

Now, you were saying?

When one juvenile delinquent can tell you that you said things you didn’t say, and then berate you for it {he was just repeatedly defending the argument that the Jews are responsible for his murder, granting legitimacy to an anti-semitic position which he claims not to possess himself. Since he’s said his reason for this isn’t to cast blame, we can only assume * he’s doing it just to let them know that they are to blame, and to unapologetically wallow in their shame }, and another dimwit can come along and praise him for his misleading statement { Well put, Rex! } and another lamebrain can come along and say, “You know that name he called you? Well, he didn’t call you that… But it wouldn’t surprise me if he did [!]“, then you know that you’re not involved in a debate, or a forum, or a message board, but a parade of fools.

* Assume away, but I didn’t say what you said I said, I didn’t say what I did say for the reason you think, and I didn’t raise the issue, and I didn’t assert anything “repeatedly”, so you’re batting 0 for 4

>>****>

I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. though.

Although I am curious how a logical statement demonstrated through the tool of the sylogism pales in comparison to the “treasure of profundity” of a single line from the introduction of a poorly localized sega genesis game. But then I’m an ignorant childish queer, right Frank?

But I never — repeat, NEVER — said anything about Jews apologizing for His death.

Check it again.

I am not in the least bit anti – semitic,

If you’re not anti-semitic (ok, I mispelled it, big whoop), then why are you defending the anti-semitic notion that Jews should apologize for the death of Christ? You don’t hear me asking you to apologize for the Spanish Inquisition, now do you?

How could I use a phrase without knowing where it came from?

It’s been on the Internet for years.

I have no intention of passing a Zython quiz by proving to you that I know where it comes from.

As to being anti – semitic (if you’re going to falsely accuse me of something, could you look it up?), I am just repulsed by you…

I am not in the least bit anti – semitic, shmekele.

You have no idea where that quote even comes from, do you?

As a representative on the Jews here (since I’m the only Jew here), let me be the one to issue an apology to Frank in regard to the crucifixion of Christ.

Frank, I’m sorry you’re an anti-semetic douchebag.

I’m going home to dinner.
This concludes our broadcast day.

Oh, and I would never think you were an impecile — I don’t know what that is.

Also, I can attest that there are plenty of Tennesseans who believe the Bible was divinely written and that it contains no error. I’m kind of suprised you think those folks aren’t out there, Frank. From the Southern Baptist website:

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.”
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

In fact, growing up I knew kids in Nashville who were taught that if you said the word “devil” that the Devil himself would hear it and would take encouragement from it. On that basis at a summer camp one kid’s mom complained because we sang some song that mentioned the devil, so we had to stop singing it. I shit you not. It was this song, in case you’re interested.

http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=29632

I do know that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not a step-by-step textbook but rather a story describing Man’s relationship with God.

And that is in fairness a notion I can better get behind. Bible as Moral Parable is certainly much easier to swallow than Bible as Scientific and Historical Text. If I was unclear than let me apologize, I did not mean to imply that you, in the same way fervent fundamentalist christians do, believe that every single letter of every single word of the bible must be absolutely correct and right and proper and that everything it says must be specifically true in every respect, (something which is at least challenged by the Pi problem). If I caused offense inadvertantly then I do apologize for that. However I feel the pressing point that applies beyond the scope of the fundamentalists is that if your belief in anything, be it God, the afterlife, sin, virtue, what have you, if that belief is rooted on the core idea that the Bible is 100% inerrant, then your belief is flawed. Not, as Frank seems to want to portray my comment, that it is contrary to the truth. Not that its anyone’s business, least of all his, I’ve managed to rationally conclude that there is probably a God in some form or other, independent (almost exclusive in fact) of the Bible and other organized religions’ descriptions of Him. The fact that I believe the Bible not to be inherently factual doesnt contradict my belief in God, the two exist independant of each other.

Also, Frank? You’re really embarassing yourself right now. Ive never used ‘true’ to mean ‘proper’ in the sense you describe, I’m talking explicitly of facts, and whether or not they are correct. You have made that particular conflation. Again, you accuse me of doing things I havent in order to better attack me.

If you can manage a comment that doesn’t include “Eat dick” or a jejune sound bite, then perhaps I can return to civil discourse.

Just because I can manage to doesnt mean I will at any time. I’m tempted to go without in this particular post, but then if I did you might not have as much need to pretend that I’m a homosexual and to think that saying as much is an insult. How could I, in good conscience, do such a thing, depriving the world of your polished wit and brilliant wisdom, simply because I would want to prove that I’m not an impecile to a person not inclined to believe the evidence of their eyes? I cannot, and so it is for the betterment of society at large that I do humbly, ever so humbly sir request that you, Frank, eat dick.